Luca, you realize that you can copy and paste the file NAME too (something that Windows doesn't do).
This is so not true- Windows DOES allow you to copy and paste file names. You have to click twice on the file name as the first click selects the file itself, the second click selects the name.
Umm, you can use drag -n- drop to do this. You know this, correct? Heck, they even brought back spring-loaded folders from the dead, and that's perfect for moving files around your hard drive.
Spring loaded folders are good but I always seem to have problems getting the files to their destination - I either miss something, forcing me to start over, or I accidentally let go of the mouse button. Maybe I should just assign one of my mouse buttons to "click-hold" or something (although that's not possible with Logitech's drivers...).
>>Mac OS 10.4 Should be called Leopard, because it will be a quiet 32 to 64 bit full system overhaul (with 32-bit compatibility)
>>The "CUT" command should be applied to files as well, which would be equivalent to the 'mv' command. The COPY command retains it's original defintion.
>>New File System, (such as what?) more options, as with the windows filesystem, with about 20 permission sets per file/folder? Deeper than that?
>>PILES, it's like in real life, they work for some, and don't for others. I personally like the idea, because it eliminates the process of 'opening-a-folder,' which would increase speed on my desktop.
I'd say that the reason they failed was because of the 'piles' implementation into UNiX. How would you reference a file in a pile with the command line? Is it in a 'folder?' or is it just lying there on the desktop? Or even maybe, a more creative way than that...(?)
>>Will this be the technology that rivals those U.F.O's that come by every once in a while? Well, Tommy Lee would have something to say about that anyways.
>>Better arrangement of the Desktop space. It would be cool if there was an instance of every window in the dock...oh wait a minute, that sucks because then finding applications in a heavily-windowed desktop would suck. (that is, without Expos?: which is awesome)
>>need yet to optimize just general file-browsing, as of Panther 7B80 opening up the HD for the first time, still requires much more processing than in OS 9. Granted it does draw it using Quartz (Extreme in some cases) but still increasing speed on the small parts of the OS will create a better feeling on the hole. (well, you know what I mean)
One button syncing your home directory on a laptop with the one on your desktop. And some kind of elegant flashback to a previous state when something goes haywire.
I know there are third party hacks available. (But who's going to let a third party mess with their home directories on a mission-critical computer?) iSync can sync with all kinds of devices from other companies. Going from an Apple Laptop to an Apple desktop shouldn't be hard.
The incentive: Apple would probably double the number of people who buy both a desktop and a laptop.
Will 10.4 have the option to compile JAVA into bytecodes, then save as an executable, eliminating the "need" for C++?
Uhm, you mean "machine code", not "bytecode", right? Currently, java is compiled to bytecode. There are some java->machinecode compilers out there, but I just don't see Apple putting too much work into this.
10.4:
- DRM. It's inevitable. MS is going to change the way we see digital information in their next major release of windows and office. Apple has to put some trusted architecture into place, sooner or later.
- Resolution independent UI (or first steps in this direction). Let the user decide if he wants to see his windows in 100% magnification or in 150% without the jaggies this normally means.
- .NET. I believe, this will not come until 10.5 or later, but just maybe... .NET is a new paradigm and it will catch on. Apple will have a healthy meal of crow, but they'll have to adopt it, sooner or later.
- 64 Bit and 970 optimization. This is almost a no-brainer. The times of ever more optimized releases is drawing to an end for G3-class machines, but Apple will put some work into making it fly on G5.
1) How about a windowless finder, when you open up a folder all of its contents emerge to an imaginary box with the three buttons above it. Then just for the sexyness of it all when you close it the cluster of items morph back into the folder or whatever icon you choose.
and/or
2) Banish the dock from the desktop and stick it in the toolbar, magnification and all. (Magnification is Magnificent)
Leave C++ alone. All you girls who are scared of pointers can go script some web pages. C++ does many things and it could be better, but it is a rather flexible language. Obj C is a better variant on C, but it is not widespread. It is mostly a dead language, though not because it has been technically surpassed by C++, just because not many people use it.
Here's one of my all time favorite C snippets that I wrote (with good reason)
Code:
if (m_templatizedTypeIsHeapObject)
{
for (long i = 0; i < m_itemCount; i++)
{
void** ppVoid = (void**)&m_items[i]; // oh so good to be C
if (m_items[i])
delete *ppVoid;
}
}
And for those of you who like a challenge, figure out why this code is functinally identical to the above code.
Code:
if (m_templatizedTypeIsHeapObject)
{
for (long i ^= i; i < m_itemCount; i++) // <- look here, faster asm init
{
void** ppVoid = (void**)&m_items[i]; // oh so good to be C
if (m_items[i])
delete *ppVoid;
}
}
Come on folks, what's not to like about such a language?
And for those of you who like a challenge, figure out why this code is functinally identical to the above code.
