What the hell does gamma have to do with compatibility? Isn't it just a color setting for the screen?
I have mine on 2.2 too, but I'd like a 2.0 setting. Too bad I can't achieve that without also changing every other screen calibration setting, which always leads to worse results than what I began with.
when HD prices will fall below 10 cent/GB by black friday (they are almost there as of now, with a little search), file compression is what people really need, right!.
when HD prices will fall below 10 cent/GB by black friday (they are almost there as of now, with a little search), file compression is what people really need, right!.
I don't think it is luck, but strategy. While Microsoft is trying to come up with the next version of Windows to get past the negative associated with Vista, it only has Leopard to look to for inspiration. Since, Apple is focusing on under the hood improvements, it is not showing it's hand as to future planned features. This almost assures that Microsoft will not jump past Apple in terms of mind share in regards to the OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
I don't think it can be overemphasized how big of a deal this is, if Apple is really re-writing all of their code into Cocoa. An OS-wide overhaul of all the core applications is a REALLY good thing for performance and security, and something I doubt MS or even any of the Linux derivations has the time or manpower to match.
Apple is really lucky to have gotten far enough ahead on features and then having the sense to step back and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb while they have some breathing space in terms of competition.
hehe I love Apple's dedication to developing Mac OS X like this.
I could definitely be ok with delays. Apple should work on making it clean and beautiful for end users.
Snow leopard has me excited
I'm with you on being ok with delays for a cleaner system.
I'm a future switcher because I just want my computer to work.
And if Microsoft are rushing to get Windows 7 ready, Apple can continue their game of letting everyone get annoyed at Microsoft, then putting out a great system. QA QA QA.
Well the rumors of a possible Macworld 2009 release were reported on AppleInsider itself. And Steve Jobs has said that he'd like to maintain a 12-18 month period between OS X releases. Now AppleInsider reports a mid-2009 date. I'm just wondering when that changed. In any case, given that many of the new features aren't fully implemented yet, a January 2009 launch is highly unlikely.
I don't remember that. That must have fallen by the wayside. I think Apple reps publicly suggested it might be WWDC09 timeframe.
Personally, I don't see every 12-18 months being sellable or sustainable. OS X is a lot more complicated now than it was in the beginning, putting in enough updates to make the purchase worthwhile that often doesn't sound sustainable. I'm perfectly happy with every three years.
I thought cocoa finder was supposed to be in Leopard. Why redesign and rework it so much and not cut out carbon too?
It's not drive space but the fact that it's a far more reliable filesystem that is also easy to manage.
by reliable we mean?
data doesn't exist at all unless its in at least two places.
Time machine is already there, but i appreciate that that will require an ever increasing amount of drive space, hence the link to the expandable raid array.
I'm not sure how Apple are going to integrate ZFS into OSX easily via an upgrade, from my understanding its likely to need a completely fresh install, with the new file structure.
which could be where time machine comes in {make your backup, install OSX with ZFS and then dump your stuff over, which makes it more odd that they look to be dumping Firewire.. but hay ho}
anyway, how has the current file system suddenly gone rubbish all of a sudden? so far as i can see it works pretty reliably, where as ZFS is looking vapourous, at least from a consumer point of view... so how do you compare something that is in effect, to something that isnt shipping? at least with any degree of fairness.
haven't Apple and Sun both said there are issues with it?
--
to clarify it sounds amazing and YES I really would like it, please, thank you.
Looks like they're really trying to push the OS's footprint down, I bet its with the long term expectation of the OS being installed on smaller devices (like a netbook).
I don't think so. SSDs quickly approaching common laptop drive capacities, and in the long term, they will be really really cheap. The OS doesn't even take up that much space when you remove the unnecessary localizations. It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS
It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS
Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.
That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...
That DROBO and drobo share look very neat. We have OSX Server unlimited for 10.5 but have never set it up due to time and learning curve restraints. We just want a big file server with redundancy backup that is a no fuss setup/install.
Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.
That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...
It would be nice to compress files in such a way that many files are packed into one contiguous file. Seeks are a bit of a problem too, every file is one seek, more if it's fragmented.
Comments
I liked Mac's gamma better, but standardizing on one setting sounds good too.
agreed... the fewer differences there are in terms of default behavior, the more compatible the mac is. Linux/X11 uses 2.2 as well, IIRC.
I have mine on 2.2 too, but I'd like a 2.0 setting. Too bad I can't achieve that without also changing every other screen calibration setting, which always leads to worse results than what I began with.
What does this means ?? That the later 2008 MBP is not 64 Bits Hardware Capable ?
