What I would like is a recovery option like in windows xp so if you break something you can return
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 Details?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry but you are totally wrong on this one.BGil said:
THERE WILL BE NO DVD COPYING BUILT IN VISTA.
IT IS ILLEGAL REGARDLESS OF WHO DOES IT. Its the DCMA.
It WILL however have HD-DVD managed copying.
Which anyone BTW can implement.
Bill Gates was complaining about this very issue.
Mainyehc said:This just isn't true! I've extensively added Spotlight comments to many different photo collections of mine, via an Automator action, and then backed them up to a DVD, and guess what? They are there, the very same comments I've added, except they're grayed out on the Get Info window (since they now reside in read-only media, duh!)... You should check the facts before posting stuff, no?
To a UDF formated DVD? No. OS X uses HFS+ formated discs specifically to deal with Mac metadata issues. That's why OS X gives you the option of makming "PC compatible discs"... Otherwise it litters ._files all over the place On a UDF disc), which aren't part of the file. Writing actual keywords to files (like JPEG's) makes that metadata cross-platform and transportable to nearly any common modern file system (whether disc based or hard drive based). That's why certian types of files support various metadata formats in the first place (like ID3 tags or EXIF). My point was that Spotlight comments aren't written to the file like keywords so they aren't transferable to other systems
But yes, you are correct that Spotlight comments do transfer in situations that are Mac to Mac only. Thank you for the correction.
.
It's not illegal even according to the DMCA. As long as it's for personal use and not for distribution or profit then it can be done just like ripping a music CD. Several major PC vendors ship with DVD ripping software in their configs, Gateway-Emachines being the largest by supplying Nero. In fact, all of the largest DVD software makers for PC make DVD ripping software-- that's Intervideo, Ahead (Nero), and Cyberlink. This software is sold in nearly every major electronics store in the US so obviously it's not illegal.
BGil said:
DMCA prevents the unauthorized decryption of data. It has nothing to do with User Rights which you are talking about. Are you telling me that those DVD-Rip programs have the blessing of the movie industry? They have licences from all the content creators, and the riped movie is still encrypted? If the answer is no, then its violating DMCA which makes those programs illeagal in the US. Just becuase its not generally pursued doesn't mean its not illeagal (like say pot-smoking teenagers)
Yes, the DMCA violates fair use.
If apple shipped dvd-rip software in thier stuff, you can bet your life the RIAA would sue them to hell and back.
This is a pretty useless argument...BGil said:
Metadata capability has just recently been even added to UDF in v2.5 wich has been around for little over a year or two.
And as I said, its pretty useless becuase windows XP CANNOT READ UDF 2.5 anyways! So in you example, I burn to UDF, all metadata is preserved in 2.5 format, you load it in windows xp, windows says "The file or directory is corrupt and unreadable" you blame apple for thier "proprietary blablabla..."
So you see, there is no simple answer. Period.
While it's long been a noble idea I think you're underestimating some complex, non-trivial issues encountered when trying to implement a "universal installer/deinstaller" for OS X, including cooperation from third-party developers to use it (some who already bundle an installer/uninstaller with their software). Also consider what's involved in getting the "where they get moved to afterwards" part of your utility to work reliably. Still, semi-universal installers/deinstaller do exist and can work quite effectively on other OSes (e.g. Linux) and I agree that Apple could be doing more to provide more of that kind of functionality with OS X.funkychunkz said:
I consider using .DS_Store files to store Finder (Spotlight) comments a kludge since it's too easy to unintentionally (and often irretrievably) erase that metadata, with the inescapable negative side effect of it being unreliable for storing important information. That makes some of the tag-based lookup services implemented using Spotlight and Finder comments too risky for me to seriously consider.Mainyehc said:
It's not automatic like XP, but you can set up a simple system recovery mechanism on OS X using the Safety Clone (Sandbox) feature with SuperDuper!. One advantage is being able to revert the system to a more specific known state than is possible (AFAIK) with XP's restore, unless XP has a way to create a checkpoint before making changes that you can revert to later.nickgoldman said:
Fukui said:
Do you have any information that shows that OS X can write UDF 2.5 to normal DVD's?
