I actually kind of agree with this. I really don't find myself in the situation too often when I need to find stuff. When I do, it's nice to have all these features, though. However, it would be nice if Apple channeled some of their creativity toward some innovative solutions for organizing/moving files, beyond what is available now. I find the Finder to be quite a pain when I'm moving files around and what not.
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.
WWDC: Leopard Details
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually kind of agree with this. I really don't find myself in the situation too often when I need to find stuff. When I do, it's nice to have all these features, though. However, it would be nice if Apple channeled some of their creativity toward some innovative solutions for organizing/moving files, beyond what is available now. I find the Finder to be quite a pain when I'm moving files around and what not.
Hmmm. After reading this thread, I'm starting to think Leopard is starting to sound impressive, but it sounds to me like Steve did a poor job of highlighting its best features.
Things I've been looking forward to for a loooooooong time:
- A fast Finder, with no 'beachballing' when accessing network shares.
- A consistent UI.
- Bring back Tabbed windows (or equivalent)
Things I've needed:
- Ability to quick-switch between Windows (not virtualized) and Mac.
- A working search.
- Ability to conveniently transfer files between my Macs in different locations.
Things I don't like:
- FiTunder. iTunes as a file interface? Bleh.
- 3D dock. Wastes more space than the current Dock, reflections are cute but distracting.
- Curvy stacks? Why - is horizontal text (in filenames) too easy to read?
Things I've been looking forward to for a loooooooong time:
- A fast Finder, with no 'beachballing' when accessing network shares.
- A consistent UI.
- Bring back Tabbed windows (or equivalent)
Things I've needed:
- Ability to quick-switch between Windows (not virtualized) and Mac.
- A working search.
- Ability to conveniently transfer files between my Macs in different locations.
Things I don't like:
- FiTunder. iTunes as a file interface? Bleh.
- 3D dock. Wastes more space than the current Dock, reflections are cute but distracting.
- Curvy stacks? Why - is horizontal text (in filenames) too easy to read?
Unfortunately you'll have to keep needing this, as I looks like it has been cut from the feature list.
Stacks in the Finder would be nice, instead of just in the dock... Kind of stifling its potential, wouldn't you say?
-Clive
WPF already does exactly what core animation does so that's not really a quantum leap for Apple.
WPF/Avalon already does exactly what Core Animation does so that's not really a quantum leap but Apple catching up to something Microsoft released last November.
Bummer. That would have been really useful (I need to use Windows at work, and can hardly remember the last time I booted my MBP into OSX at home).
Let me know when a windows developer creates a Time Machine like interface using only simple API calls in Vista, and then call Core Animation WPF...
Core Animation does not do anything new. It just makes doing things which were hard earlier (impossible on a non MS budget) really easy.
Actually, no application/API does anything new, they all just rearrange 1's and 0's differently....Question is, how easy do they make rearranging those 1's and 0's, so you have the 1's and 0's the way you want them. That is the only functionality any application can give you.
Did anyone else notice those little 3D forward and back arrows underneath the "architecture presentation" that Steve found when he "saved the day" in his Time Machine demo? I think Time Machine has more uses here than just backup/restore. Otherwise it's one of these great features you hope you'll never need.
I think it is literally keeping older versions of files. If you click "back" on the arrow under the presentation (not on the screen, under the presentation) I suspect it will show you older versions.Now THAT would be cool (depending on how many versions it keeps and how it works when you're on your laptop, and away from the network on which your time machine drive sits!)
When I code Java applications in Eclipse, the BEST feature of it is the multiple local history versions it keeps, so when I decide I've gone down the wrong path, or have partly screwed something up, I can go grab an older version from earlier in the day. Saved me many many times, and encourages me to experiment because I can always come back to where I am now if something doesn't go the way I hope.
I'm curious to see how this all plays out. There are Time Machine APIs out there, since it's built into iPhoto, AddressBook etc. What if MSFT put it into Office so you could go back through older versions? Or if Delicious put it into Delicious Library so you can see what you've added to your library.
It's bordering on a versioned file system if that happens. Not sure if it's all there in this release, but it's the beginnings of something that could be a really neat feature. And it's a feature we'd use all the time then.
be well
t
Otto Store
http://wlfortv.spaces.live.com/
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/04/30/keeping-track-of-mix.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/v/8YAW-blQTmU
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=313671
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/02/22/great-wpf-applications-11-areva-e-terravision.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/03/27/great-wpf-applications-13-z-rich-airport.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/03/05/great-wpf-applications-12-roxio-central.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/...ions-9-scripps-institute-cancer-research.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/02/02/great-wpf-applications-6-fnac-com.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/02/01/great-wpf-applications-4-otto.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/...ions-1-british-library-turning-the-pages.aspx
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116327
WPF apps are arguably easier to design (and clearly more powerful) than Core Animation apps and they can be made to be crossplatform (Windows/IE, Windows Firefox, Mac Safari, Mac FireFox, and soon to be on Linux as well) via silverlight. Have you seen Photosynth? It blows the Time Machine interface away.
http://labs.live.com/photosynth
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=313671
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116327
http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/WPF.ApplicationPortfolio
Like I said, Apple is just catching up with Microsoft and WPF. Even then that is not entirely true because WPF is does far more than Core Animation.
I bet that's the case. See Mac OS X State of the Union video from WWDC last year, semi-publicly available at "ADC on iTunes" for any online ADC member.
Windows Presentation Foundation
I've played with WPF extensively. Although I like most of the effects, translucence, and 3D rendering, it still feels cheap and somewhat flat. Core Animation can do in 20 lines of code what WPF cannot even attempt at 4000 lines of code. This is where the ceiling and of Aero will keep things from advancing further. Not very processor and RAM efficient either.
I've played with WPF extensively. Although I like most of the effects, translucence, and 3D rendering, it still feels cheap and somewhat flat. Core Animation can do in 20 lines of code what WPF cannot even attempt at 4000 lines of code. This is where the ceiling and of Aero will keep things from advancing further. Not very processor and RAM efficient either.
Bull.
1. Show me what "Core Animation can do in 20 lines of code what WPF cannot even attempt at 4000 lines of code". Hell, show me anything that CoreAnimation can do in much code than WPF can (keep in mind that WPf is basically XML so it often requires a few extra lines for end tags and such just like XHTML/CSS does... but those things don't make it harder to write).
2. WPF is not connected to Aero in anyway. WPF runs on XP which does not have Aero, Vista Basic which does not have Aero, and Windows Server which does not have Aero. Furthermore, WPF/E-Silverlight runs on multiple platforms (like the Mac and Windows CE) which do not have Aero.
I don't even think you've ever written anything in WPF based on your last post so please don't bs me.
I have not used Core Animation or WPF. However, here is my impression. Core Animation lets you resize a window with a smooth transition with a line of code similar to the following:
Code:
No transition:
[myWindow setFrame:rect];
Transition:
[[myWindow animator] setFrame:rect];For the one with transition, you just call that one line of code, and it will smoothly resize the window - without you having to manage frames or anything. I believe some of this works in 3-D space as well, but I'm not sure.
Can WPF do things like that? I'm asking. I've never used it. What do you think it does that CoreAnimation doesn't?
Can you post the equivalent code to the above for WPF?
Does it use up more space? I thought the icons were in the same place, and the background 'floor' was tilted, shaving the top off slightly?
I liked most of the new features, the best where the new finder and stacks those for me are the best I do a load of movie and image editing and have loads of files or groups of files to keep track of, and all within one version of the OS no 'pro' or 'plus' versions to confuse or price gouge.
I just have one problem I really hope leopard will run on my MacBook I really doubt it will it's almost 6 months old now
I just have one problem I really hope leopard will run on my MacBook I really doubt it will it's almost 6 months old now
This is dummy names (i.e. foo and bar) but here it is:
Code:
<ContentControl Content="{Binding}" ContentTemplate="{StaticResource SomeTransition}" />Technically, that control is made to transition the content within the window and not the window itself (although it can do that too). So each photo in the image below would have its own transition when selected. If you wanted to just transition the window itself that would be a somewhat easier code to write.
http://11011.net/archives/000661.html
The entire source code including custom made transitions is posted on that page.
Works cross platform, has all the advantages of XML (for instance, there was a PHP script created to make a WPF app based on user info entered into a webpage), superior databinding (an XML advantage), completely resolution (device) independent, hardware accelerated video rendering, hardware accelerated text rendering, more powerful development tools (VS vs Xcode, Expression/Illustrator/Maya/3DSMax/Flash vs Xcode/IB) and all sorts of other stuff. WPF does a lot of the stuff that Flash and AJAX do... which isn't really the purpose of Core Animation.
Yes! They are! Steve Jobs and his evil cabal of nogoodniks had a secret meeting in their ultra-secret Fortress of A$sholery and decided to not let any cripples into the WWDC. Muwahahahahaha!
Get a clue...
WPF seems more like a UI platform than an animation library. It seems to be a completely different thing than Core Animation.
Core Animation is meant to be used from inside the program, adding little to no overhead, to simply animate components. WPF seems to be focused on a method of creating components, which Core Animation is not.
Here is an example of what Core Animation is meant to do (from my understanding):
Basically, a target location is specified, and Core Animation handles the rest. So, when a programmer has written the code to decide where a bunch of thumbnail images should be located, instead of simply moving the images with something like [image setRect:newloc], the programmer would use [[image animator] setRect:newloc].
It integrates into the code the programmer would write anyway, with just a few characters added. In other words, little additional programming is required.
See this YouTube video for what a demo of what I'm talking about. The demo (which Steve showed briefly at WWDC 06, and is shown half-way into the clip) was apparently written in only 2000 lines of code, and it is quite feature-filled.
The above image is from a website I created where I made something remotely similar to Core Animation in Javascript.
To me, it seems like WPF and Core Animation are meant to accomplish completely different things.
Attachments
Bang_On_The_Money.
I doa lot of web design stuff, and am always cluttering up my desktop with versions of images, or stuff downloaded from istockphoto, and things like stacks and coverflow in the finder will make it easier to find stuff without opening things to find them.
I thought coverflow in finder was a stroke of genius myself.
Coverflow will also make it nicer to find files. You know, those ones which aren't safe for work let alone for work.
Stacks, Coverflow and Quicklook = yay.
Wpf
Sorry, I meant 'Avalon' not Aero
True, Core Animation and WPF are very different animals, with somewhat different intents. While WPF (Avalon) is primarily XML, Core Animation works within the OS and provides functionality for Apps which run in its environment. Wouldn't it be great if WPF could work within Vista's environment in a similar manner?
Sorry, I meant 'Avalon' not Aero
And you've written code in Core Animation? I never claimed to have written code in WPF, but I can tell you interoperability is pretty poor. (Winforms in WPF) You probably noticed the archaic WinForms control defies all z-order laws and steals the entire "air space" of your WPF window. It's like a huge, ugly insect splattered on your wind-shield, and you haven't any fluid left to wipe it off. Also, There is no built-in support for declarative manipulation of acceleration/deceleration paths (animation through constant velocity is painfully unnatural and IMO an incomplete implementation). And so the burden of natural-feeling motion is solely on the programmer, instead of, in the hands of the designer where it should be available. This seems to go against the intent of WPF, which is to decouple design elements from code. Major oversight IMO.
True, Core Animation and WPF are very different animals, with somewhat different intents. While WPF (Avalon) is primarily XML, Core Animation works within the OS and provides functionality for Apps which run in its environment. Wouldn't it be great if WPF could work within Vista's environment in a similar manner?