I think the map integration is a great idea but, like it's been said above, why would Apple waste time and resources developing its own map service? Google Earth is by far the most advanced virtual atlas, and I believe the API is available, so why not just integrate with Google's client? I'm also sure, given Google's fondness for all things Mac, that Google would welcome the inclusion.
A Google/Apple partnership for quick maps and driving directions in Leopard sounds great, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
Erm. Long filenames isn't a good example since 1) Windows 95 already had that (although, unlike HFS+, FAT32 didn't implement this natively), so Apple was behind on this, and 2) the Finder in OS 8 could, as far as I recall, not actually write or interpret long file names.
If a file with a long name is viewed while started up from Mac OS 9, some of the file name's first twenty five characters are displayed along with a unique hexadecimal reference number. To view the full file name, start up from Mac OS X.
While this doesn't explicitly mention OS 8, it is implied that X is the first version to actually support displaying full names.
Mac OS 8 ruled, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
We must have had dramaticly differant experiances with it...at school we had crashing, apps would wig out randomly, and of course, the hockeypuck mouse (not an OS problem, but using it was a PITA...)
I mean my god, the school was still running the Macs on APPLETALK...ever hear of TCP/IP???
At the same time (pre spyware and automated hacks that requier no user intervention) Windows was pretty snappy and fairly stable with three or four apps running...I can only referance what I saw...and I didnt like what I saw...
Integrating Address Book and iCal (please be called Calendar in Leopard, please!!) also makes no sense to me. Whatever happened to small apps doing one thing, and doing it well?
This is the one thing I really don't understand in all of these screenshots and rumours. Mail + AddressCalendar doesn't make sense. Vista will be including three separate apps (although after playing with them still aren't technically very good) and I think that's the way it should be done. For two years I have praised the ease of use, elegance, simplicity and interaction of the three personal information manager apps.
I'm much more disturbed by that than the windows stuff...
One of the rumored features is said to be OS-level integration of a geographical mapping technology, similar to Microsoft's Virtual Earth. In recent months, Microsoft has made several acquisitions aimed at bolstering its Virtual Earth division, including a buyout of Vexcel Corp.
According to sources, Apple has been working on a similar approach, but modeled after Google's Maps feature. The technology will presumably allow Leopard users to scour the globe through satellite imagery and whisk up driving directions on the drop of a dime.
I think these two paragraphs are misleading. I have no doubt that Apple is looking into geographical mapping technology. But, it will not be "OS-level" and it will not be served by Apple.
I can't see any reason to integrate geographical mapping technology into an OS at this point in time. I can, however, see putting it in Sherlock. As a matter of fact, that seems like the perfect place for it to me. To start talking about OS-level integration, I think we're going to need to see built-in GPS units.
<rumor mongering>
Get your tinfoil hats now! Apple's putting GPS units in all of their laptops. Combined with built-in iSight, they'll not only be able to see you, but also know where you are!
</rumor mongering>
Also, why would Apple even bother trying to host geographical mapping data? If they do anything, they'll connect to someone else's server, and just put a nice UI on it that users can reach easily without opening Safari.
...but they couldnt work together...hence the adoption of TCP/IP and IPv4
And thus the intarweb was born, exploding into the almost unfathomable myriad of networked people, devices, computers, in a billion different ways never imagined before. What a difference 10 years makes. 1996-2006: Explosion of the Internet reaching far out to every corner of the world.
TCP/IP and IPv4 is also good for pr0n. Almost any dodgy image you want, almost any fetish, instantly available in the privacy of your own computer screen.
*Goodness, I talk bollocks sometimes. Feel free to slap me anytime*
There will always be a performance hit. Not a big hit, but a noticeable one. If apple can pull this off correctly, people will want to make native os x apps before windows apps if the adoption of os x goes up a lot.
This could be a big thing for apple, a lot of people would only dream of running any app in the world on 1 computer. If apple can do it, i think a lot more people will be using os x... which in the end will open developers' eyes.
Maybe, but it's hard to imagine that really happening. If any app can run under os x and there are all ready way more windows apps that way more people use, then why change? If os x could really run any windows app, making a windows app instead of an os x app would make a lot more sense for a developer. If a windows app can run on any computer in the world (pretty much) and an os x app can still only run on macs (even though macs would become much more popular because of the switch), it would make sense to make a windows app. I don't want that to happen, no one does, but to me it just doesn't make sense.
Maybe, but it's hard to imagine that really happening. If any app can run under os x and there are all ready way more windows apps that way more people use, then why change? If os x could really run any windows app, making a windows app instead of an os x app would make a lot more sense for a developer. If a windows app can run on any computer in the world (pretty much) and an os x app can still only run on macs (even though macs would become much more popular because of the switch), it would make sense to make a windows app. I don't want that to happen, no one does, but to me it just doesn't make sense.
