Slashdot Mirror


The Roadmap to Leopard?

Alexandros Roussos writes with a link to the site MacScoop, which claims to have obtained a roadmap for the months leading up to Leopard's release. It's a straightforward article, stating how much access individuals outside the company will have access to the product prior to October. "Major build on early August - In a little more than a month, Apple's development team targets a feature-full build. The build that was provided to developers during the World Wide Developers Conference earlier this month is actually not totally feature frozen. Some minor features are currently being finished for the system. These features will arrive in the August build along with user-interface improvements, sources told MacScoop. If you expect major 'wow' features or interface changes, you will be disappointed. What we may expect is additional settings and [some] user interface polish[ing]. Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

152 comments

  1. Sensible timeline? by Baumi · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    In a little more than a month, Apple's development team targets a feature-full build.
    [...]
    The milestone that will follow the total feature-freeze is slated for September, as the target of Apple's internal development team is a totally feature-full and stable Final Candidate version of Mac OS X Leopard.
    [...]
    In early to mid October, Leopard should reach the Golden Master status and Apple will be launching the DVD and packaging production.
    [...]
    Finally, the release is scheduled for late October Is that a realistic time frame? Seems to be an awfully short to me, then again I've never been involved in projects on that kind of scale.
    1. Re:Sensible timeline? by node+3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How long are you thinking it will take to press a disc, stick it in a box, and ship it to the store?

      Given that FC is in Sept., and FC is the first *intended* final version, a month+ of going through fine-tuning, and a week or two of manufacturing, seems more than adequate.

  2. WTF? by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

    OK, I watched the WWDC07 demos of Leopard and I thought the new Dock and menu bar looked good. What's the beef? I've not read any "reviews" yet. No matter what happens - come October this MacPro will be running Leopard.

    1. Re:WTF? by Baumi · · Score: 1

      I haven't played around with Leopard myself yet, but I imagine a semi-translucent menu bar and a reflecting dock could get confusing sometimes.

      E.g., I've read in a review that the new indicator for running applications - a small glowing dot - is sometimes difficult to spot between reflections on the dock. If that's the case, it seems like an unfortunate case of valuing eye candy higher than usability. I haven't read anything similar about the menu bar, but translucency on major interface items can be a pain.

    2. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO, the menu bar is a bit too translucent and sometimes hard to read. Yeah, that should be really hard to fix eh? And as for the new Dock, it's pure eye candy, but I think it looks great.

    3. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "I've read in a review that the new indicator for running applications - a small glowing dot - is sometimes difficult to spot between reflections on the dock."

      I would have to agree. I've had some confusing issues with it, when trying it. I hope Apple fixes it.

  3. Amazing insight! by ZxCv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me, or is the "timeline" the article talks about not just something you could reasonably deduce, knowing where Leopard is at right now and when they plan to release it?

    Didn't seem like there was any real new info here, but maybe it's just me.

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
  4. The menu bar... by ZxCv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...seems to be the main complaint among the bits I've read. And after having used it now myself, I'd have to agree.

    Personally, I like the new look of the dock. The menu bar, however, is something I really hope they make an option. For the same reason that I (and many others) don't want or use semi-transparent windows, I don't want a semi-transparent menu bar. It's like they threw readability and usability out the window, all in the name of looking "cool".

    --

    Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
    1. Re:The menu bar... by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      I think they're copying from microsoft again on this "feature."

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    2. Re:The menu bar... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've had leopard installed for about two days now and the semi-transparent menu bar is actually pretty nice. It doesn't jump out at you when you look near the top of documents.. It's just kinda.. there, but in the background.

      The reflections from the dock are also very nice. It actually reflects everything, even video.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    3. Re:The menu bar... by harry666t · · Score: 1

      Who isn't copying these days? It's too difficult to be innovative, really.

    4. Re:The menu bar... by node+3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've heard it's optional (an interview with someone important at Apple (Steve?), or maybe even during the keynote). Have you checked in System Preferences? A "defaults write" command? Or maybe that feature is one of the "interface polishes" that are yet to happen.

