Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 29th Oct 2007 07:22 UTC
Mac OS X The Ars review of Leopard concludes: "What a long, strange trip it's been. Leopard turned out very differently than I imagined it would only a year ago. Despite some big disappointments near the end of its development process - the new Dock, the menu bar, more Finder floundering - the foundation is stronger than it's ever been."
Order by: Score:
A long read...
by DevL on Mon 29th Oct 2007 07:35 UTC
DevL
Member since:
2005-07-06

...but well worth it.

Reply Score: 9

RE: A long read...
by evangs on Mon 29th Oct 2007 08:13 UTC in reply to "A long read..."
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Indeed. Now that is a Leopard review. Not one of those two page nonsense about the UI and such.

Hats off for John Siracusa.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: A long read...
by sappyvcv on Mon 29th Oct 2007 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE: A long read..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Amazingly in depth review. It's refreshing to see an honest review that exposes the realities of the Operating System as a platform. How immature it is in some places (only now getting a unified Text API) and how much more it has in common with Windows from a design standpoint (Code Signing, ASLR, DTrace) as time goes on.

This is not meant to insult OSX at all. It's just good to see a real review from a deeper perspective that doesn't ignore the real under-pinings.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: A long read...
by anevilyak on Mon 29th Oct 2007 13:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A long read..."
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

Care to enlighten me as to what equivalent Windows has to DTrace? I've never heard of it having anything remotely comparable.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: A long read...
by google_ninja on Mon 29th Oct 2007 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE: A long read..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ars is one of the few sites that actually reviews, instead of just giving a brief overview of the new stuff

Reply Score: 6

Typo
by DBAlex on Mon 29th Oct 2007 07:48 UTC
DBAlex
Member since:
2006-12-31

"Overall, Tiger is impressive"...

Tiger!?!? Shouldn't that be Leopard? Tut tut OSNews staff...

Anyway... Good review!

Reply Score: 0

Tiger => Leopard
by pythonguy on Mon 29th Oct 2007 07:53 UTC
pythonguy
Member since:
2005-07-22

It is a Leopard, Tiger.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Tiger => Leopard
by Kroc on Mon 29th Oct 2007 09:11 UTC in reply to "Tiger => Leopard"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

No, it's a Liger! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Tiger => Leopard
by Doc Pain on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Tiger => Leopard"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"No, it's a Liger! ;) "

Not a Theopard? :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Tiger => Leopard
by snozzberry on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Tiger => Leopard"
snozzberry Member since:
2005-11-14

It's pretty much my favorite release.

Reply Score: 2

No typo
by BSDDomi on Mon 29th Oct 2007 07:57 UTC
BSDDomi
Member since:
2007-05-15

There is no typo. In the linked article it says:

At the end of my Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger review, I wrote this.

Overall, Tiger is impressive. If this is what Apple can do with 18 months of development time instead of 12, I tremble to think what they could do with a full two years.


So the "Tiger" refers to an earlier review.

Reply Score: 5

RE: No typo
by irbis on Mon 29th Oct 2007 08:12 UTC in reply to "No typo"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

"So the "Tiger" refers to an earlier review."

Yes, but it is a bit confusing introduction nevertheless. Why not change it to something more informative?

Anyway, a good comprehensive review.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Mon 29th Oct 2007 09:09 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Just finished reading all of it. It's the under-the-hood stuff that rocks. Third Parties are really going to be able to shine with this stuff. Even a text editor like TextMate is going to be massively improved by Leopard Technologies.

---

Here's what I predict for 10.6 ;)

* Safari will gain a fullscreen / presentation mode

* Time Machine 2. Finer granularity backups with ZFS. Boot Camp backup. Assign TM to a key (so we don't have to keep the dock icon around)

* LLVM and the LLVM front-end "Clang" are not ready yet, but could be by 10.6 giving a major speed boost over Leopard

* Yahoo support in iChat

* "Test Drive" App sand-boxing / uninstall. Try out an app before actually installing it.