WWDC 2005: Steve Jobs tells developers: you are going to be coding for Intel as well now.
WWDC 2006: Steve Jobs tells developers: you are going to be coding for Windows as well now
Defintely two schools of thought on windows under Mac. I believe it will allow people to buy Mac HARDWARE and have a 99% Mac experience. My brother is itching to get a Mac but Quick Books Pro and ARC GIS stuff is the hold up.
People will purchase Mac only software and only use those one or two programs that are only for windows in their Mac. No matter what happens, I don't believe you will be able to run games, AE, etc., type programs. My brother wants FCS, Omni Outliner and Graffle so bad he can taste it.
Apple will give us a carrott but not the whole fruit basket.
Service discovery. AppleTalk and NetBEUI can do it; TCP/IP can't.
Sure, TCP/IP is more universal, and I wouldn't want to go back, but AppleTalk is far easier to use.
Service discovery happens at OSI layers 4-7, it can be done, in the application, presentation or session layers... I really cant see what service discovery has to do with the routed adderssing protocol. netBEUI can run atop tcp/ip...
Did anyone point out that in the "desktop switcher" neither the dock nor the menu bar are in the transition? This is probably just a desktop background. Its hard to tell though, since desktop transitions (as far as I know) have been the cube effect where we wouldn't know if the dock would be effected. Just a though. Sorry if this has been pointed out already.
Comments
A Google/Apple partnership for quick maps and driving directions in Leopard sounds great, doesn't it? Or am I missing something?
Originally posted by Frank777
Mac OS 8 ruled, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Tempo and its successors brought us HFS+, long filenames, and later on, Sherlock.
Ah, good times. Read all about it.
Erm. Long filenames isn't a good example since 1) Windows 95 already had that (although, unlike HFS+, FAT32 didn't implement this natively), so Apple was behind on this, and 2) the Finder in OS 8 could, as far as I recall, not actually write or interpret long file names.
Originally posted by Chucker
the Finder in OS 8 could, as far as I recall, not actually write or interpret long file names.
If the wikipedia is right then it could since OS 8 introduced HFS+ and thus long file names...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
If the wikipedia is right then it could since OS 8 introduced HFS+ and thus long file names...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFS_Plus
Dave
OS 8.1 introduced HFS+, yes, but the Finder didn't support long file names. From "Mac OS X: About Long File Names":
If a file with a long name is viewed while started up from Mac OS 9, some of the file name's first twenty five characters are displayed along with a unique hexadecimal reference number. To view the full file name, start up from Mac OS X.
While this doesn't explicitly mention OS 8, it is implied that X is the first version to actually support displaying full names.
Originally posted by Chucker
OS 8.1 introduced HFS+, yes, but the Finder didn't support long file names.
I stand corrected...
Linky: http://www.applelust.com/oped/applep..._appel012.html
Maybe it was because Mac OS pretty much always supported 'kinda long' (31 chars I think) filenames in the finder.
Dave
Originally posted by Frank777
Mac OS 8 ruled, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
We must have had dramaticly differant experiances with it...at school we had crashing, apps would wig out randomly, and of course, the hockeypuck mouse (not an OS problem, but using it was a PITA...)
I mean my god, the school was still running the Macs on APPLETALK...ever hear of TCP/IP???
At the same time (pre spyware and automated hacks that requier no user intervention) Windows was pretty snappy and fairly stable with three or four apps running...I can only referance what I saw...and I didnt like what I saw...
Originally posted by m01ety
Integrating Address Book and iCal (please be called Calendar in Leopard, please!!) also makes no sense to me. Whatever happened to small apps doing one thing, and doing it well?
This is the one thing I really don't understand in all of these screenshots and rumours. Mail + AddressCalendar doesn't make sense. Vista will be including three separate apps (although after playing with them still aren't technically very good) and I think that's the way it should be done. For two years I have praised the ease of use, elegance, simplicity and interaction of the three personal information manager apps.
I'm much more disturbed by that than the windows stuff...
I mean my god, the school was still running the Macs on APPLETALK...ever hear of TCP/IP???
Hey man, AppleTalk... Brings back memories of mid to late 90's. Old skool bra, old skool. Yeah.
I mean, it was only because of the INTARWEB that TCP/IP exploded into the form it is now and how we take it for granted.
But AppleTalk, that was Networking on Apple Systems. Wow. The memories......
Originally posted by AppleInsider
One of the rumored features is said to be OS-level integration of a geographical mapping technology, similar to Microsoft's Virtual Earth. In recent months, Microsoft has made several acquisitions aimed at bolstering its Virtual Earth division, including a buyout of Vexcel Corp.
