Leopard Development Roadmap Revealed?

[skwoytek]

access to desktop has been critical in the past, and even current intel 10.4 system.
being able to touch the desktop with the cursor allows you to get control of a functional cursor if yr app is acting up and you get the Spinning Rainbow Beach Ball of Life.
have Safari open and maximized to the extent that it is up against the top system menu bar and the left edge of the screen. that little tiny rounded application curve is there for a purpose: position the cursor just right and you can touch the desktop and access finder.
rounded edges are there for more than to be different. they were needed.

That little tiny rounded application curve is still there. Take a look at the attached capture. The menubar is what has lost its curve, not the application. And clicking in the curve-void of the menubar is the same as clicking the menu bar itself - so no functional change.

Your scenario still works... though I've never needed it.

 

[AidenShaw]

Last but not least, BOTH Cocoa AND Carbon are supported in Leopard's 64-bit computing...so the whole debate about 64-bit capability is moot. From Apple's pages on Leopard development technologies:

"Leopard brings complete 64-bit support to all of the Mac OS X frameworks, allowing you to create Carbon and Cocoa applications that can take full advantage of the latest hardware now and well into the future."

Again, BOTH Carbon and Cocoa have FULL 64-bit support, even if Cocoa is obviously Apple's recommended framework. Thanks for your attention.

So, you've reversed your stance and you now support the idea that Carbon is in fact a living, growing API? Sounds like it to me....

In other words, if you have cross-platform procedural code - Carbon is the right API to use. If you have cross-platform OO code, then C++ is good. If you only want to sell your software on OSX, then Cocoa and Objective-C is a good answer.

For the third time - yes, the whole "Carbon is stuck in the past" idea is nonsense.... Glad that you're seeing the larger picture.

 

[Stella]

I hope Apple test this more than 10.4, which was a bit of train wreck. Glaring bugs that should have really been fixed. However, at least it wasn't as bad as Vista. The ultimate train wreck.

*Yes, there were more underlying changes in Vista than 10.4, but microsoft should have taken that into account.

 

[AppleMatt389]

This is not possible without modifying the application files - which should NEVER happen automatically.

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/25248/iconical

this seems to do it. and i dont understand what u mean by it "should NEVER happen automatically"

why not??

 

[Shagrat]

A much discussed topic... To not hear the 'gong', turn down your volume before restarting. DON'T MUTE, but merely turn it down all the way... That is an important difference to note... This will rid you of the 'gong'... People say that the noise is to notify you that all the system hardware tests have been passed... That probably won't go away...

At least it's not that godawful noise you get when you first boot up XP...you know the one that sounds like someone noodling away in one room on a crappy old string synth, and someone trying out a set of Vibes for the first time in another.

Yeessh!

 

[50548]

So, you've reversed your stance and you now support the idea that Carbon is in fact a living, growing API? Sounds like it to me....

In other words, if you have cross-platform procedural code - Carbon is the right API to use. If you have cross-platform OO code, then C++ is good. If you only want to sell your software on OSX, then Cocoa and Objective-C is a good answer.

For the third time - yes, the whole "Carbon is stuck in the past" idea is nonsense.... Glad that you're seeing the larger picture.

Fret not, Aiden Shaw; my first answer was in relation to a poster who said or implied that Apple was not fully supporting 64-bit in Carbon; so I quickly replied that Cocoa was and is the way to go.

Carbon is NOT a growing API, but it's alive in a few important stances as indicated above. Nevertheless, my initial answer innocently presumed that the poster's assumption was correct (no 64-bit for Carbon under Leopard).

Since such assumption is WRONG, this debate is moot. 64-bit is fully supported by Apple under both frameworks, unlike MS's foundering OS and its stupid market segmentation of "versions". So yeah...even if Adobe insists in using legacy code for its software or not employing Cocoa in a comprehensive manner, Carbon will be able to utilize 64-bit addressing under Leopard...no problem.

 

[AidenShaw]

64-bit is fully supported by Apple under both frameworks, unlike MS's foundering OS and its stupid market segmentation of "versions".

Not sure what kind of confused logic that you're applying here....

Like Linux, Solaris, OpenVMS and many other operating systems, Windows has a different installation kit for the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the OS. Apple has one combined kit for the two versions.

If you install the 32-bit version of Windows - of course 64-bit isn't supported. If you install the 32-bit version of a Linux - of course 64-bit isn't supported. D'oh.

(And of course, both Linux and Windows 32-bit systems can use up to 64 GiB of physical RAM, so you don't need 64-bit just because you want 8 GiB or more of RAM.)​

Are you trying to say that if you install the 64-bit version of Windows, that 64-bit isn't fully supported? How so?

By the way, Microsoft has already announced that the update for Windows Server 2008 (Longhorn Server) will be 64-bit only, the end of 32-bit systems is not far away.

In the near future, all systems will be 64-bit, and it will little matter how the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit was made. Whether you had separate 32-bit and 64-bit installation DVDs, or a single combined DVD won't be important (except that with the combined DVD you have more work to do).

 

[logotype]

Only one thing that I WANT changed, and that's to put the rounded corners back in the menubar. They've been there since 1984 and it would be really sad to lose them now.

I agree. Very sad.