Screenshots of Latest Snow Leopard Seed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MrCrowbar
macrumors 68020
When I hook up my Mini to my TV (Samsung Series 4 LCD), I have 720p, 1080, 1080i in the Display Preferences. I use a standard DVI cable and have a DVI tp HDMI Adapter to go into the TV. I think Mac OS needs to recognize the TV correctly to give you those options.
I always set it to 1360 x 768 pixels because that's the native resolution
of my TV and 1080p movies are downscaled better. The TV's panel actually has 1366 x 768 pixels (true 16:9) so 3 pixels on each side are black when connecting to a computer. But you never notice it and the TV sometimes moves the visible frame by a whole pixel so you don't wear out those border pixels.
Make sure you use all digital connection to hook up your TV. HDMI is actually tricky, it may look terrible even if all digital.
kastenbrust
macrumors 68030
Tell me about it Compiz on linux makes osx effects look old
compiz needs to become less graphically intensive before its integrated into OS X, i agree its a good function but because Apple sells lower end computers it might not be suitable for everyone.
Ping Guo
macrumors 6502
Somebody please explain why touch-screen computing is useful, or desirable? It strikes me that using a mouse/touchpad/keyboard combo is far more economical and expedient than leaning over your desk and rubbing your hands all over your glass screen. I'm not talking about portable iPhone screens, advanced medical apps, or an engineer using CAD. I mean normal, everyday use.
Try this: hold your arm out in front of you at a 90 degree angle, pretend to make swirlies, drag n drops, whatever, on your "touch" screen. Do this for five minutes. How does your arm feel? Shoulders tense? Numb and tingly anywhere?
pwn247
macrumors 6502
+1
Not only that, but touchscreen PCs are expensive, hard to come by, and don't always work. It baffles me why Windows 7 (especially) and OS X Snow Leopard would be focusing on touchscreen features.
And as for the screenshots, it looks great so far. Not too many changes to the UI, of course, but apparently lots of changes under the hood. I'm happy that they're leaving Aqua alone (for now...), because I think the "graphite" look on everyday apps gives the OS a very "dull" look.
haravikk
macrumors 65832
Why? Universal apps in Leopard with a localisation for every language that ever existed ultimately only load the binary (Intel or PPC), and the language files they need.
Unless they take the time to actually properly re-write the code for various applications, then RAM usage is going to be about the same. The only advantage of trimmed application-sizes is a lower footprint on your hard-drive, which doesn't seem important to me unless Apple intends to release a netbook with a small-sized SSD drive or something, which I feel is unlikely.
dernhelm
macrumors 68000
Faster load times? Potential lower RAM footprint? Less paging? There's lots of good reasons to want to shrink binary sizes of applications.
It's one of the things that I've always used to gauge good coders from bad coders on the Windows environment. If your shipping a hopelessly bloated set of binaries, performance suffers in a myriad of ways.
MacRumors Guy
macrumors member
Compiz runs fine on the 950GMA what the hell are you talking about?dernhelm said:
Most applications in MacOS are delivered as bundles and the core binary is very small already. Support bundles are loaded as demanded.
MrCrowbar
macrumors 68020
Well, Apple probably won't show off Snow Leopard to the general public that much since they won't be at Macworld. And WWDC focuses more on the new things for developers. I guess we will get those nice "5x faster" pictures on the Snow Leopard page, like we did when the hardware was switched to Intel.
skaertus
macrumors 601
Jordan Hubbard, Director of Apple's Unix Technology Group, showed a slide where the launch of Snow Leopard was scheduled for Q1 2009. Probably this won't happen, since we're in the end of February and I haven't heard of a release candidate yet.
Apple announced Snow Leopard last June, saying the release would occur about a year later. So, expect it for June 2009.
skaertus
macrumors 601
Compiz definitely looks beautiful, but it is just nice eye candy. I think MacOS already has all the functions of Compiz. In fact, IMHO, the integration of Spaces and Expose is far more functional and ergonomic than anything Compiz has provided so far. In addition, I think the cube in Compiz lacks refinement and is anti-functional.
MikeTheC
Guest
*attempts waiting with bated breath instead of baited breath*You should try waiting with bated breath then.
*ah... much better*
Bear in mind, skaertus, that this is a "work product" you're looking at, not the final thing. From what I understand of compiling software, you can adjust such things as RAM utilization, etc. Therefore, when this sucker gets recompiled for "Golden Master" purposes, you may find utilization is different than what it appears in the screenshot. Besides, my money is on much of what we're looking at getting further love by Apple devs, so really I just wouldn't place too much stock in any of this.
As a for-instance, the UI itself may be substantially cosmetically changed between now and final release. There's simply no way for any of us to know this, and doubtless very few at Apple themselves know about the full scope of the finished product. So just do what I do, and relax. The fat lady ain't even in the theater on this one, yet.
