[QB]Steering this topic even further off-course, I believe that MS will keep working on Mac products (and in some respects keep them one step behind their Windows counterparts) as long as the company has the anti-trust case. QB]<hr></blockquote>
eh. i'd hardly call office vX one step behind its windows counterpart- and i'm sure they'll keep at it as long as there is a profit to be had, killing the mac is not good for MS. especially because of anti-trust laws
<strong>Maintenance or not, a lot changed in each update. And I don't expect 10.2 to have too many interface improvements, especially since most of these improvements will just be reimplemented stuff lost when we migrated from 9 to X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly a lot changed in each -- but I'm sure you will agree that the majority of the changes made immediately prior to and after MacOS X's introduction were specifically to ensure that MacOS 9 continued to function as the Classic layer.
However, I concede your point, to a certain extent: it does seem a bit unfair to have to pay for something that we used to take for granted. But then again... reflect on the upgrade from System 7.0 to 7.1 Pro, for example... Apple's very first "commercial" operating system. Macintosh users were all up in arms about having to pay for the first time, back then. Did that mean that Apple should have continued to give it away? In fact, who's to say that MacOS X would have ever been possible without the revenue that Apple has garnished from their operating system sales since that time?
I'll pay for the upgrade. I might be a bit annoyed at being required to, but I still see nothing wrong with Apple charging for their labor.
I think this argument is a waste of time. When the next update comes out, EVERYONE will get it, whether they have to pay for it or not. Some will bitch, some will be okay with it, some will say it wasn't worth it, while still others will say it's the best thing since slice bread, but regardless, EVERYONE will get it and that'll be the end of that. Now, can we talk about something that isn't boring? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
No Carbon app has antialiasing yet in OS X. The API for it has yet to be implemented. It WILL be implemented in the next update, 10.1.5, but then Carbon apps have to be updated to use the API. It should be a relatively simple update for developers to implement in their apps.
Like it was said before, Office X's update that is supposed to come next month or so promises antialiased text rendering, but they can't do it without an update to the OS. Because antialiased Carbon apps has already been implemented on the old 10.2 builds, people assumed that Jaguar was going to be released sometime before Office X update (which will come out next month). Turns out that Apple has another dot-hundredth of an update waiting for us which will implement the antialiased Carbon API as well as MUCH faster iDisk which doesn't lock up the Finder, among other things. As cool as that is, it just shows us that Jagaur probably won't be released until the end of summer. However, I'm sure the more enterprising of us here will find a way to get the builds sooner than that, ala 10.1 last summer.
<strong>I think this argument is a waste of time. When the next update comes out, EVERYONE will get it, whether they have to pay for it or not. Some will bitch, some will be okay with it, some will say it wasn't worth it, while still others will say it's the best thing since slice bread, but regardless, EVERYONE will get it and that'll be the end of that. Now, can we talk about something that isn't boring? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]No Carbon app has antialiasing yet in OS X. The API for it has yet to be implemented. <hr></blockquote>
Uhm, sorry, but this is just wrong.
Carbon Apps do have AA, however most only inherit the Sys-9 style AA. You can, as a developer, use Core Foundation AA right now, but the API is a heap of junk, it is just barely usable.
Take the Finder as an example: Core Foundation AA all over the place.
<strong>Uh, only a little less harsher. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't apologise, bra - ya got it right.
While I'm here, I'd like to say that the "debate" over whether 10.2 will be sold as 10.5 is just about the most brain-dead excuse for a discussion I've ever seen on these fora.
<strong>While I'm here, I'd like to say that the "debate" over whether 10.2 will be sold as 10.5 is just about the most brain-dead excuse for a discussion I've ever seen on these fora.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol Tel me about it. That discussion topic is definitely reaching out for something to talk about.
As far as antialiasing is concerned, I'm saying that the API (for whatever reason) isn't ready or isn't being used (possibly because it isn't ready) for Carbon apps the way Cocoa apps are using antialiasing. ........... did that just make sense?
Comments
[QB]Steering this topic even further off-course, I believe that MS will keep working on Mac products (and in some respects keep them one step behind their Windows counterparts) as long as the company has the anti-trust case. QB]<hr></blockquote>
eh. i'd hardly call office vX one step behind its windows counterpart- and i'm sure they'll keep at it as long as there is a profit to be had, killing the mac is not good for MS. especially because of anti-trust laws
<strong>Maintenance or not, a lot changed in each update. And I don't expect 10.2 to have too many interface improvements, especially since most of these improvements will just be reimplemented stuff lost when we migrated from 9 to X.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly a lot changed in each -- but I'm sure you will agree that the majority of the changes made immediately prior to and after MacOS X's introduction were specifically to ensure that MacOS 9 continued to function as the Classic layer.
However, I concede your point, to a certain extent: it does seem a bit unfair to have to pay for something that we used to take for granted. But then again... reflect on the upgrade from System 7.0 to 7.1 Pro, for example... Apple's very first "commercial" operating system. Macintosh users were all up in arms about having to pay for the first time, back then. Did that mean that Apple should have continued to give it away? In fact, who's to say that MacOS X would have ever been possible without the revenue that Apple has garnished from their operating system sales since that time?
I'll pay for the upgrade. I might be a bit annoyed at being required to, but I still see nothing wrong with Apple charging for their labor.
Like it was said before, Office X's update that is supposed to come next month or so promises antialiased text rendering, but they can't do it without an update to the OS. Because antialiased Carbon apps has already been implemented on the old 10.2 builds, people assumed that Jaguar was going to be released sometime before Office X update (which will come out next month). Turns out that Apple has another dot-hundredth of an update waiting for us which will implement the antialiased Carbon API as well as MUCH faster iDisk which doesn't lock up the Finder, among other things. As cool as that is, it just shows us that Jagaur probably won't be released until the end of summer. However, I'm sure the more enterprising of us here will find a way to get the builds sooner than that, ala 10.1 last summer.
[ 04-27-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
<strong>I think this argument is a waste of time. When the next update comes out, EVERYONE will get it, whether they have to pay for it or not. Some will bitch, some will be okay with it, some will say it wasn't worth it, while still others will say it's the best thing since slice bread, but regardless, EVERYONE will get it and that'll be the end of that. Now, can we talk about something that isn't boring? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
What Gambit said...
<strong>What Gambit said...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uh, only a little less harsher. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
[quote]
MacOS 7 = pay
MacOS 7.1 = free<hr></blockquote>
MacOS 7.1 first surfaced as "System 7 Pro" which you had to pay for. Only a year (?) later you could get it for free.
[quote]No Carbon app has antialiasing yet in OS X. The API for it has yet to be implemented. <hr></blockquote>
Uhm, sorry, but this is just wrong.
Carbon Apps do have AA, however most only inherit the Sys-9 style AA. You can, as a developer, use Core Foundation AA right now, but the API is a heap of junk, it is just barely usable.
Take the Finder as an example: Core Foundation AA all over the place.
<strong>Uh, only a little less harsher. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't apologise, bra - ya got it right.
While I'm here, I'd like to say that the "debate" over whether 10.2 will be sold as 10.5 is just about the most brain-dead excuse for a discussion I've ever seen on these fora.
<strong>While I'm here, I'd like to say that the "debate" over whether 10.2 will be sold as 10.5 is just about the most brain-dead excuse for a discussion I've ever seen on these fora.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol Tel me about it. That discussion topic is definitely reaching out for something to talk about.
As far as antialiasing is concerned, I'm saying that the API (for whatever reason) isn't ready or isn't being used (possibly because it isn't ready) for Carbon apps the way Cocoa apps are using antialiasing. ........... did that just make sense?