I hope iWeb can produce sites and pages that don't require .Mac! Even if Apple forces "iWeb" to use .Mac, and "WebPages" is identical but works with any server, that'd be enough.
It seems very smart to integrate iLife into a web page. Drag an iTunes playlist (eg "My 5 star songs") onto your website and have it automatically list all your favourites - with links to preview the songs from iTMS (and buy them!). Link an iDVD or iMovie for it to dynamically make a movie download.
ps. To the user that said "everything is going to be written in Cocoa" - that is wrong. Apple said everything will be written in Xcode - which is Cocoa or Carbon.
developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.
I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.
Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.
If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.
As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
We won't see the end of Carbon any time soon but judging from the past, Apple has methodically written new apps in Cocoa and rewrites of existing apps in Cocoa.
The only exception that I can think of was the Finder which started off as a Cocoa app in the DP1, DP2 days which was then replaced by a Carbon app.
So... what does this mean technically? Will Apple be running PHP and SQL instances on their side. Or does this simply mean .Mac hosted pages can be linked to instances we're running locally?
Sigh. This is not true. You can develop Carbon applications in XCode targetted at Intel.
I disagree with the OP that it's not important though. Cocoa apps have much richer support from the OS and better integration with things like services and standard dialogs. Just look at Pages or Keynote for applications which use Cocoa to the extreme. It's also sadly why some people who don't 'get' Cocoa, don't 'get' Apple's newer applications too.
Some would say my accounting is quite creative. ;-)
You're right, of course. I don't actually know why I said it.
I thought it was more the case that the team left to form Gobe and create Gobe Productive for BeOS and then latterly for Windows. I had a copy on BeOS and it was a great tightly integrated suite that followed on logically from Works.
Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.
I'm pretty sure that if they had more to do, they would have stayed. As you know most programmers just work on code maintenance. But guys who work on front-line programs are a higher level of programmer. They get bored if they aren't challenged.
I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.
Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.
If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.
As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.
I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.
Grahhh... I would much rather a Photoshop Elements killer than a FrontPage killer. I'm so sick an tired of using Adobe products, and I really want to be able to use an Apple app instead... but they need to MAKE it.
AFAIK, some of the original programmers were trying to buy the code off the venture capitalists. The remaining Gobe.com company isn't them - it's a company set up to sell the finished software. Since they've got none of the original programmers left and I don't think any code either then that's why it's not changed since the v3.0 release.
I'd love to be corrected though.
It amazes me that since the BeOS version crashed and burned with Be going, they didn't produce a MacOSX version. But I guess with Apple hiring back 3 of the team and many of the Be engineers, that's worked out well for Apple.
I don't think you ever will. Why? Spreadsheets aren't "creative." They don't cause you to "Think different." They're boring business apps and I don't see Apple creating one.
They're 'building a replacement to AppleWorks. They have to build one. Many designers and consumers need spreadsheets for basic accounting etc. I use a spreadsheet regularly and I'm in a creative field. Apple need to offer its consumers a free basic suite of applications for those who do not need the full office experience. Although I am aware iWork isn't free - it should be though. Well a basic app that's above TextEdit is needed anyway!
Keynote is a solid app so I can understand paying for that but an AppleWorks replacement should be free.
Comments
It seems very smart to integrate iLife into a web page. Drag an iTunes playlist (eg "My 5 star songs") onto your website and have it automatically list all your favourites - with links to preview the songs from iTMS (and buy them!). Link an iDVD or iMovie for it to dynamically make a movie download.
ps. To the user that said "everything is going to be written in Cocoa" - that is wrong. Apple said everything will be written in Xcode - which is Cocoa or Carbon.
Originally posted by melgross
developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.
I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.
Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.
If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.
As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.
That would be why the GoBe website hasn't been updated in a loooong time. ( www.gobe.com)
Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
We won't see the end of Carbon any time soon but judging from the past, Apple has methodically written new apps in Cocoa and rewrites of existing apps in Cocoa.
The only exception that I can think of was the Finder which started off as a Cocoa app in the DP1, DP2 days which was then replaced by a Carbon app.
Originally posted by sCreeD
So... what does this mean technically? Will Apple be running PHP and SQL instances on their side. Or does this simply mean .Mac hosted pages can be linked to instances we're running locally?
Well it WILL allow for RSS feeds to blogs, right?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Sigh. This is not true. You can develop Carbon applications in XCode targetted at Intel.
I disagree with the OP that it's not important though. Cocoa apps have much richer support from the OS and better integration with things like services and standard dialogs. Just look at Pages or Keynote for applications which use Cocoa to the extreme. It's also sadly why some people who don't 'get' Cocoa, don't 'get' Apple's newer applications too.