Well the code is pretty straightforward, but I don't see how using an XOR is faster than a straight assign. Is it because you only have to load i into a register instead of i and 0? Hard to see how a 0 load (almost always in L1) can be such a significant improvement to justify making your code less maintainable.
BTW, if that's really C, you'll get compile errors on your use of the delete keyword. If it's C++, you really should consider using C++-style casts...and the Standard C++ Library algorithms for that matter. for_each() is your friend.
back to the whole copy and paste thing.. apple should put a command in the right click menu called "move" so that when you right click on a file and click on move, it opens up a dialog for where you want to move the file to.. they have a extension in windows that impliments move and copy commands into the right click menu..
Bzzzzzt. Smalltalk predates it, yet it still reigns king for sheer power of OO. Heck, it *IS* OO to all but the most crack-smokin' folk. Obj-C is mid-80's, but it still kicks Java's puny buttocks across the playground and back. And C++, while powerful, is because it's designed by committee, and tries to be all things to all people. It's basically as good as you can get for a statically typed language... but that's not saying much against a dynamically typed language.
Quote:
Leave C++ alone. All you girls who are scared of pointers can go script some web pages. C++ does many things and it could be better, but it is a rather flexible language.
Oh absolutely - I kind of became the departmental C++ guru along the way, but while I may *know* C++, it's kind of like *knowing* Windows. It still sucks in the end.
Quote:
Obj C is a better variant on C, but it is not widespread. It is mostly a dead language, though not because it has been technically surpassed by C++, just because not many people use it.
Yup, kinda like the Mac.
Quote:
Come on folks, what's not to like about such a language?
Oh heck yeah. Fond memories of gut level programming of the Apple][+ and building a 68000 based microcomputer from wires and chips.... the display was an old school 7-wire LED array that displayed just hex, and the input was a hex keypad.
Made a differential range finder out of it and a sonic pinger from Radio Shack. Not bad for 4K of RAM.
Of course, I'd hate to write a Cocoa level app in assembler...
Comments
Originally posted by penseive
Luca, you realize that you can copy and paste the file NAME too (something that Windows doesn't do).
This is so not true- Windows DOES allow you to copy and paste file names. You have to click twice on the file name as the first click selects the file itself, the second click selects the name.
wise answer my friend. If you had said no I would have come at you like a tornado of teeth, finger nails and hair..
Man that was a funny skit
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
Umm, you can use drag -n- drop to do this. You know this, correct? Heck, they even brought back spring-loaded folders from the dead, and that's perfect for moving files around your hard drive.
Spring loaded folders are good but I always seem to have problems getting the files to their destination - I either miss something, forcing me to start over, or I accidentally let go of the mouse button. Maybe I should just assign one of my mouse buttons to "click-hold" or something (although that's not possible with Logitech's drivers...).
Originally posted by Moogs
10.4 is for sissies. Real men use Panther.
HEH, ok.
That aside...i'm going there...ya, that's RIGHT!
Back up a few POSTS:
>>Mac OS 10.4 Should be called Leopard, because it will be a quiet 32 to 64 bit full system overhaul (with 32-bit compatibility)
>>The "CUT" command should be applied to files as well, which would be equivalent to the 'mv' command. The COPY command retains it's original defintion.
>>New File System, (such as what?) more options, as with the windows filesystem, with about 20 permission sets per file/folder? Deeper than that?
>>PILES, it's like in real life, they work for some, and don't for others. I personally like the idea, because it eliminates the process of 'opening-a-folder,' which would increase speed on my desktop.
I'd say that the reason they failed was because of the 'piles' implementation into UNiX. How would you reference a file in a pile with the command line? Is it in a 'folder?' or is it just lying there on the desktop? Or even maybe, a more creative way than that...(?)
>>Will this be the technology that rivals those U.F.O's that come by every once in a while? Well, Tommy Lee would have something to say about that anyways.
>>Better arrangement of the Desktop space. It would be cool if there was an instance of every window in the dock...oh wait a minute, that sucks because then finding applications in a heavily-windowed desktop would suck. (that is, without Expos?: which is awesome)
>>need yet to optimize just general file-browsing, as of Panther 7B80 opening up the HD for the first time, still requires much more processing than in OS 9. Granted it does draw it using Quartz (Extreme in some cases) but still increasing speed on the small parts of the OS will create a better feeling on the hole. (well, you know what I mean)
Originally posted by Addison
Will OS XI be the first fully 64 bit OS?
I'd say you wouldn't be far off.
Originally posted by iBrowse
Plutonium is by far the best element.
Don't you mean Turbonium?
One button syncing your home directory on a laptop with the one on your desktop. And some kind of elegant flashback to a previous state when something goes haywire.
I know there are third party hacks available. (But who's going to let a third party mess with their home directories on a mission-critical computer?) iSync can sync with all kinds of devices from other companies. Going from an Apple Laptop to an Apple desktop shouldn't be hard.
