Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard Mac OS X 10.5 9A321 Screenshots
- Thread starter Diatribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
All those people saying they don't see any reason to upgrade will have a shock when they see the number of new applications coming out that will ONLY run on 10.5.
So far this includes Delicious Library 2.0 and Textmate but I imagine there will be others too.
10.5 is a dream come true for developers so expect applications to drive upgrades and NOT gimmick features.
So far this includes Delicious Library 2.0 and Textmate but I imagine there will be others too.
10.5 is a dream come true for developers so expect applications to drive upgrades and NOT gimmick features.
Now that is cool! It is possible for applications to quit the Finder (some Mac OS X installers do this), but there really is no need for the user to quit the Finder if the application in question can do it for you.
If I were you, I'd suggest to the developers to offer a "Finder-replacement" mode that auto-launches the app at startup and quits the Finder, for users like you that love the cool 3D interface.
Oh for those days! The RISC OS 'finder' really was excellent. The 'drag and drop' save method was pure brilliance and has never been beaten. Check out that screen-shot above - why navigate all the way through your directory structure to save something when you already have a finder window open on your target sub-folder. Simply pick up the save icon and drag it. Magic
Well, your PC might support USB booting but Windows XP and Windows Vista will NOT boot off a USB drive. Sure, you can do a pretty intensive hack to make XP boot off USB, but it's far beyond what most people can manage.
The problem in Windows' case is that it wasn't really designed to boot off of anything other than an internal hard drive, and every single solution devised to make Windows boot from anything else - CD, USB, FireWire, what have you - is "hacktastic". Mac OS X, on the other hand, is meant to be booted from other devices (hence the Startup Disk system preference pane), and even boots from non-writable devices (though this requires a few hacks, as Mac OS X, like most OSes, expects certain directories to be writable, and freaks out if they're not).
Damn...is that true? I didn't know Windows was THAT bad...yet another reason to be a Mac-fanboy...
I bet that Microsoft has about zillion machines running Leopard preview as we speak. Which is why I find the comment about website putting prerelease screenshots of Leopard on the net so that Microsoft could use them to steal features from Apple to be... well, dumb.
I just get that nasty "oh my god, leave me alone, I don't need a help with everything!" kind of feeling that normally only Windows can deliver. I would hate to see Apple do the same. I think a Time Machine preference pane would be excellent.
No it's not. True, you have SOME wasted space, but we have quite a big resolutions in our monitors these days, so any space that gets "wasted" on menubars in marginal at best.
I do like the universal menubar, but I do see two problem in it. First of all, it makes "focus follows mouse" impossible. I like a scheme where I can change the app that has focus by simply moving the cursor over the app. In OS X, that would simply not work, since it would make accessing the menubar impossible. The second problem I see is with large resolutions and multimonitor setups. In multimonitor setups, the menubar is available in just one screen, right? What if your app-window is in the other screen? You have to move the cursor all the way to the other screen, just so you could access the menubar. Same thing if you have one hi-resolution screen. The bigger the resolution, the bigger the distance between the app and it's menubar.
IIRC, I have seen that happen in OS X.
Related to this: there is one feature that I had in Linux that I would like to see in OS X as well. In Linux I could launch apps (for example, my IM) when I logged in, and it would load in the background. It would be up and running, and I would be logged in, but there would be no app-window visible, it would just be in the systray. When I log in to OS X, I have set it up so that it loads iChat automatically. But I haven't found a way to load it so that it does NOT display the app-window. So I have to close the window manually every time (the app keeps on running in the background, however).
I would gladly buy ALL my movies and music in the iTunes Store IF they were without DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM! Down with DRM!
Yes it does. Of course there are many GUI's to choose from, but GNOME (for example) is very, very simple and clean. In some ways it's cleaner than OS X, since it doesn't suffer from the disease where every app has it's own kinf of UI like OS X does. iTunes has a look of it's own, Finder has another look, Garageband has that fake-wood thing going on etc. etc.
Like it or not, such a scheme has some advantages over the OS X menubar. And OS X menubar has it's own set of advantages. So it's not like the Mac OS menubar is the only correct way of doing things, whereas the "Windows-way" is 100% retarded. each approach has it's upsides and downsides.
No problem! I can't wait to do a demo of what I want to see in OS X, or what I don't want to see anymore, and the comparison between OS X and the features/UI in Windows XP. I'm just waiting til the expo to get a Macbook so I can run Windows in order to do a video of the comparisons. Don't worry, I'll post the video here and on YouTube.
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCrOriginally Posted by vmardianHm, how are they doing this with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD? I always thought they were 1080p?