* YouTube integration. YouTube Vlogger app

Reply Score: 2

RE
by tyrione on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I see Yahoo going XMPP/SIP so to leverage all the cross-pollination from many projects leveraging both these crucial standards.

Reply Score: 2

The icon for a generic PC...
by irbis on Mon 29th Oct 2007 09:54 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

The icon for a generic PC is funny: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/16 ;)
But do they now risk the chance of violating important intellectual property of a certain other proprietary OS manufacturer? ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE: The icon for a generic PC...
by Kroc on Mon 29th Oct 2007 10:10 UTC in reply to "The icon for a generic PC..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It's a in-tongue jab. Anybody who takes it serious need to open some Windows (the ones with the real world outside of them).

First off it's a 9x BSOD, because that's more iconic and memorable, and a CRT monitor, which no new PC comes with.

At least Leopard is fun in these respects. Vista drains the will to live sometimes. The Control Panel is like a Choose-your-own-adventure maze.

Edited 2007-10-29 10:11

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I think it's petty. It would have been funny if they used it and showed it in demos. But to leave it in the production version which millions of people use, some of them Windows users as well, while trying to convert existing windows users, is sad.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Petty? PC's that don't work is a reality for a huge number of people. I fix computers for a living - nobody has a PC that "just works". It gets a virus and they think the whole thing is broken and needs replacing. It's loaded with so much utter crap that even high end machines are taking two to five minutes to boot.

Frankly, I think even regular users will chuckle. It's only the Windows zelaots that will call it "petty".

Reply Score: 8

deb2006 Member since:
2006-06-26

Wrong. There is nothing wrong with PC's - even Apple is selling PC's (branding them "Mac"). I run a PC with Debian GNU/Linux, and it's running, running, running ... What you mean is a "Windows PC" ;)

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Sad that you get modded up so much for calling someone a zealot.

This has nothing to do with how well a PC works. I suggest you look up the definition of petty.

While it is perfectly within Apples right and while it doesn't affect me whatsoever, I still find the idea petty.

If Microsoft had done the same thing... say.. using a pink iMac picture as the icon for network macs... people would most definitely call it petty. And it would be.

Reply Score: 5

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

Fair enough. I modded you up one point by the way, even though I still find the icon funny as hell. ;)

Reply Score: 2

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I misread and thought you said it was pretty. I went "what the hell? That's pretty? What's this world coming to."

And then I realized you typed petty and it suddenly made more sense.

Reply Score: 3

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Or "tongue-in-cheek" to the average American.

Reply Score: 2

Great review
by Phuqker on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:06 UTC
Phuqker
Member since:
2005-07-17

He makes some fairly objective criticisms about some of the appearance changes, such as the translucent menu bar and the Dock. I can't argue against them, but I also don't care at all. I've never had any usability problems with Dock and I don't now, nor do I have any problems with its appearance. Same goes for the new menu bar. I do wish Apple would give people the choice to turn off the menu bar translucency, although I wouldn't do it myself. I happen to like the way it looks, consistency be damned.

Reply Score: 1

For the Record
by tyrione on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:20 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

The NeXTies compromised, but still hold the direction and lead on the entire platform.

Reply Score: 2

Great Review
by REM2000 on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:22 UTC
REM2000
Member since:
2006-07-25

Great review, very thorough and an interesting read.

Reply Score: 3

v Oh god...
by monkeyhead on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:31 UTC
RE: Oh god...
by Budd on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:35 UTC in reply to "Oh god..."
Budd Member since:
2005-07-08

Take a vacation then.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh god...
by l3v1 on Mon 29th Oct 2007 11:38 UTC in reply to "Oh god..."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

So what ? It's only fair to also give the other zealots their timeslots, so nobody will have their tensions building up for too long ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: Oh god...
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 29th Oct 2007 18:07 UTC in reply to "Oh god..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh come now, it's not so bad. You can even have some fun and make a game out of it - my favourite one is called "Spot the people posting verbatim Apple marketing copy."

