Yeah, there is a good chance that they'll be using the transparent window GUI thing they just copyrighted, as well as hopefully improving Finder's FTP protocol... that would rock so much. I'm also hoping for better Classic (emulating the really old stuff) and maybe an updated Mail that allows reply-to adresses. And we really need Appleworks 7. Whatever it will do.
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.
Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4) Details?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
NeXTSTEP/Openstep/ObjC frameworks were being developed concurrent to that of C++.
It was a two dog pony race that then C++ won out, even though ObjC's natural OO extensions with C seemed to more obvious route, but each language has its pros/cons.
It was a two dog pony race that then C++ won out, even though ObjC's natural OO extensions with C seemed to more obvious route, but each language has its pros/cons.
legion said:
As best as I recall object-oriented C
Objective-C and C++ were largely developed in parallel.
"C with Classes" was started in '79 and became C++ in '82. But it didn't really reach its modern form until '89, first published in '90. Still templates weren't even in there in a standard way and the language wasn't even standardized until '98. It was painful to use in the early 90's when I spent many late nights cursing at Symantec's buggy mac compiler.
Objective-C was started a few years later than C++ but it was largely complete in '86 when Brian Cox published his book on it. NeXT was built on it and it was mature enough to shoulder an OS well before C++. Remember when linux was going to be rewritten in C++, circa '95? (abandoned because it just didn't work)
Today they're both quite mature but have different feels. Objective-C is more like smalltalk, C++ is bigger and more rigid. C++ has more corporate support but can't do dynamic binding like Objective-C can, which makes it really hard to do an OS with it.
Neither are particularly good for applications, IMHO (computers are too fast not to use higher languages for apps), but Apple sort of forces you to use Objective-C for Cocoa.
legion said:
Objective-C and C++ were largely developed in parallel.
"C with Classes" was started in '79 and became C++ in '82. But it didn't really reach its modern form until '89, first published in '90. Still templates weren't even in there in a standard way and the language wasn't even standardized until '98. It was painful to use in the early 90's when I spent many late nights cursing at Symantec's buggy mac compiler.
Objective-C was started a few years later than C++ but it was largely complete in '86 when Brian Cox published his book on it. NeXT was built on it and it was mature enough to shoulder an OS well before C++. Remember when linux was going to be rewritten in C++, circa '95? (abandoned because it just didn't work)
Today they're both quite mature but have different feels. Objective-C is more like smalltalk, C++ is bigger and more rigid. C++ has more corporate support but can't do dynamic binding like Objective-C can, which makes it really hard to do an OS with it.
Neither are particularly good for applications, IMHO (computers are too fast not to use higher languages for apps), but Apple sort of forces you to use Objective-C for Cocoa.
Another (yawn) improvement
The improvements mooted in the parent aren't anywhere nearly exciting enough to squeeze $129 out of my pocket. What would do it is to make the machine do what I want, to wit:
1) Allow background color changes. My LCD monitor is set to one (1) out of 100 on its brightness control and those stark white windows are still too glare-y. I want them -all- light cyan, not white. Transparency, little pinstripes and pretty moving shapes are no substitute for cutting the glare. I would pay $100 for this feature alone, but I have not found any way to get it without compromising color accuracy.
2) Lose the confirmation popups. If someone makes Buzof for Mac I will be the first in line to get it.
3) Use a separate swap partition. Why anyone would break the *BSD /swap partition idea for a bunch of swapfiles on the boot drive is beyond my comprehension.
4) Make the .mac functionality configurable so I can use -my- domain's host as a .mac analogue. I'm not going to fork over a hundred bucks a year to replicate what my domain's server already does. Otherwise, disappear all the .mac stuff unless and until I get a .mac account.
I haven't had any problems with the Finder yet and it seems fine as a file browser and, uh, finder. Overall I am much happier with the OSX GUI than ever I've been with anything besides the OS/2 Desktop. The changes noted for Tiger are tweaks to things that, for me, don't need tweaking.
The improvements mooted in the parent aren't anywhere nearly exciting enough to squeeze $129 out of my pocket. What would do it is to make the machine do what I want, to wit:
1) Allow background color changes. My LCD monitor is set to one (1) out of 100 on its brightness control and those stark white windows are still too glare-y. I want them -all- light cyan, not white. Transparency, little pinstripes and pretty moving shapes are no substitute for cutting the glare. I would pay $100 for this feature alone, but I have not found any way to get it without compromising color accuracy.
2) Lose the confirmation popups. If someone makes Buzof for Mac I will be the first in line to get it.
