In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years. The word going around is that if Apple doesn't at least match this they will start to disappear from the imaging and publishing markets. I can't understand why Apple hasn't already done this.
I guess that's dependent on if it's tied in to Microsoft's Metro PDF replacement tech. What's Adobe doing there?
In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years.
Very very doubtful. You can;t even print 64 bit colour. And InDesign and Quark would have to adopt it before it goes anywhere print wise - and that's not going to happen if it won't work on both platforms. Displaying 64 bit content is one thing, but how are you going to capture 64 bit content? It needs to be aquired at the source via camera's and camcorders.
Microsoft can make all the technology it wants. In the end though - it doesn't make the apps or hardware which have to support it.
UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder.
I've only seen complaints about the UI design on these internet lists. I've never heard complaints from average users. Not to say the complaints aren't valid, I'm just not sure how much of a problem it is.
In my work what I hear mostly is praise of how consistent UI design between Apple's software and its third party developers. As opposed to a wide variety of differences and confusion in the Windows world.
Quote:
Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle.
This is a fight between Adobe and Microsoft more than it is directly Apple's.
Quote:
MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard.
In my work most post production houses have been pretty slow to adopt 64 bit. Over the past year the biggest houses have begun to use it. They are mostly using AMD and Linux. Medium and small houses are not really looking at it at all.
Adobe hasn't yet embraced 64 bit imaging either. I'm sure its because of demand, I don't really see big demand for it. Which is probably why Apple hasn't been in a big rush. Something can be said for not being too far ahead. Of course at some point 64 bit will come to full use. I'm sure Apple and Adobe will be ready.
Quote:
For example; Why are we still waiting for Express? It's been at least a year now since it's been appearing on PC's?
Again in my business there hasn't seemed to be a big demand for it. The biggest houses use it for their Linux machines. I would estimate PCI Express is a technology that is still only useful to a small segment of the market. Is that worth Apple redesigning its hardware around at this time? I don't know, but they haven't yet done it.
It seems Apple will skip Express 1 and will be using Express 2.
As far as I kniw it has nothing to do with Metro, but is is a significent upgrade solution to what is out there now.
This is really out of Adobe's hands as it is an OS related development, as was Colorsync. Adobe would support it though.
Does PDF support 64bit colour spaces though?
Since Apple are tied to the hip for their display and print technology to PDF, unless Adobe pushes PDF to match Metro in capabilities then Apple are a little hogtied.
And print shops also have to pick up Metro in their workflows which would seem a challenge even if it's got an advantage.
Can't say I'm personally too bothered as I'm almost entirely web based now and in magazines I've worked on, most readers wouldn't know the difference anyway but less design tools on the Mac are always a bad thing.
Well, its pointless to release a mac with a P4 or PM chip in it unless (a) the OS is actually ready, and (b) the apps are actually ready. Who wants to buy a computer where everything is emulated (oh, right, Mac-heads would, because its new - heck, they bought the PPC machines when they first came out, even though there really wasn't any PPC software or OS. Remember Apple didn't come out with a fully PPC-compiled OS until, ummm, OS X, actually).
Oh, and the Pentium-M is really a crappy chip-set. It certainly doesn't have the power that people seem to think it does (whenever I use a P-M laptop, esp. on battery, it feels like sloshing through molasses trying to get the OS to respond to anything - but, hey, I'm sure that's the OS, OS X is soooo much better optimized!) And the P4's aren't dual-able, so you'd actually do a step-down on those compared to the dual G5s (depending on task, of course).
As for the 64-bit chips, that's all marketing. The number of users who actually need a 64-bit processor is so low its almost unidentifiable. And considering that even OS X.4 isn't really a complete 64-bit OS (its a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit base, assuming, of course, that the base is completely 64-bit), I doubt many would care.
Your screed is 100% BS, pure and simple as that!
Once apon a time there was 8-bit computing and they clamored "We don't need 16-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 16-bit computing (Microsoft anyone?) and they clamored "We don't need 32-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 24-bit computing (Apple anyone?) and they clamored "We don't need 32-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 32-bit computing and they clamored "We don't need 64-bit computing."