1080p x 30fps x 24 bpp = 626 GB / hour. The best lossless video compression scheme (MSU) on RGB colour will do about 3:1 (average) so that brings it down to only 200 GB / hour!
The assumption of 24bits/pixel is wrong. Television signals (and MPEG et al) don't use an RGB color space. (Note that one of the hardware offloads for video processing is to do color space conversion in the GPU.)
Also see http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_video_codecs
"1.8 What video codecs will Blu-ray support?
MPEG-2 - enhanced for HD, also used for playback of DVDs and HDTV recordings.
MPEG-4 AVC - part of the MPEG-4 standard also known as H.264 (High Profile and Main Profile).
SMPTE VC-1 - standard based on Microsoft's Windows Media Video (WMV) technology.
Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases."
MPEG-2 - enhanced for HD, also used for playback of DVDs and HDTV recordings.
MPEG-4 AVC - part of the MPEG-4 standard also known as H.264 (High Profile and Main Profile).
SMPTE VC-1 - standard based on Microsoft's Windows Media Video (WMV) technology.
Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases."
So Blu-ray is compressed using MPEG-2, H.264, or WMV. HD-DVD supports the same codecs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd-dvd)
I think the Mac Mini is still shipping with Core Duo processors. So not all current Intel models will gain from 64 bit support. But it is possible to install Core 2 Duo processors in an Intel Mini as an unauthorized customization, so maybe an official 64-bit refresh of the Mini is just around the corner...
I think that the iChat/AIM integration comes mainly from intentional infrastructural design.
Like most other products, MSN uses its own proprietary infrastructure, so the main practical method of interoperability has been via "trusted 3rd party" services like Jabber gateways. Isn't is possible to sign in to a Jabber service using iChat? (If memory serves, AOL has been the major stick-in-the-mud for allowing Jabber-like programs to provide wide-ranging interoperability!)
props to aidenand anyone else who knows their sh*t
for anyone wondering. a quick google led me to this: http://creativebits.org/mac_os_x/quit_finder
mea culpa on that. the rest still stands.
for anyone wondering. a quick google led me to this: http://creativebits.org/mac_os_x/quit_finder
mea culpa on that. the rest still stands.
No problem! I can't wait to do a demo of what I want to see in OS X, or what I don't want to see anymore, and the comparison between OS X and the features/UI in Windows XP. I'm just waiting til the expo to get a Macbook so I can run Windows in order to do a video of the comparisons. Don't worry, I'll post the video here and on YouTube.
So Windows is your ideal OS? Then why even use Macs? Why not just get a PC from Dell or Gateway or build your own if you know how?
Or, if Windows isn't your idea OS, why not use Photoshop or something and make a few pictures of what your ideal OS would look like?
Of course it was dumb, Evangelion...even dumber is to take such comments so seriously; of course MS has better access to Leopard than through kids' websites...chill out and have a whisky, man.
from the same Wikipedia link:
1.7 How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.
However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).
Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.
While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.
If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.
However, as BD-ROM movies will require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed we're expecting to see is 2x (72Mbps).
Blu-ray also has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. The large NA value effectively means that Blu-ray will require less recording power and lower disc rotation speed than DVD and HD-DVD to achieve the same data transfer rate.
While the media itself limited the recording speed in the past, the only limiting factor for Blu-ray is the capacity of the hardware.
If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.
54 Mbps -> ~7 MB/sec -> ~24GB/hr
Most of the Blu-ray discs that I have, though, are at average around 15-20 Mbps, or on the order of 10 GB/hr.
(Since single layer Blu-ray is 25 GB, that's OK for most movies - but they have to leave off the bonus material unless it's DL.)
Yes, you are right, the Mac Mini has the Duo Core processors.
If iChat would like to support MSN, then they should connect to the MSN Cloud. Since iChat is just an interface to the AIM network, AIM should federate with MSN, just like Yahoo did..
Apple can't do anything apart from licensing MSN, if that's possible
People - wait a second! This whole argument about whether the menubar is in the window or at the top of the screen is moot for 90% of users. Unlike us few multi-task junkies who flip between applications faster than an secretary with a rolodex, most people use one application at a time - *maximized*! The only difference they'll notice between menubar placements are speed improvements related to Fitt's Law. The amount of screen real estate used by menubars for them is exactly the same in both cases.
Of course, for the rest of us, we can squabble over what we prefer as much as we want. I doubt it will make a lick of difference to Apple, though.
That would be if the movie updated each pixel for each frame which is a waste if what that pixel displays doesn't change. While this would probably be the simplest way to do it, it's not necesarily the best way. I'm no expert on video formats, but I do know that they often just send what changes in each frame and then have a key frame every x number of frames that has info for all the pixels.