3) Use a separate swap partition. Why anyone would break the *BSD /swap partition idea for a bunch of swapfiles on the boot drive is beyond my comprehension.
4) Make the .mac functionality configurable so I can use -my- domain's host as a .mac analogue. I'm not going to fork over a hundred bucks a year to replicate what my domain's server already does. Otherwise, disappear all the .mac stuff unless and until I get a .mac account.
I haven't had any problems with the Finder yet and it seems fine as a file browser and, uh, finder. Overall I am much happier with the OSX GUI than ever I've been with anything besides the OS/2 Desktop. The changes noted for Tiger are tweaks to things that, for me, don't need tweaking.
nsb3000 said:
I really hope they make better use of the graphics card ram. Barefeats indicates that its capped at present, and only yhr graphics card processor has any real impact. That seems like a waste. Sure their might need to be an option somewhere but if you have the ram (ie 128 Meg) then lets see it put more fully to use for every day stuff
Apple needs to adopt the URL style address structure system that Windows uses. Anything else seems quaintly archaic, as if today's users can't read and make sense of a URL, needing instead informationless windows with no indication of their place in the file structure.
&RU said:
yes, please. font performance sucks big time, and activating 1000+ fonts almost kills a powerbook. not acceptable. i hope this will be improved in tiger, because leaving it as it is now would be "microsoftish". apple has to have a vision about font book because it is there, so let's hope they do the same kind of magic they did with iphoto in the v4 compared to v2. much faster.
danman said:
oh my god! my powerbook seems to be dying even with one tenth of that... i have found out that installing 500-600 fonts (counting each different font type - normal, italic, bold... - as a different font because it is a different file in most cases) the system is still performing well, however booting up slowly, but more than that is just not acceptable.
12000 fonts? oh my god.
Backup for the rest of us!!
Amen. I dont have .Mac bacause I still use a (free) dial-up connection. I would REALLY like a solid back-up program . I just bought Danz Retrospect, but I TRUST APPLE more than a 3rd party to make something as important as backup software and thus would pay more for a product from Apple. In fact, that alone (OK, maybe a few iCandy cosmetic finder changes mentioned by others thrown in...) would be worth the anticiapted $129- upgrade fee
nsb3000 said:
Amen. I dont have .Mac bacause I still use a (free) dial-up connection. I would REALLY like a solid back-up program . I just bought Danz Retrospect, but I TRUST APPLE more than a 3rd party to make something as important as backup software and thus would pay more for a product from Apple. In fact, that alone (OK, maybe a few iCandy cosmetic finder changes mentioned by others thrown in...) would be worth the anticiapted $129- upgrade fee
greg252 said:
there are perfect 3rd party ftp apps available, there's absolutely no need for apple to make one. go to www.panic.com for example, that's it.
i would like to see customized dotmac and being able to route the dotmac services to my own linux server. the 100MB idisk apple offers is just a big joke while google gives away a gigabyte for free. but apple is the only one that is allowed to sell the easy-to-use dotmac idisk.
dotmac will never allow own domain names. it is not a web hotel. it is for providing some web services that work seamlessly with the os. but the price is just ten times its actual value.
99 dollars for 100MB web space? give me a break.
JFreak said:
You complain about the price of .mac but it doesn't bother you they want $25 for that FTP program? If .mac does 4 times what that program does then it shouldn't bother you, right..
Lepton said:
25 dollars for a shareware program is a once-in-a-lifetime cost, but 99 dollars of dotmac only lasts one year. that's a SUBSCRIPTION and should cost ten dollars a year for what value it offers.
edit: yep, you're right, i would buy the dotmac for 99 dollars if it was just one cost and for that price apple would give the dotmac services "forever". but 99 dollars a year? not a chance. 99 dollars a year with all mac osx major upgardes included? that might work, after all apple will not be releasing a major upgrade every year after tiger... but currently, no. ten dollars would be a good price for the current feature set.
3D "Solid" Dock option
Don't know if anyone else has suggested this (I admit to only getting half-way through reading all the posts on this thread) but I had an idea about increasing the efficiency of the dock. I've read quite a few posts from people complaining about the screen real estate the dock occupies, and people resorting to 3rd party apps like the handy F10. What i think would work well (and look damn cool) would be the option to turn your dock into a "solid" 3D rectangular block.
This way when you filled up your dock, or it was getting too large, you could switch on the 3D option and rotate the dock to a free side, and so on. This would also enable you to cleanly divide up the various sides according to different categories of apps' eg.pro/music/work etc. It would look exactly like the current dock when viewing just one side.