Do you detect a pattern here?
Fast forward to the near term (last 5 years), check out IBM's Blue Gene, and I quote:
"The Blue Gene chip contains two standard 32-bit embedded PowerPC 440
cores, each with private L1 32KB instruction and 32KB data caches. The cores also have a 2KB L2 cache each and share a 4MB L3 EDRAM cache. While the L1 caches are not coherent, the L2 caches are coherent and act as a prefetch
buffer for the L3 cache.
Each core drives a custom 128-bit ?Double? FPU that can perform four double precision floating-point operations per cycle. This custom FPU consists of two conventional FPUs joined together, each having a 64-bit register file with
32 registers. The PPC instruction set has been extended to perform SIMD-style floating point operations on the two FPUs."
No, this is not true 128-bit computing (data paths), however the address space and FPU space are 128-bit (the address space is needed for the number of unknowns, while the FPU space is needed for large spatial and/or temporal domains). And wow, look, an embedded PowerPC 440 CPU, wazzup with that anyway?
The other fundamental fact here is that many slower CPU's can be both faster AND cheaper AND have a lower total power/thermal footprint. Does this argument sound familar to you (Intel's latest roadmap (last month) anyone?). Divide and conquer, a fairly simple strategy, wouldn't you say (methinks this pre-dates computational theory by several millenia)?
I hope YOU never need 64-bit computing, that would be like giving Bin Laden the H-bomb!
I would give you an even bigger Howard Dean like screed/rant on your Pentium M comment, but IROTFLMAO!
OS X optimized? Relative to its previous lives, then yes. Can they improve it in the future, they had better have, since Stevie is going mano a mano with Billy in the Grove! And the winner is Linux!
"Pentium 4 can't go dual", but in reality it's been dual-core for a while and now Dell has 4-way workstations based on dual-core Xeons. Expect some humbling dual G5 vs. quad Xeon benchmarks in a few weeks unless Apple can release a quad G5 in time.
I think Apple could adopt high dynamic range output relatively easy once the appropriate monitors and GPUs exist. Digital camera users would jump at that since they already capture HDR.
I think we are all confusing the issue a bit here. By 64bit color management I believe melgross is speaking of 16 bit per channel images; in which RGB images are 48 bit+alpha and CMYK are 64bit. This doesn't have anything directly to do with 64 bit CPUs; it's a matter of maintaining color integrity with the higher precision values. Also, re "well you can't print 64 bit;" that's not the point at all; the extra precision is mostly useful for retaining detail in editing.
That being said, I've not encountered a situation where I'd want to use a "64 bit" image outside of print/imaging apps that handle the colorspace conversion. Also, I don't let the print driver/OS/printer/RIP handle colorspace conversion unless absolutely necessary.
Yonah is probably going to be the fastest x86 processor on all but a few programs, but in AI-land it's a "crappy stopgap".
It IS a crappy stopgap. The real meat and potatoes in the Intel Roadmap doesn't happen till Merom. That's very obvious from the presentation they made launching their next generation architecture. Merom is when they start making good on their performance per watt claims and their processes and when the desktop chips get interesting performance too. In the meantime they're hacking Yonah cores into Sossaman to try and compete with the Opteron and PowerPC 970 in blades.
SpecINT and SpecFP tests are something I run every day of course.
It also shows the Pentium M getting trashed by the P4 at floating point.
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
"Pentium 4 can't go dual", but in reality it's been dual-core for a while and now Dell has 4-way workstations based on dual-core Xeons.
P4 isn't exactly a shining light for it's dual core implementation and you still can't run two CPUs on a board which is what I presume was meant by not going dual. You have to run Xeons or Opterons for that.
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
Expect some humbling dual G5 vs. quad Xeon benchmarks in a few weeks unless Apple can release a quad G5 in time.
Who knows, all just wild speculation and I can't imagine many people wanting a quad Xeon thundering away under their desk. I'd still put money on some of the dual Opterons beating Quad Xeons though at some benchmarks. I've Opteron 244 servers that beat the Xeons I also run. Very impressed with them for the money.
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
I think Apple could adopt high dynamic range output relatively easy once the appropriate monitors and GPUs exist. Digital camera users would jump at that since they already capture HDR. [/B]
There was a high dynamic range monitor on engadget a few days ago. $45,000 with a 6" wide bezel. I'll have two and an operation to split my eyesite so I can use them in a dual monitor setup.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
Working for the world...
What I'm going to tell you is a very sad reality. The world adopts things based on perception. Whatever the world perceives as being the best, is the best...even if the product is crap.
MS may be winning the technological war once Vista is out but if the public doesn't see it, then it doesn't matter. I've grown to accept the fact that the Mac was never a popular personal computer. Apple is grabbing mind share via iPods lately...it doesn't matter how good Vista is, if Apple manages to sweep Windows users into its arms, good for them, too bad for MS.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple will become MS and have the shittier product but all the fame.
I'm gonna use whichever OS is best. If Vista turns out to be technologically superior and as or more secure than OS X, I'll switch.
I'm gonna use whichever OS is best. If Vista turns out to be technologically superior and as or more secure than OS X, I'll switch. [/B]
I'll pick the one that works, has the software I need and doesn't get in my face.
I can't imagine that would be Windows. It's got steadily more in your face on every release whereas OSX has gone the opposite way from the days of modal dialogs in OS7.
I think we are all confusing the issue a bit here. By 64bit color management I believe melgross is speaking of 16 bit per channel images; in which RGB images are 48 bit+alpha and CMYK are 64bit.
That being said, I've not encountered a situation where I'd want to use a "64 bit" image outside of print/imaging apps that handle the colorspace conversion.
OOHHH...... ok yeah.
64 bit color space is the future spec in movie digital projection.
Modal dialog boxes, 'Are you sure?' messages all over the place, wizards, animated menus, menus where the contents move about depending on how often you use them, tooltips that popup whenever anything vaguely 'interesting' happens in my system tray, folders you can't access without saying yes such as \\windows, focus on windows changing from the one I'm in, menus being removed when another app I've launched grabs focus, options which are admin only that you can't get to without starting up your admin account eg. 'Repair Network Connection', the Windows key, the task focussed control panel in WindowsXP v the trad one in NT, the whole of the networking dialog, rebooting on every networking change...
OSX dropped almost all of that kind of nonsense from the Mac OS. Microsoft put it all in after NT. IMHO Windows NT4.0 was their best product.
I'd also miss spring loaded folders and column view if I went to Windows. By far the best things I like about OSX. It's still not as nice as BeOS but hey ho.
Modal dialog boxes, 'Are you sure?' messages all over the place, ...
I actually like the OS X informational dialog boxes with a "don't show me this again" checkbox, although offhand I can't remember where I've seen them except in iTunes. At best they provide useful context-specific information. At worst they're just a one-time nuisance.
The modal dialogs in pre-X Mac OS were really annoying, especially as a causal user of that OS and not being able to switch to some other app/window to figure out how I wanted to respond to the dialog.
Very very doubtful. You can;t even print 64 bit colour. And InDesign and Quark would have to adopt it before it goes anywhere print wise - and that's not going to happen if it won't work on both platforms. Displaying 64 bit content is one thing, but how are you going to capture 64 bit content? It needs to be aquired at the source via camera's and camcorders.
Microsoft can make all the technology it wants. In the end though - it doesn't make the apps or hardware which have to support it.
64 bits is 48 bits plus a 16 bit Alpha channel.
You may not realize it but many digital cameras and scanners have supported 48 bits for years. Photoshop has been adding to its 48 bit capabilities as well. 16 bit per channel is also 64 bit CMYK.
