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 Snow Leopard and Safari 4 Screenshots
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you're talking about the "save as web application" feature, proprietary format shouldn't make a difference. It would save it as an application to run on a machine running OS X. The format wouldn't matter, because you'd only be running it on a mac (my guess is there's a cocoa app that functions like safari, minus address bar/prefs that houses one of those apps.) If you simply mean "save as...", Safari has done both "plain html" and "web archive" for quite a while now.
You know, this makes me think about this video by David Pogue on the TED conference. It's brilliant in itself, but really shows that this new approach may be quite good.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/7
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/7
What we need is a REPLACEMENT for the aging Palm Desktop (which is great, but as said aging). I do not know of any software for that capable of importing the FULL Palm Desktop data.
Safari 4's "Save as Web Application" feature sounds very interesting. Would this also work for mobile Safari on the iPhone/iPodTouch?
I do a lot of outdoor photography including multi-shot panoramas. There is this very handy online FOV calculator that assists you in setting up your gear.
It would be great to have this calculator at hand in the field on one's Touch.
see attachments*
Attachments
I found the German language interesting... they have very long words.
I'm germany, put I keep all my computer stuff in english. The average menu bar in german is seriously filling up the whole menu bar on my macbook whereas the english version leaves some space for nifty thinkgs like istat menu.Oh and translations are usually pretty awkward
Are you kidding me? Do you even use Windows? At my job me and my team are the only ones using Macs because we do digital video, but everyone else in the dept. uses Vista and it never blue screens.
Meanwhile, last week, one of the G5s kernel panicked just by plugging in headphones. Plus, Finder kernel panics every few weeks when doing network related tasks because Finder is a piece of garbage.
I love the Mac, but to claim that Windows blue screens all the time is absolutely ridiculous.
And those will save your data back to the Google Docs server hen you click save?
I'd like to find if Apple enabled the iSCSI client that was in the pre-releases of Leopard, but removed in the final release.
Of course, it's just a Window with a Webkit view inside.
The idea will be for developers to use the local SQLLite database to store your data locally, then you can work with data offline and then it all syncs back to the server when you come back online.
Yup, everything seems to work just as its supposed to... first thing that comes to my mind is 'oversized webclip'
Uh, PPC uses different binaries than Intel.
Applications in OS X are actually folders that Apple dubs "packages". The only difference between PPC and Universal apps is the addition of a few extra SMALL files which are the program "code" itself, compiled into what they call a "binary"--machine code (specific for a certain computer). Binaries can't work for more than one instruction set at once without emulation (eg Java's "virtual machine," etc).
Therefore,
Removing the PPC code shouldn't result in any speed enhancement and will certainly not clear up any significant hard drive space.
Likely, some of the 10.5 code is currently PPC only and not "universal." It's probably being emulated. Obviously, porting a copy for intel would result in faster speeds--but that has nothing to do with the PPC code "gumming things up." That's simply a matter of Apple being too lazy to make a working copy for Intel.
I really don't know how many times I have to keep saying this: Apple's dropping PPC because it's too much work to test and maintain their OS on that many machines, especially when half are on a totally different instruction set.
The more cynical will say Apple's trying to force users to upgrade, pointing out that the G5's more than meet the speed requirements. Also, if 10.6 is so much faster than 10.5, shouldn't the system requirements be LESS? Woops. I don't agree with this reasoning, I think they just don't want to have to support PPC anymore because of cost issues--which are pretty massive.
Applications in OS X are actually folders that Apple dubs "packages". The only difference between PPC and Universal apps is the addition of a few extra SMALL files which are the program "code" itself, compiled into what they call a "binary"--machine code (specific for a certain computer). Binaries can't work for more than one instruction set at once without emulation (eg Java's "virtual machine," etc).
Therefore,
Removing the PPC code shouldn't result in any speed enhancement and will certainly not clear up any significant hard drive space.
Likely, some of the 10.5 code is currently PPC only and not "universal." It's probably being emulated. Obviously, porting a copy for intel would result in faster speeds--but that has nothing to do with the PPC code "gumming things up." That's simply a matter of Apple being too lazy to make a working copy for Intel.
I really don't know how many times I have to keep saying this: Apple's dropping PPC because it's too much work to test and maintain their OS on that many machines, especially when half are on a totally different instruction set.
The more cynical will say Apple's trying to force users to upgrade, pointing out that the G5's more than meet the speed requirements. Also, if 10.6 is so much faster than 10.5, shouldn't the system requirements be LESS? Woops. I don't agree with this reasoning, I think they just don't want to have to support PPC anymore because of cost issues--which are pretty massive.
OH, and now my opinion:
I think there's a moral issue here if they sell snow leopard for full price.
First off, they're admitting their product was defective--their code was bloated and unstable.
Then, they charge you to upgrade to a version free of their defects.
I think, just on principle, they should sell the OS for much less than full price. Besides, selling of OS updates isn't actually a large portion of their mac sales income. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's no way that ANY OS X version has EVER paid for its development costs in the selling of the software alone. Letting this one loose for cheap would probably sell so many Macs by good PR that it'd be worth the loss.
After all, if you bought Windows XP in 2001, you got 6 whole years of free updates and service packs.
I think there's a moral issue here if they sell snow leopard for full price.
First off, they're admitting their product was defective--their code was bloated and unstable.
Then, they charge you to upgrade to a version free of their defects.
I think, just on principle, they should sell the OS for much less than full price. Besides, selling of OS updates isn't actually a large portion of their mac sales income. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there's no way that ANY OS X version has EVER paid for its development costs in the selling of the software alone. Letting this one loose for cheap would probably sell so many Macs by good PR that it'd be worth the loss.
After all, if you bought Windows XP in 2001, you got 6 whole years of free updates and service packs.
I do think no speed will be gain, but i do think there will be free space gain. e.g., every browsers I downloaded, some of them has intel version alone in package, the size is half of the universal package. Adobe photoshop CS3, intel package is about half of universal ones.
I think there will be HDD free space gain by dropping PPC. It may not be 50%, but should be very significant.
I would add the fact that apple didn't write the whole thing, rather, most fundamental core and structure are already there for
free. So, I still think $50-60 is a reasonable price.
I still think its a very personal choice, its good to have the option tho, no matter somebody use it or not.
An eloquent defence, but (at least to me), it's still quite a mystery why so many people seem to be focussing on this feature as something particularly new/interesting.
Isn't this just the same as the feature of saving a webpage introduced on the first major OS-X iPhone update? I only found that good for web apps like games and only then because there were no options for native games at the time.
It makes much less sense in a full-blown OS to have this feature and while it's a good stop gap and welcome and all that, I don't see it as anything particularly useful in the long term.
What???
I meant: saving webpage into an independent application, is a useful function, although not everybody will like it. clear?
I found the German language interesting... they have very long words.
Then I think you should know that the english language comes from the German
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_English_language