EDIT:
As a regular user of Ubuntu/Gnome+Compiz, I would have to say you're on very, very thin ice with a statement like that. Don't get me wrong, I agree that much of how Aqua does comparable effects is more refined, but Compiz's feature set is broader (by design) than Aqua's. Apple isn't trying to implement quite so nearly extensible a 3D UI environment as Compiz, and who knows if Aqua, on a technological level, is even capable of accepting "plug-ins" in the same way that Compiz can. Obviously, Apple isn't exposing very many adjustment controls for Aqua. Moreover, Compiz is not a commercial product and isn't intended to be.
Regarding Compiz' "cube" being less functional or anti-functional, I have found it to be quite useful, particularly with "3D Windows" enabled, however I can tell you one thing which would really improve it tremendously: once in Cube mode, let the user click on the edge of the desired window so that the UI can then jump to the appropriate desktop and simultaneously bring that window to the top, along with all associated windows, and give it focus. For that matter, having that sort of capability on Aqua would also be most welcome.
marbles
macrumors 68000
Ahh I remember that now , maybe it is the truth and it'll come out in a week or so with the new iMacs and Mini ?
That would be some launch to alleviate the worry from investors minds over Mr.Jobs holiday rest wouldn't it.
skaertus
macrumors 601
I agree that Compiz has the purpose of implementing a 3D environment and Aqua has not such a thing. I've used Compiz at the time Beryl was still a fork, and I don't really know how it evolved, apart from some videos I've seen on YouTube.
At the time (2007), I found the bouncing windows to be great-looking (MacOS could certainly implement that, although it is beautiful and not really functional), but I didn't get along with the cube stuff. Perhaps it is much better now, but I just couldn't handle it back then.
I called it anti-functional in comparison to the MacOS interface. I found Spaces+Expose to be neat and very useful, as it exposes, at once, all the windows that are opened. Genius, simply genious. The cube, however, must be rotated in order for the user to see all the opened windows. I think the cube was more about to impress with its 3D stuff than to provide really additional features. The cube itself did not provide a 3D environment - it was just a 3D way of viewing 2D workspaces. To sum it up, I saw, at the time, no point in the Compiz cube. I wouldn't change the functionality of Spaces+Expose for the eye-candy of the Compiz cube.
And I still think the cube itself lacked polish - but perhaps it is a question of taste. Some enhancements could certainly make it better - and probably have already made since I last used Compiz.
I found the 3D windows, however, to be great. The 3D windows can really provide a 3D workspace experience, and add a lot in functionality terms. They can even turn the cube into something really useful: both can be combined to provide a truly 3D experience. And neither MacOS nor Windows has a 3D environment at the moment.
However, Apple is all about polish and taste. Linux is about experimentation. Two different approaches here. I don't think Apple should implement something similar to Compiz right now. Spaces+Exposé is so great, I don't want Apple to abruptly change this right now. I expect baby steps, so things do not get screwed up.
Apple is certainly working on a 3D environment right now (have you seen a patent design a couple of weeks ago?); and Microsoft is probably doing that too. They are probably working hard to have the best 3D approach ever, and that can be done in so many ways. But they won't show that to the public, until the product is already finished. Compiz, on the other hand, was shown since the beginning.
I don't even know if Compiz is the best approach to a 3D environment. People at Apple and Microsoft must be scratching their heads right now to top Compiz and to top each other. And I think this is the way things should be. Compiz, due to its open source nature, can be changed anytime. But, once Apple or Microsoft adopts a model of 3D environment on its commercial products, that will be it. So, it is dangerous to take the wrong decision on that.
In addition, Apple is also never going to allow the user to make too many changes to its interface. The interface is very polished, more than anything else, but you should take it for granted: no big changes are allowed. MacOS may not lose its characteristic lines, perhaps it is part of the marketing strategy. Linux, and Compiz, and all the open source stuff, on the other hand, provide a world of endless possibilities. You may do whatever you want. However, as there are so many options, none of them is as polished and refined as it could be.
I am not afraid of considering myself a fanboy...after all, Mac fanboys exist because the Apple experience is really superior...worry not.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
I miss the Classic "Put Away" too but this is not it. This "Put Back" is only to restore files from the trash, which to me seems completely useless. I can't remember ever having a hard time restoring a file from the trash.
It does not matter when it comes out; it will be this fall before the bugs are down to an acceptable level to make running it less than an adventure.
I guess if you have a good memory and always know where you deleted things from, the Put Away is indeed useless. For the rest of us that have trouble remembering, it is fantastic. It is one of the most sorely missed features of Windows IMHO. That said, I don't know of any other *NIX environment that has such a feature.
Eric S.
macrumors 68040
I guess I just rarely throw anything away (at least anything that I would rather keep).