This has been my industry for 30 years. Believe me when I say that this is the way it is going. Postscript 3 supports higher than 8 bits per channel. It's been realized for years that 32 bit printing (8+8+8+8 ) isn't enough. 8 bits only allows for 256 level greyshades - not enough in these times of finer linescreens. PS 3 allows for 1024 steps.
No one is going to print 48 bit RGB or 64 bit CMYK. Within the process the highest quality is maintained when the highest possible number of bits reprsents the image. Apple MUST be working on this as well.
This isn't the place to give a lecture about color management and digital process control (which I do) but you can find many articles about it on the web.
Adobe already supports a good deal of this in its apps. PS, for example, has support for HDR (High Dynamic Range) images that are 32 bits per channel. Acrobat 6 and up supports 16 bits per channel as well.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years. The word going around is that if Apple doesn't at least match this they will start to disappear from the imaging and publishing markets. I can't understand why Apple hasn't already done this.
I guess that's dependent on if it's tied in to Microsoft's Metro PDF replacement tech. What's Adobe doing there?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I guess that's dependent on if it's tied in to Microsoft's Metro PDF replacement tech. What's Adobe doing there?
As far as I kniw it has nothing to do with Metro, but is is a significent upgrade solution to what is out there now.
This is really out of Adobe's hands as it is an OS related development, as was Colorsync. Adobe would support it though.
Originally posted by melgross
In mentioning all of that, there is one other thing you left out. MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard. This is a very important leap. Those of us in the business have been clamoring for full 64 bit support for some time now. That, and other features in Vista will cause Apple considerable problems in coming years.
Very very doubtful. You can;t even print 64 bit colour. And InDesign and Quark would have to adopt it before it goes anywhere print wise - and that's not going to happen if it won't work on both platforms. Displaying 64 bit content is one thing, but how are you going to capture 64 bit content? It needs to be aquired at the source via camera's and camcorders.
Microsoft can make all the technology it wants. In the end though - it doesn't make the apps or hardware which have to support it.
UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder.
I've only seen complaints about the UI design on these internet lists. I've never heard complaints from average users. Not to say the complaints aren't valid, I'm just not sure how much of a problem it is.
In my work what I hear mostly is praise of how consistent UI design between Apple's software and its third party developers. As opposed to a wide variety of differences and confusion in the Windows world.
Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle.
This is a fight between Adobe and Microsoft more than it is directly Apple's.
MS is working on a new hi-level color management technology that will support, among other things, hi-bit, e.g.. 64 bit technology. Apple seems behind here unless it's working on something similar for Leopard.
In my work most post production houses have been pretty slow to adopt 64 bit. Over the past year the biggest houses have begun to use it. They are mostly using AMD and Linux. Medium and small houses are not really looking at it at all.
Adobe hasn't yet embraced 64 bit imaging either. I'm sure its because of demand, I don't really see big demand for it. Which is probably why Apple hasn't been in a big rush. Something can be said for not being too far ahead. Of course at some point 64 bit will come to full use. I'm sure Apple and Adobe will be ready.
For example; Why are we still waiting for Express? It's been at least a year now since it's been appearing on PC's?
Again in my business there hasn't seemed to be a big demand for it. The biggest houses use it for their Linux machines. I would estimate PCI Express is a technology that is still only useful to a small segment of the market. Is that worth Apple redesigning its hardware around at this time? I don't know, but they haven't yet done it.
It seems Apple will skip Express 1 and will be using Express 2.
Originally posted by melgross
As far as I kniw it has nothing to do with Metro, but is is a significent upgrade solution to what is out there now.
This is really out of Adobe's hands as it is an OS related development, as was Colorsync. Adobe would support it though.
Does PDF support 64bit colour spaces though?
Since Apple are tied to the hip for their display and print technology to PDF, unless Adobe pushes PDF to match Metro in capabilities then Apple are a little hogtied.
And print shops also have to pick up Metro in their workflows which would seem a challenge even if it's got an advantage.
Can't say I'm personally too bothered as I'm almost entirely web based now and in magazines I've worked on, most readers wouldn't know the difference anyway but less design tools on the Mac are always a bad thing.
Originally posted by Louzer
Well, its pointless to release a mac with a P4 or PM chip in it unless (a) the OS is actually ready, and (b) the apps are actually ready. Who wants to buy a computer where everything is emulated (oh, right, Mac-heads would, because its new - heck, they bought the PPC machines when they first came out, even though there really wasn't any PPC software or OS. Remember Apple didn't come out with a fully PPC-compiled OS until, ummm, OS X, actually).
Oh, and the Pentium-M is really a crappy chip-set. It certainly doesn't have the power that people seem to think it does (whenever I use a P-M laptop, esp. on battery, it feels like sloshing through molasses trying to get the OS to respond to anything - but, hey, I'm sure that's the OS, OS X is soooo much better optimized!) And the P4's aren't dual-able, so you'd actually do a step-down on those compared to the dual G5s (depending on task, of course).
As for the 64-bit chips, that's all marketing. The number of users who actually need a 64-bit processor is so low its almost unidentifiable. And considering that even OS X.4 isn't really a complete 64-bit OS (its a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit base, assuming, of course, that the base is completely 64-bit), I doubt many would care.
Your screed is 100% BS, pure and simple as that!
Once apon a time there was 8-bit computing and they clamored "We don't need 16-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 16-bit computing (Microsoft anyone?) and they clamored "We don't need 32-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 24-bit computing (Apple anyone?) and they clamored "We don't need 32-bit computing."
Once apon a time there was 32-bit computing and they clamored "We don't need 64-bit computing."
Do you detect a pattern here?
Fast forward to the near term (last 5 years), check out IBM's Blue Gene, and I quote:
"The Blue Gene chip contains two standard 32-bit embedded PowerPC 440
cores, each with private L1 32KB instruction and 32KB data caches. The cores also have a 2KB L2 cache each and share a 4MB L3 EDRAM cache. While the L1 caches are not coherent, the L2 caches are coherent and act as a prefetch
buffer for the L3 cache.
Each core drives a custom 128-bit ?Double? FPU that can perform four double precision floating-point operations per cycle. This custom FPU consists of two conventional FPUs joined together, each having a 64-bit register file with
32 registers. The PPC instruction set has been extended to perform SIMD-style floating point operations on the two FPUs."
No, this is not true 128-bit computing (data paths), however the address space and FPU space are 128-bit (the address space is needed for the number of unknowns, while the FPU space is needed for large spatial and/or temporal domains). And wow, look, an embedded PowerPC 440 CPU, wazzup with that anyway?
The other fundamental fact here is that many slower CPU's can be both faster AND cheaper AND have a lower total power/thermal footprint. Does this argument sound familar to you (Intel's latest roadmap (last month) anyone?). Divide and conquer, a fairly simple strategy, wouldn't you say (methinks this pre-dates computational theory by several millenia)?
I hope YOU never need 64-bit computing, that would be like giving Bin Laden the H-bomb!
I would give you an even bigger Howard Dean like screed/rant on your Pentium M comment, but IROTFLMAO!
OS X optimized? Relative to its previous lives, then yes. Can they improve it in the future, they had better have, since Stevie is going mano a mano with Billy in the Grove! And the winner is Linux!
BlueGene/L only has 32-bit addressing. It's just as much a 128-bit processor as the G4 is.
Yonah is probably going to be the fastest x86 processor on all but a few programs, but in AI-land it's a "crappy stopgap".
(Consult http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/top_per_core.jsp if you haven't already.)
"Pentium 4 can't go dual", but in reality it's been dual-core for a while and now Dell has 4-way workstations based on dual-core Xeons. Expect some humbling dual G5 vs. quad Xeon benchmarks in a few weeks unless Apple can release a quad G5 in time.
I think Apple could adopt high dynamic range output relatively easy once the appropriate monitors and GPUs exist. Digital camera users would jump at that since they already capture HDR.
That being said, I've not encountered a situation where I'd want to use a "64 bit" image outside of print/imaging apps that handle the colorspace conversion. Also, I don't let the print driver/OS/printer/RIP handle colorspace conversion unless absolutely necessary.