You can also play the game in reverse - by trying to predict *which* bits of marketing copy will be copy-pasted to online forums. My money is down for:

"With 300+ new features, Leopard is the most impressive Mac OS X version yet."

Reply Score: 4

Great review and very interesting read ...
by kragil on Mon 29th Oct 2007 13:04 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

... i wonder which of the new MacOS features could be implemented in Open Source Desktops.

-KERNEL-
DTrace - possible ( or in the works )
FSEvents - possible ( altho i doubt it for the linux kernel )

-UI-
Core Animation - hmm .. maybe in KDE4 will be able to do something like that
Quartz GL - i dont see that happen anytime soon
Resolution Independence - no idea
Core UI - no idea
Metadata - possible
Code signing - possible, but i think unlikely


-Time Machine-
Dir hardlinks - unlikely


I would love to see all these in free software. I wish FOSS Developers get inspired.

Reply Score: 1

zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Hey, that's anachronism!

DTrace in Mac OS is taken directly from Open Source OS -- OpenSolaris. It is also ported to FreeBSD and IIRC NetBSD.

FSEvents -- Linux has inotify for ages now. Other Open Source OSes have similar mechanisms.

As for code signing, Linux has in-kernel crypto for very long time. It can be used to verify binaries and modules. Have you seen recently Linux boot? On some distros you can spot messages like this:

ksign: Installing public key data
Loading keyring
- Added public key 4A67DBB026B0246B
- User ID: Red Hat, Inc. (Kernel Module GPG key)

Reply Score: 5

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

Quartz GL - i dont see that happen anytime soon

Ever heard of XGL and glucose?

Reply Score: 2

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

In Linux:

dtrace -> kprobes
fsevents -> god why would you want to copy that?

core animation -> nothing equivalent
quartz gl -> cairo/glitz
resolution independence -> GNOME already handles high DPI settings better than OS X
core ui -> I don't really see the point of all that XML crap, theme engines are just fine
metadata -> already supported (for a long time)

dir hardlinks -> why would you want this hack? ZFS has _real_ snapshots; ext4 won't though unfortunately

Reply Score: 3

Jimbo Member since:
2005-07-22

fsevents -> god why would you want to copy that?


Linux has had inotify/dnotify in the kernel and famd/gamin in userspace for quite a long time now. I don't know if it works the same way, but it achieves the same purpose as fsevents.

Reply Score: 1

Finder
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2007 13:45 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Rant ahead, including expletives. If faint of heart, skip.

I'm almost done reading the review, but it appears that the Finder is still a bloody unusable schizophrenic mess. Sure, it got faster, less beach balls and such, but it is still a crappy spatial-and-browser-mode-in-one-that-doesn't-fcuking-work. I'm really sad about this, as the complaints that have been sent Apple's way by users and journalists alike over the past 6 years were clear: fix the goddamn Finder. Instead of fixing the Finder, they copy/pasted the interface code of iTunes and left it at that, not fixing any of the root causes of why the Finder interface is such a bloody mess: trying to squeeze two completely conflicting file manager modes in one. John is right: you're either spatial, or you're a browser. AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

Sad, sad indeed. I expect better from Apple after 6 goddamn years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Finder
by anevilyak on Mon 29th Oct 2007 14:07 UTC in reply to "Finder"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

John is right: you're either spatial, or you're a browser. AS SIMPLE AS THAT.


Doesn't Windows Explorer kind of have the same issue?
I honestly haven't tried to use it much in "every folder gets its own window" mode though so I'm not sure how well baked that mode is, so to speak.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Finder
by Adam S on Mon 29th Oct 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "Finder"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

1 weekend under my belt, but let me assure you: the Finder is JUST FINE. It has plenty of room for improvement, but it's not the disaster it's made out to be. It's much easier to use and much friendlier and faster than previous incarnations, including Tiger.