This would satisfy both those with limited screen real estate and also those calling for multiple docks. It would also fit in nicely with the Expose look.
Of course they could maintain the dock expansion effect to leave us with a cool "Multi-faceted 3D rotating stretchy dock" (for want of a better description).
Also I can see no reason why it would necessarily need to be limited to 4 sides.
Sorry if I'm just repeating something that someone else has already suggested.
Don't know if anyone else has suggested this (I admit to only getting half-way through reading all the posts on this thread) but I had an idea about increasing the efficiency of the dock. I've read quite a few posts from people complaining about the screen real estate the dock occupies, and people resorting to 3rd party apps like the handy F10. What i think would work well (and look damn cool) would be the option to turn your dock into a "solid" 3D rectangular block.
This way when you filled up your dock, or it was getting too large, you could switch on the 3D option and rotate the dock to a free side, and so on. This would also enable you to cleanly divide up the various sides according to different categories of apps' eg.pro/music/work etc. It would look exactly like the current dock when viewing just one side.
This would satisfy both those with limited screen real estate and also those calling for multiple docks. It would also fit in nicely with the Expose look.
Of course they could maintain the dock expansion effect to leave us with a cool "Multi-faceted 3D rotating stretchy dock" (for want of a better description).
Also I can see no reason why it would necessarily need to be limited to 4 sides.
Sorry if I'm just repeating something that someone else has already suggested.
You would probably not say that about web browsers if one wasn't included with Tiger, even though it's easy to get one elsewhere. Apple has to decide what tools a significant percentage of people would like to have from the start, and I think that FTP is such a standard, basic tool that it ought to be included.JFreak said:
Having a utility come with the O.S. helps people (and there are a lot of them) who don't know how to, don't want to, or are afraid to find and install third-party utilities that don't have an Apple stamp of approval.
It also means that people can depend on having it covered in Help Center, and it helps scripters by providing more foundation on which they can build. For example, if a graphical FTP client was provided with Tiger and was scriptable, then all users of Tiger could use programs that take advantage of that scripting, and it would be more likely that somebody would write such programs.
The downside of having Apple include a tool is that the market for 3rd party versions will shrink. Still, I think Apple should provide FTP to everyone. We power users can still hunt for better versions elsewhere if we want to.
thats a real good idea.
maybe also make it user definable in terms of how many sides it has.
i, personally, would like a 3-D triangular dock, so that i could see the other 2 sides on the back (transparently and, backwards of course) from the front. that way i know whats going on.
very good tip!! PRøBE
maybe also make it user definable in terms of how many sides it has.
i, personally, would like a 3-D triangular dock, so that i could see the other 2 sides on the back (transparently and, backwards of course) from the front. that way i know whats going on.
very good tip!! PRøBE
I use Terminal. Not as pretty as a graphical FTP application, but it get's the job done...davecuse said:
Triangulation
Yep that would work, you could stick with 3 sides and keep it tilted slightly to see the next side or just keep adding sides as you need them. Seeing as the dock stretches width ways as well as length, I wonder how many you could squeeze in there...
adamjay said:
Yep that would work, you could stick with 3 sides and keep it tilted slightly to see the next side or just keep adding sides as you need them. Seeing as the dock stretches width ways as well as length, I wonder how many you could squeeze in there...
legion said:
Objective C is not the original object oriented language. Correct.
However, I believe NeXTStep is the original object oriented application framework. The STL did not really exist yet, and it doesn't really have the functionality of Cocoa, Java, or .NET. Perhaps SmallTalk had that functionality available, but I don't think it did. I am not aware of anything object-oriented that had functionality similar to NeXT, until Java came along.
Michael Vance said:
Location bars, which I assume you're referring to, are the ugliest things I've ever seen on file managers. I'd rather not have it there. It might be a good option for Apple to put in though, if people really want it.
If you are referring to being able to type https://www.macrumors.com/ into the file manager and having it switch to being a web browser, I'm completely opposed to that. Integrating a file manager with a web browser just doesn't make sense. It takes too much effort for no real benefits. It's also potentially dangerous.
If you're referring to being able to use a URL to reference things, it's already done. Try typing "file:///Applications" into Safari, or running "open file:///Users" from a terminal. It works.
I don't really have any problems figuring out where in the filesystem I am from the title of the window. But, I've always done serious file management from the command line anyways.
The question is whether or not Apple should include a graphical FTP application that can be used outside Terminal. Like you, I consider command-line FTP to be just fine for my purposes. We are talking about all those other users, who rely on graphical apps and only point and click.stcanard said: