Enough to make most OSX developers I know grumble about the way Apple changes the APIs all the time
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.
Will it cost anything for Tiger users to upgrade to Leopard?
- Thread starter 758
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Enough to make most OSX developers I know grumble about the way Apple changes the APIs all the time
You've never driven a ferrari, huh? There's a lot more to it then just raw speed (and I doubt you can find a single car that's as fast as a ferrari but costs a tenth as much).
I think the ferrari thing is kind of an appropriate analogy here, but in a different way. Before I started using 10.3 I didn't see the point of expose. I thought it was just another nice feature... until I tried it, and now I can't live without it. Same with the ferrari; if you just look at the raw numbers it isn't worth the money, but if you actually drive one, and appreciate it, it makes a lot more sense.
I can't say which feature of 10.5 is going to make it worth the upgrade for me. Expose was easily worth $129 for me... hell, i'd probably pay alot more for it than that. Perhaps a feature in 10.5 will be the same for me.
I can't say that anything in Vista is going to make the upgrade worth it. I've played around with the betas and there's nothing so far that I can do in vista that I can't do in XP SP2.
No, I still hold firm to my statement that raw speed is pretty much what a ferrari does. What *nice extras* does it have besides complete lack of interior space? For $250,000? Because if we take speed out of it (speed can be attained by, say, heavily modifying much cheaper cars), a Ferrari is a pretty lousy car. It would be more practical to buy two other cars (a fast one and a luxurious one) than to buy a single Ferrari.
dear, the problem is vista isn't available yet. here are the some flash points (im not a "feature fan", so i won't list the end user features, which u can check out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista)
1. new D3D and OpenGL drive
2. user account control
3. Kernel Patch Protection
4. Code Integrity
5. Services for UNIX
6. The Windows Presentation Foundation
7. The Windows Communication Foundation
..
actually, on the linked page, you can read all of them, sorry, Im not tech enough to explain all of them, but im sure you can read the explanations on that page.
Dude... stop being a troll. A game is not a feature of Windows. How does a game make Windows itself a better operating system?
"PLEASE" let us know.
EDIT: You know what, forget about it. You're obviously trolling now, and I've wasted enough time on this one-way discussion.
i didn't see the connection, you have proof about supporting game reduces the system stability? show me
troll, u didn't even read my word. its "ability to support games", u can play any trick you want, gamers do like windows, right?
able to support games doesn't make windows better? does that question even need an answer?
there is no direct connection... however, right now the choices are windows or mac os x
windows is arguably less stable than OS X
windows has more gaming support than OS X
so if i choose PC, i get support of the game, at the cost of system stability?
please.
i play games 1 or 2 hrs a day on average, and i still agree with myself.
i use bootcamp and XP to play games only, nothing else.
Mac OS has just as much "ability" to play games as Windows. Third party developers choosing to develop some more games than Windows because of it's dominant market share doesn't make Windows itself superior. Since plenty of developers do release games for Mac OS X, clearly it has the "ability" to support games. So once again another "point" of yours that doesn't exist.
STOP TROLLING
You're right ... They established a monopoly when a monopoly was easy to establish, strongarmed the competition (Netscape, Novell, etc.) out of the market, and have contrinued to maintain their monopoly.
Enough to make most OSX developers I know grumble about the way Apple changes the APIs all the time
Hehe. Indeed
But (as I'm sure you already know/agree) many of the changes were needed, simply because OS X was still very much a 'work in progress'. And that's what's made each 10.x release so valuable.
1: I need to read up on this, but I believe the new driver models exist to fit in with Windows' new display rendering system (WPF), so we can roll that into 6.
2: Yet another band-aid to shore up Windows' ill-implemented security model. Time will tell how successful it is.
3: This is good. Should stop Sony playing their rootkit tricks.
4: I'll need to research this some more, but I imagine it'll incorporate the module load address randomisation which is an excellent idea. However, OS X's dynamic loader already hinders this form of attack by design.
5: SFU's been around for many, many years. Although SFU in Vista is apparently improved, I'd expect this to be little more than the bare minimum of POSIX-compliance just to keep certain customers happy.
6: WPF is roughly analogous to OS X's Quartz Compositor (already shipping for 5+ years), plus CoreVideo/CoreAnimation (already been shipping in OS X for 18 months by the time Vista is released). CoreAnimation is a worthy addition in Leopard that Vista's successor will have to address (in, oooo, another 6 years, perhaps?). Here's the kicker: WPF is not tied to Vista. It's part of the .NET Framework which can be downloaded and used on XP and Windows Server 2003 R2. Free. Right now.
7: WCF is the unification of several existing technologies: .NET Remoting, Message Queues and others. All of this exists in .NET 2.0, although as a .NET developer, I'm looking at how WCF changes the way I code. Again, WCF is part of .NET 3.0, downloadable today and fully-operational on XP and Server 2003.
[edit: and on the OS X side, there's Bonjour, built-in and solid support for XML-based services (web-based or otherwise), and inter-process messaging is something that's easy with every existing Objective-C application. I couldn't say how pleasant these are to code with, since I'm only a beginner at OS X development]
At present, from my point of view, the only hindrance XP has over Vista is that I have to include the .NET re-distributable with my programs' setup packages for XP, and I won't for Vista.
Massively.
It was pretty damn difficult to blue-screen NT4 via the display driver. Win2K and XP (hell, let's give them their real names - NT5 and NT5.1) moved large chunks of display and media drivers and supporting code out of safe user-space and into kernel-space. This was done purely to boost performance, since a context-switch wouldn't be required when performing graphics and audio operations. The driver model was tweaked in XP to reduce this problem, and it seems Vista's (yet again) new display model is another stab at getting this right.
Now, OS X also has this stuff in kernel space -- I'll need to investigate OS X's display driver model, but I've never heard of a video application causing a kernel panic on OS X. This could be due to technical design, or how Apple develops the drivers themselves in conjunction with nVidia, ATI and Intel.
all i need to say to you has been said, and i won't reply your posts anymore. and you can stop trolling now
well, glad you are so honest that there is times when you need windows. lol, and again, really feel like far and far away from original topic now.
What, you can't defend your defenseless position on Mac OS X and whether or not it has an underlying ability to play games?
Of course not...
its sometime hard to balance ur stability/security and usability when you have a massive of demand of the abilities of doing something that make your OS going opposite directions. and also Windows isn't binding with specific hardwares, which might be another point.
Its good to read your post, tho. thanks
i have never claimed i dont need windows, matter of fact, i have said again and again that i work with both OS X and windows on daily basis, equally.
however, that doesn't change the fact i believe OS X in a lot ways are superior to windows. (and it's not because i dont know how to use windows.)
well, dear, if you read my post clearly, i don't think I said anything about OSX "isn't good enough for me". and i don't disagree with you on that.
No, but you're suggesting Windows is somehow equal to OS X (because it has a dominant market share)... which it isn't.
Being "good enough" doesn't mean anything. Mac OS 7 is "good enough for me" - but I'm not making any ridiculous claims about it being equal to OS X.
i didn't say it's not good enough for you either... if you read my post close enough