The entire package is a much worth-it upgrade; I didn't find stacks to be confusing, I didn't find the menubar or the Dock to be upgly, confusing, or out of place, I didn't find the unified look too dark. iChat is a friggin joy to use.

While there are legitimate complaints, don't be snowed by one reviewer's particular taste. The Finder is greatly improved, although I do hope point upgrades address some minor complaints about options that really should be present.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Finder
by joshv on Mon 29th Oct 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "Finder"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

I can't find a thing on my desktop (virtual or real world) so I find the spatial UI metaphor to be an extension of real world behavior that just doesn't work for me.

I use computers because they can do things that I can't do in the real world - like nest folders infinitely - sort the contents of a folder by any attribute in an instant - find anything on the computer in a few seconds.

Scrolling around in a 2D space trying to remember where I left something just can't compare.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Finder
by Darkelve on Mon 29th Oct 2007 15:09 UTC in reply to "Finder"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

Apple (and Microsoft) should take a good long look at Dolphin, which is looking to become a seriously kick-ass (and easy) file manager:

http://rudd-o.com/archives/2007/10/18/a-cursory-look-into-kde-4-fil...

Curiously, they 'borrowed' the "column view" from Finder, which looks quite useful to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Finder
by Duffman on Mon 29th Oct 2007 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Finder"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

The only thing your link is showing, is that the developpers of Dolphin took a good long look at the new finder/iTunes.

It's EXACTLY the same, even the button layout is EXACTLY the same.

Dolphin
http://rudd-o.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dolphin-showing-the-ro...

New Finder
http://images.apple.com/macosx/features/images/finder_gallery01_200...

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Finder
by Hiev on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Finder"
RE[3]: Finder
by theine on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Finder"
theine Member since:
2005-09-29

Dolphin is a rippoff of windows vista explorer.

You're a ripoff.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Finder
by Hiev on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Finder"
RE[2]: Finder
by evangs on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Finder"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

This is not meant to be a troll, but what exactly makes Dolphin so awesome? It looks like any other file manager, minus the clutter that put me off Konqueror.

Why should Apple and Microsoft take a long look at Dolphin? The answer isn't obvious to me.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Finder
by Hiev on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Finder"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Nothing really, is pretty much the same, but KDE users are to passional and love to see the attention redirected towards KDE, be it in a OSX, MS or GNOME topic.

A bad practice if you ask me, it just make us all tired of KDE.

Edited 2007-10-29 18:02

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Finder
by Darkelve on Mon 29th Oct 2007 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Finder"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"A bad practice if you ask me, it just make us all tired of KDE. "

Hi, I'm very sorry for being passionate about something not Mac/Windows! :p

"It looks like any other file manager, minus the clutter that put me off Konqueror."

Well the 'minus the clutter part' is very important to me.

I just think it's one of the sanest implementations of file management that I have seen yet, just like MS and Apple have saner implementations of other things in the OS.

Actually I'm excited about Leopard too since I'm in the market for a Macbook, but I'm not blind to the shortcomings of either Linux/KDE stuff or other software. Okay, let me restate that as "MS/Apple should take a short look (quick look - ha!) at Dolphin and take the best things from it. It's hard to explain what is so nice about Dolphin... the implementation just is very smart (to me).

And I like all the 3 most-talked-about operating systems.

Edited 2007-10-29 18:40

Reply Score: 2

v RE[5]: Finder
by Hiev on Mon 29th Oct 2007 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Finder"
RE[6]: Finder
by Darkelve on Mon 29th Oct 2007 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Finder"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Just put the passion in the topics they belong, that simple, the abuse gets anoying."

Okay, how about:

the new Finder looks like it has been improved a lot, but it could still benefit from features found in other file managers (such as in other OS-es or in 3d party Mac replacements).

There you go. No specifics, no irritation. At least, you'd think.