Numerous (every major?) DVD burning software on Windows supports UDF 2.5 so the disc works fine on XP if you have the right software. The issue is Apple using "Spotlight comments" instead of "keywords" which are already defined for that purpose. For the most popular formats there is no reason for Apple to not use "Keywords". It would be akin to itunes strapping artists and album info to an MP3 by using something other than an ID3 (v1 or 2) tag. Also, there are many other senarios where files should be more transportable. Since FAT32 is the only file system univerally supported on Windows, Mac, and *nix, it would make sense to degrade metadata gracefully on such filesystems (usb key drives are often FAT32). Then there are network solutions for which Spotlight comments also don't transfer well. Using keywords where possible would eliminate these problems completely for most common formats (RTF, office/openoffice documents, PDF's, jpegs, mpeg, mov, wma/v etc.). That's why those formats were constructed that way int he first place.
That's really cool, I didn't know such a thing existed for OS X. I may just buy a copy because I hate doing archive and install everytime something messes up a feature in FCP.
XP does allow you to create a restore point arbitrarily and it automatically makes one everytime you install anything. It's a nice feature but the amount of space it takes up on the drive can be mind boggling. I usually turn system restore off unless I'm doing some major drive/shareware stuff.
Spotlight comments use the same mechanism as keywords.BGil said:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/6
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/7
Keywords as they are understood in Vista (As Of Now) are flat keys of text that mark a file. They are added as a metadata to the file using some kind of mechanism, be it filesystem or separate database.
Spotlight comments add metadata to the file that can be any type of text marked by a reverse-dns style identifier. Be it called keywords or comments they both would use setxattr() to the file. Setting a two-level key and value. For example. com.itunes.artist.name could be set to Coldplay instead of just "Coldplay" like ASAIK Vista would allow.
OS X allows not just metadata but metadata for metadata.
Wich do you find more useful?
Seach:Coldplay or
Search: Artist Name = Colplay ??
Don't let semantics hide the fact that finder comments are just another type of keyword.
Which specific information on those pages leads you to that conclusion about Spotlight comments?Fukui said:
Sorry, that's demonstrably incorrect. Spotlight (Finder) comments are stored in .DS_Store files (as I mentioned earlier), not as extended attributes. Try a test like this:
Create a file, preferably in an empty directory
Add a Spotlight comment to the file
Run "hexdump -C .DS_Store" from a Terminal shell in the directory containing the file and notice the Spotlight comment in the ASCII representation of the output
Delete the .DS_Store file
Relaunch Finder
Run Get Info from Finder on the file and notice the empty Spotlight comment (typically). If it's still there try deleting .DS_Store and running Get Info again. I'm not sure how caching is involved there.
And notice that Spotlight comments aren't a metadata attribute listed by running the mdls command.
Also, it's a common myth that Spotlight (Finder) comments are stored in file resource forks. If that were true they'd have external "._" prefixed files associated with them (when necessary) instead of that metadata being embedded in .DS_Store files.
I don't think it's necessary to get any geekier to prove this.
zv470 said:
Agreed, this seems like a very sensible way to do it.
Only problem is how to arbitrate files which belong to more than on application. Let's say you install App1 which installs ShLib.lib. Then you install App2 which needs same version of ShLib.lib, sees it's already there, and do leaves it as is. Now if you uninstall App1, it takes ShLib.lib with it and App2 breaks.
There needs to be some kind of reference count system, like in Cocoa.
It's amazing...no matter how much that BGil troll touts XP and Vista's dreamed-of features, they are, and will always be, crappy OSs...we don't have to talk about a list of arcane features, we must talk about ease of use, stability, streamlined structures and REAL functionality...and ONLY Mac OS X delivers that.