Originally posted by wmf
Yonah is probably going to be the fastest x86 processor on all but a few programs, but in AI-land it's a "crappy stopgap".
It IS a crappy stopgap. The real meat and potatoes in the Intel Roadmap doesn't happen till Merom. That's very obvious from the presentation they made launching their next generation architecture. Merom is when they start making good on their performance per watt claims and their processes and when the desktop chips get interesting performance too. In the meantime they're hacking Yonah cores into Sossaman to try and compete with the Opteron and PowerPC 970 in blades.
Originally posted by wmf
(Consult http://www.aceshardware.com/SPECmine/top_per_core.jsp if you haven't already.)
SpecINT and SpecFP tests are something I run every day of course.
It also shows the Pentium M getting trashed by the P4 at floating point.
Originally posted by wmf
"Pentium 4 can't go dual", but in reality it's been dual-core for a while and now Dell has 4-way workstations based on dual-core Xeons.
P4 isn't exactly a shining light for it's dual core implementation and you still can't run two CPUs on a board which is what I presume was meant by not going dual. You have to run Xeons or Opterons for that.
Originally posted by wmf
Expect some humbling dual G5 vs. quad Xeon benchmarks in a few weeks unless Apple can release a quad G5 in time.
Who knows, all just wild speculation and I can't imagine many people wanting a quad Xeon thundering away under their desk. I'd still put money on some of the dual Opterons beating Quad Xeons though at some benchmarks. I've Opteron 244 servers that beat the Xeons I also run. Very impressed with them for the money.
Originally posted by wmf
I think Apple could adopt high dynamic range output relatively easy once the appropriate monitors and GPUs exist. Digital camera users would jump at that since they already capture HDR. [/B]
There was a high dynamic range monitor on engadget a few days ago. $45,000 with a 6" wide bezel. I'll have two and an operation to split my eyesite so I can use them in a dual monitor setup.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
There's two factors working here against Apple.
1) UI consistency and innovation in OSX has become an ongoing joke what with at least 5 different UI styles and stagnation in the Finder. Plus bodged on and poorly thought out features such as Spotlight. Windows XP may be ugly but it's pretty consistent and Vista will continue that. Initially with more eye candy you can even see that reviews will give it much more hype than OSX now that we've learned that all that transparency and needless candy is distracting in actual use.
2) Microsoft has it's XAML based Presentation Display Framework with very well developed vector based UI and some extremely good development tools such as Sparkle. Apple doesn't get close there. You can see the seeds of some tools in Quartz Composer and Interface builder but they aren't Sparkle. Microsoft are porting this back into XP now that they've realised developers won't write Vista specific interfaces and alienate XP users and more so, they've been muttering about porting it to other platforms - MacOSX? Linux? If they do, then developers writing cross platform software may use XAML and I can't see Apple liking that but will be strongarmed into it.
Working for Apple...
1) Vista adoption will be slow and Win32 API isn't going away quickly. Developers have to learn whole new tools and some new methodologies.
2) Surely Apple have now been harangued enough by Gruber, Sircusa and just about everybody that they must realise the UI is what needs fixing and that it's the one defining thing they have left to differentiate OSX and Vista when users are looking at computers in a shop. If the hardware is the same its now all about software.
Working for the world...
What I'm going to tell you is a very sad reality. The world adopts things based on perception. Whatever the world perceives as being the best, is the best...even if the product is crap.
MS may be winning the technological war once Vista is out but if the public doesn't see it, then it doesn't matter. I've grown to accept the fact that the Mac was never a popular personal computer. Apple is grabbing mind share via iPods lately...it doesn't matter how good Vista is, if Apple manages to sweep Windows users into its arms, good for them, too bad for MS.
Maybe, just maybe, Apple will become MS and have the shittier product but all the fame.
