I believe you are right. Apple is a member of both groups.
Heh... nah, I just cribbed that off Wikimedia Commons:
They are grasping for any sort of attention and as a result we get lame rumors like this.
Let's face it. Think Secret is washed up.
Gee Leopard might come out early and iLife either slightly sooner, or at the same time...... or after. See we were right!
What does that mean?
Anyway attempting to answer why I said "not true".
Applications can use 64b virtual addressing to get access to a HUGE virtual memory space. Having access to such a large memory space allows to them to work with extremely large data sets and in ways that don't require them to implement code to do some type of sliding memory window (attempting to fit their data set into a 32b aperture). It makes programming a lot easier in those situations.
Mac OS X 10.5 will allow graphical applications to use 64b virtual addressing (10.4 limited it to basic POSIX command line tools).
The above concept is independent of how much RAM can be installed in a system or addressed by the hardware.
Additionally on Intel based system having an application compiled for 64b virtual addressing also enables ISA extensions that can improve performance of an application... again a capability independent of how much RAM a system can support.
The finder is really an application.... but other applications use it to get to files, don't they?
yeah ive read it, and uh yeah i still dont undersand it
can anyone explain it in lehmens terms...
It's a file system. A file system is essentially the software that stores files on a disk, determining where to put them, and how to find them. Macintoshes normally use HFS+ for their file systems. Mac OS X also supports a file system called UFS, but almost nobody uses it. HFS+'s origins go back to later versions of classic Mac OS, where it was an upgrade to HFS, which in turn was designed back in the late 1980s, when most Macs primarily used 400k-1.4M floppy disks.
ZFS is an extremely advanced file system that supports a lot of things HFS+ doesn't. Many of them fit into the Macintosh "Just works" philosophy. For example, you can add a disk to your computer, and configure your existing "drive" to be spread over both the disk that was already in your computer, and the new one, without reformatting or losing any files. So by adding the disk, you've just added space to your computer, and it was completely transparent. No reorganizing of your disk is necessary.
ZFS is more future proof than HFS+ which means future Macs will be able to interoperate better with current Macs. It uses 128bit values to store things like file positions and sizes. What this boils down to is that you can have more bytes in a file than there are atoms in the universe, and ZFS will handle it gracefully. Of course, you'll need a disk that big, which you'll not be able to get, because, well, you'd need a lot of atoms
Older file systems generally get "upgraded" every years with a batch of hacks to support larger disk sizes than were anticipated when the file system was written. That will not be necessary with ZFS.
ZFS supports the same kinds of things you're used to in Mac OS X, such as long filenames, directories, "meta data" (icons, file type information, default application, etc), and other useful extras.
It's extremely fast, and has little or no legacy issues that would slow it down.
Does that help?
Sounds like you have to wait to get the software you want, and the mini is overdue to go core2 duo, so might as well wait. Depending on your cash a MacBook maybe better for you, but only if you have the money of course.When I buy, I won't able to afford to upgrade to the new ilife and leopard and new iwork. So to me, it really does matter when I buy, the fact I have to sell my only computer to switch proves a pain in the bum.
Mac Mini proves the best option for me
In what way? Other than visually speaking (because the UI glyphs and widgets are not themselves ready), my impression was that resolution independence seems finished. I'm curious; what's broken?
And that makes it not new, how? Vista is an upgrade to XP. It's a new OS. Mandriva 2007 is an upgrade to Mandriva 2005. It's also a new OS.
It's not. This exact same thing happened here with both Tiger and Panther. I wasn't around MacRumors prior to those, but I imagine it continued further into the past.
Tiger was touted (rightly)as a whole new OS, so why shouldn't Leopard be?
Resolution independence is a concept where the size of objects on your screen is not based on the number of pixels you have available to you. This is desirable because as pixels get smaller and smaller, resolution increases at a high rate. An element, say a JPEG picture, has a fixed size in pixels, say 350x350. On a 15" 1280x800 display, it might be 4" in size. On a 15" 1920x1200 display, it would be just 3" on a side. As resolutions increase, fixed-pixel objects shrink. This is why some displays have resolutions too high to be useful (because text and interface objects become too small to be useful.What is resolution independance?
ISBN publication dates are just projections submitted by the publisher. Unless a specific date has been announced, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. Book authors are rarely given any privileged information. Even with a date, one can't be sure until it's actually in the presses being printed.