Edited 2007-10-29 18:43

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Finder
by Hiev on Mon 29th Oct 2007 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Finder"
RE[5]: Finder
by evangs on Wed 31st Oct 2007 11:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Finder"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

All you've said is still just fluff. What exactly are they supposed to see in Dolphin? It looks exactly like every other file manager out there. What are these "best things" that you harp on about?

Reply Score: 2

Spatial Finder
by wbustraan on Mon 29th Oct 2007 14:48 UTC
wbustraan
Member since:
2007-10-29

I've been a mac user for several years. Since I've started using Mac OS X, I've pretty much used Column View exclusively. I'm the same way in Windows; I always immediately turn off the "Open each folder in its own window and turn on the hierarchical folder list on the side.

I still don't understand the fixation with the "spatial" finder. As I understand it, "spatial" mode means that each folder is associated with its own window.

So then, if that's the case, if I'm a Java developer and wish to navigate to the source file for a package like, say, org.apache.commons.logging.impl.SimpleLog.java, I'm going to end up with at least 5 or more separate folder windows on my screen, each popping up somewhere on my screen wherever they were last positioned?

That doesn't seem like an improvement to me; it sounds like more time spent managing windows.

Can someone enlighten me?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spatial Finder
by Johann Chua on Mon 29th Oct 2007 15:31 UTC in reply to "Spatial Finder"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Spatial file managers make drag and drop easier.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Spatial Finder
by wbustraan on Mon 29th Oct 2007 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Spatial Finder"
wbustraan Member since:
2007-10-29

Spatial file managers make drag and drop easier.


Hmm, I don't see why.

Generally, one of the requirements of drag and drop is that is that the source object and the destination both need to be visible on screen so you can pick up the object and drop it on the destination.

With the "spatial" finder system, if I navigate to my source object, I'll end up with potentially several windows representing the parent folders on screen. Then, when I navigate to find the destination folder, I'll potentially have MORE windows on screen, and it's likely that one or more of those new windows will be obscuring the folder containing the source object. I now have to reposition or bring to the foreground both windows in order to perform the drag and drop.

Contrast that to opening only two 'browser' style windows, 'browsing' to the source in one and the destination in the other and then performing the drag and drop.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Spatial Finder
by evangs on Mon 29th Oct 2007 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spatial Finder"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

I use column view exclusively too. I don't think I've met a Mac user who doesn't use column view. On Nautilus, I set it to work like a browser. Like you, I find having many windows open at a time more of a hindrance than a help.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spatial Finder
by kaiwai on Mon 29th Oct 2007 19:34 UTC in reply to "Spatial Finder"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I still don't understand the fixation with the "spatial" finder. As I understand it, "spatial" mode means that each folder is associated with its own window.


I don't understand the whole fixation with it spatial as if it were something brand new/revolutionary.

This whole 'browser' idea was popularised by the integration of IE4 into Windows 95, years ago - in an attempt to turn the GUI of the operating system into something that could be navigated like the web. Out of this was born the 'Network User Interface' - an example of this would be Triteal and their Java driven shell for Windows NT many years ago.

Before this, everything was spatial - Workbench/Atari/System 7 etc. Personally, I think the whole idea of the browser is limiting - to claim that the browser is easier ignores the basic reality that prior to this, people were happy using spatial, its just that people aren't used to something different, just as the move to browser confused alot of people (including me).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Spatial Finder
by axel on Mon 29th Oct 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Spatial Finder"
axel Member since:
2006-02-04

"Before this, everything was spatial - Workbench/Atari/System 7 etc. Personally, I think the whole idea of the browser is limiting - to claim that the browser is easier ignores the basic reality that prior to this, people were happy using spatial, its just that people aren't used to something different, just as the move to browser confused alot of people (including me)."

yeah but then again no one had a million files on their hard drive on an amiga

and of course terminals work more like browser than spatial

Edited 2007-10-29 20:00

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spatial Finder
by Luminair on Mon 29th Oct 2007 20:19 UTC in reply to "Spatial Finder"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I'm pretty sure the revival of "spatial" multi-window file browsing is thanks to the dumb part of the user interface design crowd that does a study or two and thinks they have the world figured out.

