View Full Version : Build Your First Cocoa App
May 22, 2001, 09:02 AM
There's a great article (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/2001/05/18/cocoa.html?page=1) over at O'Reilly (http://www.oreillynet.com) entitled Build Your First Cocoa App, which walks you through doing just that. If you installed the Dev Tools that come with OS X you can follow this guide and, without writing a single line of code, create a simple Cocoa application. It's a great introduction to the power and versatility that's offered by App Kit and Cocoa. This is the first of a series of articles that will take this simple application and expand upon it, article to article. Even if you don't aspire to be a developer, take the time to check it out.
May 22, 2001, 09:03 AM
O'Reilly is also coming out with a Cocoa book, entitled...Cocoa in the next month or so.
[Edited by blakespot on 05-22-2001 at 01:52 PM]
May 24, 2001, 07:20 AM
Ahhhh. So the reason OS X is sickeningly sluggish is because it is not a full Cocoa app. That explains it. however couldn't the programmers at apple program some drivers that would put the entire system navigation on to the inbuilt ATIs? I mean, i thought my G3/400 would be good enough for OSX. But with 128Mb ram it runs like. *#$(@! Im gonna install 256Mb hoping for improvements. A question for Blakespot: I am planning on investing in a G4 Titanium this December. IS THIS A WISE DECISION? Or might apple bring out G5 laptops next year? Should i do this when the G4 titanium might have reached its "half-life" by then? My G3/400 lasted me almost two years. Now it is starting to get outdated.
May 29, 2001, 01:49 PM
I do have a B&W G3 400 and even with 512MB RAM and UltraWide SCSI, it does feel aged running OS X. It's FINE under OS 9.1, etc. The problem is that there's no 2D acceleration being done by the video hardware to speed up Quartz and its massive CPU demand. I am sure that this will be addressed in part by drivers on current hardware and in part by new 2D acceleration hardware on future boards (vector-based 2D GUI's are definitely going to start popping up--OS X is leading the way--so the hardware will come). BUT, for now and I think this will be the case on out till the end of the year and bit beyond, it will take more CPU power to get OS X feeling super snappy.
Remember tho--OS 9 feel faster true, but its cooperative "multitasking" system is bad and wrong. Bad and wrong and it's amazing it's been the way of things on the Mac for this long. (The original Win95 multitasking kernel was leaps and bounds ahead of what MacOS 9.1 offers as far as a robust kernel--sad but dead true.)
Anyway--my plan is to get a dual 733MHz G4 tower, which should exist by then. UNLESS there is a 1GHz+ G4 that is shown, in benchmarks, to tear up the dual unit for general OS X apps, in which case I'll get that unit. At that point (Jan '02, when I plan the purchase, from the Tyson's Apple Store!) my machine will be 3 years old. That's old.
But for laptops--I'm the wrong person to ask. I am either in front of a machine all day at work or in front of one of my machines whenever I want to be, at home, in the evening. I really don't have a need for a laptop. Especially since I carry an iPAQ PocketPC around with me for a bit of portable utility. So as far as motivations that go into the purchase of one, you'd need to make your own call. I like the coolness of Apple's laptops (I see little in others' offerings) but prefer the power of the desktop units, which are going to have faster video, a faster bus, etc. Sorta like the Cube--it's crazy fine to behold, but the (aging) tower design simply allows more power and certainly expandability (who would use a computer with just one video card and monitor, for instance?).
Anyway -- just some thoughts.