Some would say my accounting is quite creative. ;-)
You're right, of course. I don't actually know why I said it.
Eagerness, I suppose.
Originally posted by tripdragon
if iweb 1.0 is like pages 1.0 it wont matter
Think you'd notice?
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought it was more the case that the team left to form Gobe and create Gobe Productive for BeOS and then latterly for Windows. I had a copy on BeOS and it was a great tightly integrated suite that followed on logically from Works.
Last I heard Apple had re-hired most of Gobe back. That was before Pages.
I'm pretty sure that if they had more to do, they would have stayed. As you know most programmers just work on code maintenance. But guys who work on front-line programs are a higher level of programmer. They get bored if they aren't challenged.
Originally posted by Gates_of_Hell
I'm sure Steve would love that to be the case, but I was under the impression that developers just had to use XCode to be able to compile for Intel. They can still use Carbon to create universal binaries.
Rosetta is for applications compiled for PPC that are not compiled as universal binaries.
If it was mandatory to use Cocoa to compile natively for Mactels then there would be a lot of developers of large carbon apps (Adobe and MS, to name a couple) making a lot of noise about abandoning the Mac as the effort to port everything to Cocoa would be too much.
As far as I can recall, Steve tried to kill off all the old Mac OS APIs when Rhapsody (the first merging of Mac OS and NextStep) was announced. As I remember, it was proposed that all the old Mac OS code would be run in a Classic-like emulator called Blue Box. There was such a fuss at the time made by longstanding Mac developers whose code would be running in an emulator that Apple instead cleaned up the APIs, made them native (as opposed to running in Blue Box) and called them Carbon.
Sure, Cocoa is a far nicer than Carbon and integrates a little better with the OS, but I don't believe we will see the end of Carbon apps any time soon.
Yeah, I realized my mistake.
Originally posted by melgross
It has nothing to do with being "creative". It has to do with the fact that developers (Apple included) will have to use Cocoa to develop on Mactels. Any program that isn't going to continue to run through Rosetta will HAVE, finally, to be a Cocoa program.
I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.
Originally posted by Sabon
That would be why the GoBe website hasn't been updated in a loooong time. ( www.gobe.com)
Gobe software sold the rights on.
Here's a nice history of ClarisWorks including some on Gobe...
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php
Originally posted by Chucker
I guess you should have told Apple, since Finder and iTunes on Intel are Carbon.
All right, all right already. Read my posts. I've corrected myself twice already.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Gobe software sold the rights on.
Here's a nice history of ClarisWorks including some on Gobe...
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php
Do you know who they sold the rights to?
Originally posted by melgross
All right, all right already. Read my posts. I've corrected myself twice already.
Fair enough. Sorry.
Originally posted by Sabon
Do you know who they sold the rights to?
AFAIK, some of the original programmers were trying to buy the code off the venture capitalists. The remaining Gobe.com company isn't them - it's a company set up to sell the finished software. Since they've got none of the original programmers left and I don't think any code either then that's why it's not changed since the v3.0 release.
I'd love to be corrected though.
It amazes me that since the BeOS version crashed and burned with Be going, they didn't produce a MacOSX version. But I guess with Apple hiring back 3 of the team and many of the Be engineers, that's worked out well for Apple.
Originally posted by Nautical
As long as this means that Garageband will look more like the other iLife apps and not the other way around -- I am all for it.
How that? Seriously, GB is a ...uhm... production tool, while
the other iLife members aren't. So they naturally look differently,
because of their different tasks they made for. GB with its unique
look shouldn't be fixed in any way, because it is not broken.
imho
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
How that? Seriously, GB is a ...uhm... production tool, while
the other iLife members aren't.
And here I was, thinking iMovie and iDVD were used to produce, say, movies and DVDs. Too far-fetched of me, I guess.
Originally posted by Chucker
And here I was, thinking iMovie and iDVD were used to produce, say, movies and DVDs. Too far-fetched of me, I guess.
Yeah, well I guess "produce" means different things to different people. We can also "produce" a document in Textedit.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I don't think you ever will. Why? Spreadsheets aren't "creative." They don't cause you to "Think different." They're boring business apps and I don't see Apple creating one.
They're 'building a replacement to AppleWorks. They have to build one. Many designers and consumers need spreadsheets for basic accounting etc. I use a spreadsheet regularly and I'm in a creative field. Apple need to offer its consumers a free basic suite of applications for those who do not need the full office experience. Although I am aware iWork isn't free - it should be though. Well a basic app that's above TextEdit is needed anyway!
Keynote is a solid app so I can understand paying for that but an AppleWorks replacement should be free.