"Spatial" multi-window file browsing works great for some people doing some things with some file structures some of the time...

Reply Score: 2

finder
by dude on Mon 29th Oct 2007 16:04 UTC
dude
Member since:
2007-09-27

maybe i missed it in the review, but have they finally put a "cut" command in finder? Having to drag between folders or copy->paste->delete is really lame. This is just one of those little details that OS X seems to ignore that would make a lot of people's life a lot easier.

Reply Score: 2

RE: finder
by Adam S on Mon 29th Oct 2007 17:38 UTC in reply to "finder"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

have they finally put a "cut" command in finder?


No.

Reply Score: 1

Interesting
by zizban on Mon 29th Oct 2007 19:13 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have mixed feelings when it comes to 10.5. I dunno. I haven't decide if I'll upgrade. I like Spaces, like 64 bit, I hate, hate the new Dock. The Finder is what it is.

Reply Score: 2

New finder icons
by geekgod on Mon 29th Oct 2007 19:47 UTC
geekgod
Member since:
2005-06-29

I cannot help to agree with the authors comments concerning the finder. The new icons are just too plain looking and are very hard to distinguish from the other icons without looking a few times. This is about the only annoying thing (IMHO) that I can find in OSX. Otherwise it is a magnificent piece of work and I look forward to using it daily for some time to come.

Reply Score: 1

irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

By the way, it seems that Leopard may have serious problems with Java 1.6. As to other problems, some users have also reported that they've even got blue screens of death when trying to install Leopard:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/29/no_java_for_leopard/

(Not saying that Leopard wouldn't be good (?) but just thought that people reading the comments related to this review might be interested to know about those potential issues too.)

Edited 2007-10-29 20:43

Reply Score: 2

GUI customization
by buff on Mon 29th Oct 2007 20:37 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I like the progress Apple is making with OS X but the way the author describes the GUI changes scares me away from it. I look at the control I have in Gnome to mix icons, window borders, colors, and transparency and I can get a custom look I love. Apple seems to make these decisions for you so you have to use it their way. It is a beautiful looking OS but just not very personal.

Reply Score: 2

Will there be any working Java?
by J.R. on Tue 30th Oct 2007 12:45 UTC
J.R.
Member since:
2007-07-25

I was considering purchasing a macbook pro in half a year or something when my old laptop is due for a retirement. Since I have had my share of problems with non-working hardware on Linux (how hard is it to not kill the computer each time I close the lid?) I was thinking of Mac OS X since everything seems to "just work". However, I am a Java developer, and if there is no updated Java then I mind as well just forget it right away.

Does _anyone_ know _anything_ about Java 6 and later for Mac OS X?

Reply Score: 1

Objective C
by wanker90210 on Tue 30th Oct 2007 20:32 UTC
wanker90210
Member since:
2007-10-26

"With Leopard, Mac OS X's API future is clearer than it's ever been. The future is Objective-C, Cocoa, 64-bit."

Please excuse a soon to be Mac owner; is there another reason for Objective C than the Next legacy? Apart from Mac, isn't it more or less a dead language?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Objective C
by rorya on Thu 1st Nov 2007 14:13 UTC in reply to "Objective C"
rorya Member since:
2007-11-01

GnuStep uses it as well, but that's really another OpenStep implementation.

But anyhow, the improvements Apple have made with Obj-C 2.0 are good, having the garbage collection option and such.

I think the direction taken with Obj-C makes more sense than the apporach MS & SUN have taken with .NET & Java, respectively, where the whole runtime is implemented separately from the OS's native runtime. Obj-C is nice in that it is a higher abstraction of the OS's native runtime. Also, it still allows one to take advantage of the power of the underlying C runtime, when needed.

Reply Score: 1