I started a new activity at an international organization, and was so happy to work on my "old" iBook G3 with Tiger...all the others (including the director) operate on XP PCs...and the overhead that they have to endure is AMAZING...McAffee AV, firewall manager, spyware manager, crashes all over the place and that dreaded Norton Systemworks or whatever...they end up being FAR slow than my old Mac...and I end up working more as an in-house technical assistant than a lawyer...tragically funny.
The last thing I saw was some sort of WMV movie that ALWAYS opened up automatically at Opera browser, whenever a web page was called for...I could only get rid of it when I turned off "start using last viewed page", automatic ActiveX crap and deleted cookies...PCs SUCK, and SUCK HARD INDEED.
Get a grip and get real, BGil...the more you talk, the more I love my Macs. Use one and feel the difference, please.
I started a new activity at an international organization, and was so happy to work on my "old" iBook G3 with Tiger...all the others (including the director) operate on XP PCs...and the overhead that they have to endure is AMAZING...McAffee AV, firewall manager, spyware manager, crashes all over the place and that dreaded Norton Systemworks or whatever...they end up being FAR slow than my old Mac...and I end up working more as an in-house technical assistant than a lawyer...tragically funny.
The last thing I saw was some sort of WMV movie that ALWAYS opened up automatically at Opera browser, whenever a web page was called for...I could only get rid of it when I turned off "start using last viewed page", automatic ActiveX crap and deleted cookies...PCs SUCK, and SUCK HARD INDEED.
Get a grip and get real, BGil...the more you talk, the more I love my Macs. Use one and feel the difference, please.
Yep, thats right.sjk said:
Its even easier with pathfinder, just turn on hidden files, add a comment in the finder, and watch the .DS_Store file show up.
But, even with that, it still doesnt mean Spotlight comments dont behave to the end user just like keywords do. Just type say "my favorite file" in the comments, and search for favorite or file or "my file" it'll find it. I use it to find folders I've hidden of Photoshop CS2 (so I just have one icon), the comment is "Photoshop CS2 Required," if I search for "CS2 Required" they show up, just like a hypothetical Keyword search. I can then copy the app while still keeping those annoying folders hidden. And it does seem to still get added to the spotlight index.
It is dissapointing its not in the "Filesystem," but the result seems arguably the same...
You might enjoy reading today's "The Ninety-Nine-Per-Cent Solution" blog entry.BGil said:
Thanks for the info re: XP restore points.
Sure, though I'd certainly prefer Spotlight comments be first-class metadata citizens for the sake of sustained integrity compared with the currently more volatile method of storing them in Finder-centric .DS_Store files.Fukui said:It is dissapointing its not in the "Filesystem," but the result seems arguably the same...
Anyway, it's a pretty safe bet that we haven't seen the last of what Apple intends to do with this and other metadata.
Good grief, call the fanboi police.BRLawyer said:
Personally, BGil's "trolling" has brought up some potentially interesting points for comparison between Windows and OS X (whichever versions whenever), yet many have been dismissed with subjectively shallow generalizations. I haven't always agreed with some of his (her?) claims or necessarily believed they're entirely accurate, but I get the impression he (she?) is discussing specific points fairly objectively, without resorting to personal attacks (cynicism excluded
), and can admit to being wrong when shown reasonable evidence, not oversimplified unquestioning opinions.I'd considered replying to some of the inaccurately sensationalized claims about OS X "defending" it from Vista but after reading some of the hostile reactions BGil was getting I decided it was safer just lurking. Hopefully any further discussion of the (sub)topics will continue without futile lowbrow arguments.
BGil said:
panther writes UDF 1.5 and does not support 2.x -- i do not know what tiger supports. why is this a big issue?
sjk said:Good grief, call the fanboi police.