I'm gonna use whichever OS is best. If Vista turns out to be technologically superior and as or more secure than OS X, I'll switch.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I'm gonna use whichever OS is best. If Vista turns out to be technologically superior and as or more secure than OS X, I'll switch. [/B]
I'll pick the one that works, has the software I need and doesn't get in my face.
I can't imagine that would be Windows. It's got steadily more in your face on every release whereas OSX has gone the opposite way from the days of modal dialogs in OS7.
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
I think we are all confusing the issue a bit here. By 64bit color management I believe melgross is speaking of 16 bit per channel images; in which RGB images are 48 bit+alpha and CMYK are 64bit.
That being said, I've not encountered a situation where I'd want to use a "64 bit" image outside of print/imaging apps that handle the colorspace conversion.
OOHHH...... ok yeah.
64 bit color space is the future spec in movie digital projection.
The frequent use of it is coming.
Originally posted by TenoBell
How does Windows get in your face?
Oh, that's a very long list... ;-)
Modal dialog boxes, 'Are you sure?' messages all over the place, wizards, animated menus, menus where the contents move about depending on how often you use them, tooltips that popup whenever anything vaguely 'interesting' happens in my system tray, folders you can't access without saying yes such as \\windows, focus on windows changing from the one I'm in, menus being removed when another app I've launched grabs focus, options which are admin only that you can't get to without starting up your admin account eg. 'Repair Network Connection', the Windows key, the task focussed control panel in WindowsXP v the trad one in NT, the whole of the networking dialog, rebooting on every networking change...
OSX dropped almost all of that kind of nonsense from the Mac OS. Microsoft put it all in after NT. IMHO Windows NT4.0 was their best product.
I'd also miss spring loaded folders and column view if I went to Windows. By far the best things I like about OSX. It's still not as nice as BeOS but hey ho.
I haven't really used Windows since '98. I was just wondering.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Ok
I haven't really used Windows since '98. I was just wondering.
I edited after this reply - thought of more annoyances. ;-)
Windows98 was about the last time they got the interface right and I certainly preferred it most of the time compared with MacOS.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Modal dialog boxes, 'Are you sure?' messages all over the place, ...
I actually like the OS X informational dialog boxes with a "don't show me this again" checkbox, although offhand I can't remember where I've seen them except in iTunes. At best they provide useful context-specific information. At worst they're just a one-time nuisance.
The modal dialogs in pre-X Mac OS were really annoying, especially as a causal user of that OS and not being able to switch to some other app/window to figure out how I wanted to respond to the dialog.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Windows98 was about the last time they got the interface right and I certainly preferred it most of the time compared with MacOS.
Most people would say Microsoft only began to get it right with Windows 2000.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Very very doubtful. You can;t even print 64 bit colour. And InDesign and Quark would have to adopt it before it goes anywhere print wise - and that's not going to happen if it won't work on both platforms. Displaying 64 bit content is one thing, but how are you going to capture 64 bit content? It needs to be aquired at the source via camera's and camcorders.
Microsoft can make all the technology it wants. In the end though - it doesn't make the apps or hardware which have to support it.
64 bits is 48 bits plus a 16 bit Alpha channel.
You may not realize it but many digital cameras and scanners have supported 48 bits for years. Photoshop has been adding to its 48 bit capabilities as well. 16 bit per channel is also 64 bit CMYK.
This has been my industry for 30 years. Believe me when I say that this is the way it is going. Postscript 3 supports higher than 8 bits per channel. It's been realized for years that 32 bit printing (8+8+8+8 ) isn't enough. 8 bits only allows for 256 level greyshades - not enough in these times of finer linescreens. PS 3 allows for 1024 steps.
No one is going to print 48 bit RGB or 64 bit CMYK. Within the process the highest quality is maintained when the highest possible number of bits reprsents the image. Apple MUST be working on this as well.
This isn't the place to give a lecture about color management and digital process control (which I do) but you can find many articles about it on the web.
Adobe already supports a good deal of this in its apps. PS, for example, has support for HDR (High Dynamic Range) images that are 32 bits per channel. Acrobat 6 and up supports 16 bits per channel as well.