According to sources, Apple has been working on a similar approach, but modeled after Google's Maps feature. The technology will presumably allow Leopard users to scour the globe through satellite imagery and whisk up driving directions on the drop of a dime.
I think these two paragraphs are misleading. I have no doubt that Apple is looking into geographical mapping technology. But, it will not be "OS-level" and it will not be served by Apple.
I can't see any reason to integrate geographical mapping technology into an OS at this point in time. I can, however, see putting it in Sherlock. As a matter of fact, that seems like the perfect place for it to me. To start talking about OS-level integration, I think we're going to need to see built-in GPS units.
<rumor mongering>
Get your tinfoil hats now! Apple's putting GPS units in all of their laptops. Combined with built-in iSight, they'll not only be able to see you, but also know where you are!
</rumor mongering>
Also, why would Apple even bother trying to host geographical mapping data? If they do anything, they'll connect to someone else's server, and just put a nice UI on it that users can reach easily without opening Safari.
This is fake. Notice on the About This Mac window, it says 1 GB DDR SDRAM. I checked and all Intel Mac's use DDR2 Ram.
This is so weird. If it is fake it is so well faked, one could say, and raises a lot of disturbing yet intriguing ideas.
Why The HELL did the faker miss out on the DDR2 bit? After a pristine fake, the DDR detail is like, a big careless mistake. Weird.
Originally posted by Chucker
Those dissing AppleTalk perhaps don't realize that it had the features of Bonjour, only about 1.5 decades earlier.
Which features? propriaterity?
IPX, Appletalk, IBM Token, they were all fairly good at what they did...but they couldnt work together...hence the adoption of TCP/IP and IPv4
...but they couldnt work together...hence the adoption of TCP/IP and IPv4
And thus the intarweb was born, exploding into the almost unfathomable myriad of networked people, devices, computers, in a billion different ways never imagined before. What a difference 10 years makes. 1996-2006: Explosion of the Internet reaching far out to every corner of the world.
TCP/IP and IPv4 is also good for pr0n. Almost any dodgy image you want, almost any fetish, instantly available in the privacy of your own computer screen.
*Goodness, I talk bollocks sometimes. Feel free to slap me anytime*
Originally posted by emig647
There will always be a performance hit. Not a big hit, but a noticeable one. If apple can pull this off correctly, people will want to make native os x apps before windows apps if the adoption of os x goes up a lot.
This could be a big thing for apple, a lot of people would only dream of running any app in the world on 1 computer. If apple can do it, i think a lot more people will be using os x... which in the end will open developers' eyes.
Maybe, but it's hard to imagine that really happening. If any app can run under os x and there are all ready way more windows apps that way more people use, then why change? If os x could really run any windows app, making a windows app instead of an os x app would make a lot more sense for a developer. If a windows app can run on any computer in the world (pretty much) and an os x app can still only run on macs (even though macs would become much more popular because of the switch), it would make sense to make a windows app. I don't want that to happen, no one does, but to me it just doesn't make sense.
Maybe, but it's hard to imagine that really happening. If any app can run under os x and there are all ready way more windows apps that way more people use, then why change? If os x could really run any windows app, making a windows app instead of an os x app would make a lot more sense for a developer. If a windows app can run on any computer in the world (pretty much) and an os x app can still only run on macs (even though macs would become much more popular because of the switch), it would make sense to make a windows app. I don't want that to happen, no one does, but to me it just doesn't make sense.
WWDC 2005: Steve Jobs tells developers: you are going to be coding for Intel as well now.
WWDC 2006: Steve Jobs tells developers: you are going to be coding for Windows as well now
People will purchase Mac only software and only use those one or two programs that are only for windows in their Mac. No matter what happens, I don't believe you will be able to run games, AE, etc., type programs. My brother wants FCS, Omni Outliner and Graffle so bad he can taste it.
Apple will give us a carrott but not the whole fruit basket.
Originally posted by a_greer
Which features? propriaterity?
IPX, Appletalk, IBM Token, they were all fairly good at what they did...but they couldnt work together...hence the adoption of TCP/IP and IPv4
Service discovery. AppleTalk and NetBEUI can do it; TCP/IP can't.
Sure, TCP/IP is more universal, and I wouldn't want to go back, but AppleTalk is far easier to use.
Originally posted by Chucker
Service discovery. AppleTalk and NetBEUI can do it; TCP/IP can't.
Sure, TCP/IP is more universal, and I wouldn't want to go back, but AppleTalk is far easier to use.
Service discovery happens at OSI layers 4-7, it can be done, in the application, presentation or session layers... I really cant see what service discovery has to do with the routed adderssing protocol. netBEUI can run atop tcp/ip...