The incentive: Apple would probably double the number of people who buy both a desktop and a laptop.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Will 10.4 have the option to compile JAVA into bytecodes, then save as an executable
Java is already compiled into bytecode, and can be saved as a executable JAR file.
2. There are other 64-bit OSs, Solaris etc.
3. HFS+ can be bettered, both in resilience, speed, indexing, flexibility etc. Look towards the BeOS FS, this type of FS will happen.
4. If people are moaning about C'n'P for files then I want to see better file management in save dialogs - renames/deletions etc.
Originally posted by willywalloo
Will 10.4 have the option to compile JAVA into bytecodes, then save as an executable, eliminating the "need" for C++?
Uhm, you mean "machine code", not "bytecode", right? Currently, java is compiled to bytecode. There are some java->machinecode compilers out there, but I just don't see Apple putting too much work into this.
10.4:
- DRM. It's inevitable. MS is going to change the way we see digital information in their next major release of windows and office. Apple has to put some trusted architecture into place, sooner or later.
- Resolution independent UI (or first steps in this direction). Let the user decide if he wants to see his windows in 100% magnification or in 150% without the jaggies this normally means.
- .NET. I believe, this will not come until 10.5 or later, but just maybe... .NET is a new paradigm and it will catch on. Apple will have a healthy meal of crow, but they'll have to adopt it, sooner or later.
- 64 Bit and 970 optimization. This is almost a no-brainer. The times of ever more optimized releases is drawing to an end for G3-class machines, but Apple will put some work into making it fly on G5.
and/or
2) Banish the dock from the desktop and stick it in the toolbar, magnification and all. (Magnification is Magnificent)
Just some thoughts.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Obj-C already does.
Java's *SO* '90s...
Eh?
Obj-C is so Mid 80's
Smoke less crack.
Leave C++ alone. All you girls who are scared of pointers can go script some web pages. C++ does many things and it could be better, but it is a rather flexible language. Obj C is a better variant on C, but it is not widespread. It is mostly a dead language, though not because it has been technically surpassed by C++, just because not many people use it.
Here's one of my all time favorite C snippets that I wrote (with good reason)
if (m_templatizedTypeIsHeapObject)
{
for (long i = 0; i < m_itemCount; i++)
{
void** ppVoid = (void**)&m_items[i]; // oh so good to be C
if (m_items[i])
delete *ppVoid;
}
}
And for those of you who like a challenge, figure out why this code is functinally identical to the above code.
if (m_templatizedTypeIsHeapObject)
{
for (long i ^= i; i < m_itemCount; i++) // <- look here, faster asm init
{
void** ppVoid = (void**)&m_items[i]; // oh so good to be C
if (m_items[i])
delete *ppVoid;
}
}
Come on folks, what's not to like about such a language?
Originally posted by Yevgeny
And for those of you who like a challenge, figure out why this code is functinally identical to the above code.
Well the code is pretty straightforward, but I don't see how using an XOR is faster than a straight assign. Is it because you only have to load i into a register instead of i and 0? Hard to see how a 0 load (almost always in L1) can be such a significant improvement to justify making your code less maintainable.
BTW, if that's really C, you'll get compile errors on your use of the delete keyword. If it's C++, you really should consider using C++-style casts...and the Standard C++ Library algorithms for that matter. for_each() is your friend.
-- ShadyG
Originally posted by Yevgeny
Eh?
Obj-C is so Mid 80's
Smoke less crack.
Bzzzzzt. Smalltalk predates it, yet it still reigns king for sheer power of OO. Heck, it *IS* OO to all but the most crack-smokin' folk. Obj-C is mid-80's, but it still kicks Java's puny buttocks across the playground and back. And C++, while powerful, is because it's designed by committee, and tries to be all things to all people. It's basically as good as you can get for a statically typed language... but that's not saying much against a dynamically typed language.
Leave C++ alone. All you girls who are scared of pointers can go script some web pages. C++ does many things and it could be better, but it is a rather flexible language.
Oh absolutely - I kind of became the departmental C++ guru along the way, but while I may *know* C++, it's kind of like *knowing* Windows. It still sucks in the end.
Obj C is a better variant on C, but it is not widespread. It is mostly a dead language, though not because it has been technically surpassed by C++, just because not many people use it.
Yup, kinda like the Mac.
Come on folks, what's not to like about such a language?
Readability, maintainability, flexibility...
Granted, after programming a driver for the SCI (Serial) port of the 6800 in assember, I can see advantages to not using it
But rewiring interrupts, modifying the ascii table and other stuff like that is great fun!
Made a differential range finder out of it and a sonic pinger from Radio Shack. Not bad for 4K of RAM.
Of course, I'd hate to write a Cocoa level app in assembler...