Personally, BGil's "trolling" has brought up some potentially interesting points for comparison between Windows and OS X (whichever versions whenever), yet many have been dismissed with subjectively shallow generalizations. I haven't always agreed with some of his (her?) claims or necessarily believed they're entirely accurate, but I get the impression he (she?) is discussing specific points fairly objectively, without resorting to personal attacks (cynicism excluded
I'd considered replying to some of the inaccurately sensationalized claims about OS X "defending" it from Vista but after reading some of the hostile reactions BGil was getting I decided it was safer just lurking. Hopefully any further discussion of the (sub)topics will continue without futile lowbrow arguments.
No need for boot-licking interventions here, Hawaii man; I just stated my opinion that his posts are little more than long lists of arcane features that most, if not all, users will never notice in their daily routines. Besides, I don't have to discuss each of them, I have little spare time in my life, unfortunately.
Another thing I said, which you properly omitted, is the fact that, no matter how many "features" Vista incorporates, Windows shall always be a bloated, intrusive monster with no parallel in Apple's history of UI design and human interface guidelines. I am talking about real usage of the OS, and about real experiences at work with both Windows and OS X...believe me, OS X has always blown Windows outta the water.
Mac OS X does not suffer from a thousand pop-ups always reminding you of the obvious; it doesn't reduce your productivity to unacceptable levels because of crazy "AV/ASpyware/Awhatever" overheads; and it doesn't show a plethora of color buttons that bears resemblance to the baddest of bad cromatherapy techniques.
OS X takes rather a streamlined approach as far as the user is concerned, letting him do his work with no major worries; in other words, it just works. Again, the extensive footprint left in this topic by BGil and other Windows fanboys can be always summed up by Fox Mulder's expression: "I wanna believe" (in Windows)...no need to discuss it any further.
SiliconAddict said:Why is everyone feeding the troll?
Not by me, Silicon...I am done for this topic...10.5 is pretty far away anyway..!
Fukui said:Yep, thats right.
Its even easier with pathfinder, just turn on hidden files, add a comment in the finder, and watch the .DS_Store file show up.
But, even with that, it still doesnt mean Spotlight comments dont behave to the end user just like keywords do. Just type say "my favorite file" in the comments, and search for favorite or file or "my file" it'll find it. I use it to find folders I've hidden of Photoshop CS2 (so I just have one icon), the comment is "Photoshop CS2 Required," if I search for "CS2 Required" they show up, just like a hypothetical Keyword search. I can then copy the app while still keeping those annoying folders hidden. And it does seem to still get added to the spotlight index.
It is dissapointing its not in the "Filesystem," but the result seems arguably the same...
In many situations it is the same but in many other more advanced scenarios it is not. I still can't figure out how to create separate keywords with Spotlight comments. An example would entering in "New Amsterdam" into the Spotlight comments field but actually wanting the terms to show to completely separate terms-- i.e. "New" separate from "Amsterdam"-- because "New Amsterdam" is fundamentally different from "New" and "Amsterdam". Windows NT (2000, XP, 2003, Vista) allow you to separate the terms using a semicolon. As far as I can tell, Spotlight doesn't allow me to do that. IIRC, Ubuntu also allows for term separation.
It's not a big issue but it would be nice if Tiger could actually do so because it could improve my workflow dramatically. A lot of my work involves moving media files from one system to another. Keeping them cataloged and easily searchable is of great importance. The systems I use range between XP, Tiger, Windows Server 2003, and now a few Linux servers. Ironically, Windows and Linux seem to play together fairly well on the network. It's the Tiger machines that kinda mess everything up. Their network performance is spotty.
At home I have one Mac and several Windows XP/Vista/Ubuntu machines. The Mac is the only one that really doesn't respect the ecosystem. If I could put much of the Mac data in UDF 2.5 iso files (which would theoretically preserve all the metadata) then I could move them around the network without fear of losing metadata.
BGil said:
Then,sir, you are not a reasonable buyer. After pointing out so many short comings in a mac.. how come you own one?
Wait.. do you own winsupersite?