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.
Mac OS X 10.5.2: Optional Translucent Menubar, DVD/CD Sharing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
New scroll bars anyone???Lol... Well at least we know Safari will be snappier
Thank you! Who gives a frick about some stupid translucent menu bar option? The aqua scroll bars don't belong in Leopard. If any aesthetic change should happen it should be the scroll bars.
But in all honesty, people on the forum should be more concerned about apps running properly and more efficient with the update rather than the translucent menu bar.
There are already a host of utilities out there that can assist with this, but if you are not afraid of entering a one-line Terminal command, do this:
Code:
defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall DockThat will get you the same 2D style Dock you see when moving the dock to the left or right of the screen.
My feelings also - usually you don't want any reflections on your screen - why the hell start with them?
Babygotback.com claims the update is 400MB, if this is true then we all should expect many of the features to end up in the public release. Apple has never sent out a software update this big. The most I've seen is 160MB for Mac OS X.
Oh I did as well. It works to a certain degree however some of the UI still reveals the aqua and some applications bypass the my new scrollbars and show up with the old aqua ones.
That's why I changed them to the iTunes scrollbars
Oh I did as well. It works to a certain degree however some of the UI still reveals the aqua and some applications bypass the my new scrollbars and show up with the old aqua ones.
Thanks! That works better than:
defaults write com.apple.dock orientation -string top;killall Dock
I couldn't agree more...
Of course, it's great to have options, because each one has individual preferences that count...
Yes
What would that do to my settings, libraries etc.? And to answer your question: no. I seem to have misplaced my Aperture install-disc, along with my serial-number when I moved houses
That said, the Apple Discussion Boards are full of people complaining about this problem. Many of them have tried re-installing and it didn't help.
The main reason I suggested all this is that Aperture runs very well on my system (BlackBook, Rev A). I certainly don't have any of the problems which you outlined.
Trashing the Aperture Application (provided you find your copy) doesn't matter.
All the imporant files are:
a] Aperture Library usually in (~/pictures/), but could be anywhere
b] com.apple.Aperture.plist in (~/Library/Preferences/)
c] Aperture System ID in (/Library/Application Support/ProApps/)
tilde (~) stands for your home folder. Choose Go > Go to Folder and paste any of the paths above into the box if you are having trouble finding stuff.
Sent all this info as a Private Message, as it might get lost in this big thread.
Go compress a program and tell me how much size you squeeze out.
Then go compress a text file. See the difference?
Scroller Bars
When is Apple gonna fix the scroller bars in Leopard? When leopard was announced, they said that the theme for everything was going to be standardised, (ie all brushed metal removed).
However, the scrollbars in Safari and the finder (old aqua) are still different than in itunes / iphoto (dull blue / grey).
A simple thing that seems to have been overlooked!
When is Apple gonna fix the scroller bars in Leopard? When leopard was announced, they said that the theme for everything was going to be standardised, (ie all brushed metal removed).
However, the scrollbars in Safari and the finder (old aqua) are still different than in itunes / iphoto (dull blue / grey).
A simple thing that seems to have been overlooked!
This is great. Maybe they'll listen even more and have a non-terminal way to use the flat dock instead of the psychedelic and inconsistent 3D one. Maybe 10.5.2 will fix my unstable internet on OS X too. That would make me switch back to it.
I hadn't noticed them
Thanks!!! I might just wait for 10.5.2 to see if they correct it themselves. If not, i'll install this!
Um, no. The fact that the update is at 400 megs and growing is an indication that Leopard was released in a rush and incomplete, despite having six extra months to complete it.
Um, no. The fact that the update is at 400 megs and growing is an indication that Leopard was released in a rush and incomplete, despite having six extra months to complete it.
FYI the combo update for Tiger from 10.4.11 from 10.4.0 was a mere 180MB (PPC) and 320MB for Intel.
With Leopard they probably have overheads due to everything being in one update but 400MB is a huge update this early. What is it going to be like by the time 10.5.9+ rolls round 1GB maybe
This is SIMPLY AWESOME. Apple proves once more that it's the ONLY company in the world which is driven by design and which provides for almost prompt solutions based on the feedback of its customers...most changes highlighted here are FEATURES, not bug-fixes...Leopard has been an outstanding success all over the world, and Apple just makes the best even better now.
In fact, it's amazing how quick Apple is in responding to the requests of its customers...try that on a Microsoft or any other jurassic profit-driven IT company...you won't find it.
I am pretty sure SJ reads these forums after all...
GO APPLE!
Um, no. The fact that the update is at 400 megs and growing is an indication that Leopard was released in a rush and incomplete, despite having six extra months to complete it.
if you say so.
If the system preferences takes up 3 meg for the executable and all they changed was the ability to enable or disable the opaque menu bar, they still have to re-distribute the whole 3 meg, which is mostly uncompressable. Does that mean the whole 3MB of compiled code was bad? no, they added a feature.. but it added 2.8 megs to the distributable package.
The size of the patch, IMHO has nothing to do with how much was fixed other than the amount of compiled code contained within. A fix could be a single re-write of 10 lines of code or a complete overhaul. Either way it's compiled code that has limited compression ability. Which in turn makes package sizes swell up and 'seem' huge.
I'm not saying the list of fixes in 10.5.2 isn't long, I'm just saying the size of the package is hardly an indication to go by.