Thanks.
when HD prices will fall below 10 cent/GB by black friday (they are almost there as of now, with a little search), file compression is what people really need, right!.
They'll still always nearly be full, so yes.
Wow, that's useless to me, and basically every other OS X user. Regular Mac users will never see OS X Server.
I want I want
without actually understanding the complexities involved
Don't get me wrong, I want too,
BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?
www.drobo.com get one, should change your life
"The early 2008 models of the Mac Pro, 15" and 17" MacBook Pro and Xserve can be used for 64-bit kernel developmen"
What does this means ?? That the later 2008 MBP is not 64 Bits Hardware Capable ?
Thanks.
Hmm, no. If you read the first line it states:
"although only some Macs can run natively in this mode with this early test version."
Which means that not all drivers are 100% 64bit pure and perfect.
www.drobo.com get one, should change your life
Ok Leo.
I don't think it can be overemphasized how big of a deal this is, if Apple is really re-writing all of their code into Cocoa. An OS-wide overhaul of all the core applications is a REALLY good thing for performance and security, and something I doubt MS or even any of the Linux derivations has the time or manpower to match.
Apple is really lucky to have gotten far enough ahead on features and then having the sense to step back and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb while they have some breathing space in terms of competition.
hehe I love Apple's dedication to developing Mac OS X like this.
I could definitely be ok with delays. Apple should work on making it clean and beautiful for end users.
Snow leopard has me excited
I'm with you on being ok with delays for a cleaner system.
I'm a future switcher because I just want my computer to work.
And if Microsoft are rushing to get Windows 7 ready, Apple can continue their game of letting everyone get annoyed at Microsoft, then putting out a great system. QA QA QA.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...rd_report.html
Well the rumors of a possible Macworld 2009 release were reported on AppleInsider itself. And Steve Jobs has said that he'd like to maintain a 12-18 month period between OS X releases. Now AppleInsider reports a mid-2009 date. I'm just wondering when that changed. In any case, given that many of the new features aren't fully implemented yet, a January 2009 launch is highly unlikely.
I don't remember that. That must have fallen by the wayside. I think Apple reps publicly suggested it might be WWDC09 timeframe.
Personally, I don't see every 12-18 months being sellable or sustainable. OS X is a lot more complicated now than it was in the beginning, putting in enough updates to make the purchase worthwhile that often doesn't sound sustainable. I'm perfectly happy with every three years.
I thought cocoa finder was supposed to be in Leopard. Why redesign and rework it so much and not cut out carbon too?
I want I want
without actually understanding the complexities involved
Don't get me wrong, I want too,
BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?
www.drobo.com get one, should change your life
It's not drive space but the fact that it's a far more reliable filesystem that is also easy to manage.
It's not drive space but the fact that it's a far more reliable filesystem that is also easy to manage.
by reliable we mean?
data doesn't exist at all unless its in at least two places.
Time machine is already there, but i appreciate that that will require an ever increasing amount of drive space, hence the link to the expandable raid array.
I'm not sure how Apple are going to integrate ZFS into OSX easily via an upgrade, from my understanding its likely to need a completely fresh install, with the new file structure.
which could be where time machine comes in {make your backup, install OSX with ZFS and then dump your stuff over, which makes it more odd that they look to be dumping Firewire.. but hay ho}
anyway, how has the current file system suddenly gone rubbish all of a sudden? so far as i can see it works pretty reliably, where as ZFS is looking vapourous, at least from a consumer point of view... so how do you compare something that is in effect, to something that isnt shipping? at least with any degree of fairness.
haven't Apple and Sun both said there are issues with it?
--
to clarify
Ok Leo.
No prob bob
lemmie know what you think
Looks like they're really trying to push the OS's footprint down, I bet its with the long term expectation of the OS being installed on smaller devices (like a netbook).
I don't think so. SSDs quickly approaching common laptop drive capacities, and in the long term, they will be really really cheap. The OS doesn't even take up that much space when you remove the unnecessary localizations. It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS
It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS
Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.
That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...
I want I want
without actually understanding the complexities involved
Don't get me wrong, I want too,
BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?
www.drobo.com get one, should change your life
That DROBO and drobo share look very neat. We have OSX Server unlimited for 10.5 but have never set it up due to time and learning curve restraints. We just want a big file server with redundancy backup that is a no fuss setup/install.
Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.
That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...
It would be nice to compress files in such a way that many files are packed into one contiguous file. Seeks are a bit of a problem too, every file is one seek, more if it's fragmented.
So, if 10.6 is the under-the-hood release, when do we start posting our wants for 10.7?
10.6 is classified as a whole-sale under-the-hood-change, but the reflection to the UI will be across the entire user space.