Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Apps and Mac App Store' started by MorganX, May 16, 2003.
that was a nice and well informed article. i'm glad it kind of stays on middle ground and never states that one is truly better than the other.
Yeah, good article.
Anyone see the UI videos of Longhorn, looks powerful but completely useless (and yes i know its only a concept but still...)
Very clever how the page floated or whatever, the genie effect gone mad, but why spoil it with that horrible green neon. It just seems they cannot get out of the way of waving the ugly wand over their UI's.
just remember, that microsoft will have somewhere on the order of two years to "innovate" from what Panther is. And the fact that their File System may be based off of their syle of SQL database, scares me.
but remember...apple is a lot quicker at getting OS updates out than microsoft is. we see major changes in about a sixth the time the windows users do.
Those demos suck bigtime... M$ once again rips off Apple. I cant wait to see Panther featuring an optimized Quartz Extreme engine and that baby running on a 970!! Yay!
Will kick M$´s ass... at least one year ahead.
One reason Microsoft may be waiting is for higher density LCDs.
Supposedly their sub-pixel Clear type antialiasing can provide crisp text on one of these.
By the time Microsoft releases Longhorn, Apple will probably have released three major OS upgrades. I think that Panther is going to be huge and will completely blow XP out of the water. Then two more upgrades after that which will be just as advanced and amazing so that when windows longhorn arrives we will have already beaten them.
IMO that's the best feature they've added in a very very long time. Database filesystems rock, from what I've read (mostly about BFS, but the concept is the same). I'm really hoping the rumors about Panther having something similar are true.
It can. Fortunately, Mac OS X already has sub-pixel font rendering via Quartz. The only difference is that Apple did not attempt to come up with a fancy new trademark name for an idea that's been kicking around for perhaps two decades.
IMHO, Apple ALWAYS had the best, most usable desktop OS (yes, even 9)... Really, the only thing we're lacking is the high powered hardware... I think that Apple is busting their ass right now to correct this problem, WITHOUT going to Intel (thankfully, in my opinion).. I believe they prolly lined up to have Moto G5's in the Quicksilver series... Ahhhhhh well... M$ will ALWAYS rip off Apple, and ALWAYS be behind in the desktop OS arena, period, even though they have more market share... However, as you guys (and ladies) know, not all M$ Windoze are compatible... The actual 'market share' of any of these given OS' is far less... Just a thought...
I also believe that PC manufacturers and M$ wait to see what Apple is gonna do before they jump into their new stuff... It's like they use Apple as a blueprint; and because the majority of Windoze users don't pay attention to Apple, they think it's brand new when HP or M$ comes out with a new product that totally rips off Apple... A weird situation...
Yeah, I don't get it. Sure it's cool that they have the windows spinning around but how is that useful? What is the point?
I agree, I wouldn't be surprised to see our OS doing something similar in Panther. It's cool but certainly not far from what our OS currently does and, as mentioned before, we've had it for 2 years now and theirs won't be OUT for 2 MORE years!
As a matter of fact we DO have a research and development division, it's called "Apple Computers".
It was in someone's signiture on another board, I found it quite funny and true.
Can you imagine how much ra you are going to need for this beast. By the time they roll it out in 2005, you'll end up needing 512mb minimum just to install the OS. Based on the escalating reqs so far.
But by the same token, OS X certainly loves RAM. The minimum (even for the very first release of OS X) is 128 MB. My wifes iBook was running on 128 MB up until about 6 weeks ago and it was a dog. I dropped in an addtional 512 and now it's just fine.
I would imagine that the minimum requirement for OS X is also going to increase as time rolls on, it's just a given. My old Performa came with 4 MB and I added 16 for a WHOPPING 20 MB total! Truthfully, it ran just fine on 4 until I installed PS, that really bogged it down.