      Regardless, I think the translucent menu is a good idea, and one that probably doesn't grab you at first, but takes some acclimation. Also, I think having it be configurable via System Preferences (or at least via defaults), is also a good idea.

    5. Re:The menu bar... by kithrup · · Score: 1

      From seeing several different screenshots, I think it depends on what your desktop image is. Solid colours seem to work real well with it; some pictures work really nice; and a tiger pattern seems to be the worst :).

    6. Re:The menu bar... by drsmithy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's like they threw readability and usability out the window, all in the name of looking "cool".

      That's pretty much the story of OS X's life (with the odd exception here and there like Expose and Spotlight).

    7. Re:The menu bar... by LKM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, animations in Mac OS X usually serve a purpose (windows "flowing" in and out of the dock tell you where you can find them) and/or tend to only appear when they aren't annoying (menus don't "fade in" because that is annoying when you want to select a menu item, but fade out after you've made your selection).

    8. Re:The menu bar... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Who isn't copying these days? It's too difficult to be innovative, really.

      Funny, I don't see people posting things like that in the Vista articles around here.

  5. Uhm by suv4x4 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock.

    So basically the entire Desktop change is criticized. That's basically ALL that changed in Desktop: the menu and the dock.

    It's kinda funny as well since it's the first time I've seen Mac lift "look and feel" straight from a Windows release (Vista).

    1. Re:Uhm by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's basically ALL that changed in Desktop: the menu and the dock. I believe your forgot about the dewy grass Desktop image.

      Won't somebody think of the dewy grass!
    2. Re:Uhm by sid0 · · Score: 1

      You know, that seemed like a direct ripoff of Vista too. Innumerable builds of Vista have carried similar grass/leaves/take your green pick images.

    3. Re:Uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of gren dewy pictures in old os X... (gawd I can't believe this is what I'm talking about) and pretty flowers too.

      "You know, that seemed like a direct ripoff of Vista too. Innumerable builds of Vista have carried similar grass/leaves/take your green pick images."

  6. The Dock & the Menu Bar by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 0

    People have complained that the dock doesn't look as cool on the side. The reflection design is really an artistic element that only works well when the dock is on the bottom, and always showing. Fine for demos in a keynote, but most people who use their computer move the dock to the side, to make more screen real estate in the vertical dimension, where it's badly needed. I guess teh menu bar looks a little "flat" to some people. I like it myself. I don't want it to be flashy and distracting.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Guess I must just be the oddball then. The dock stays on the bottom for me. Key is having it hide when not in use. Such a waste to have screen real-estate eaten by icons you need intermittently.

    2. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      You're not necessarily oddball, you're just not old school. If you've been using OSX since back when it was called Nextstep, you're probably more used to having it vertically on the side. Likewise if you come from the Unix/Linux/BSD camp and used Afterstep/Openstep/whatever.

      If you're one of those oddballs who actually came from the Mac community, it's probably not unusual to leave it on the bottom. ;) But I and everyone I know has it on the right side.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    3. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by node+3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      most people who use their computer move the dock to the side I highly suspect this isn't true.
    4. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by harry666t · · Score: 1

      I'm not using OS X but my KDE is trying to resemble it, so let's say I have a menu bar at the top and a dock-like panel which I can move around.

      My settings for the panel are: vertical, autohide, aligned to the upper-left corner, appears only when the mouse cursor moves to that corner, disappears immediately when the cursor goes off. And it's kinda perfect. I used to change my window manager to something new twice each week, and I think I already tried everything but what I could eventually code by myself, but this setup is *very* comfortable at the moment, and I haven't changed it for at least a month, which is a success :D Upper left corner of the screen seems to be the easiest place to access, dunno why. I think I'll continue my research now...

    5. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      It's a common thing where I am, since all of our systems are built for one main application (Pro Tools) that you usually use in a one-window fullscreen mode, and you do a lot of side-scrolling, thus the dock gets in the way if it's at the bottom. The left edge is a compromise, since you're trading horizontal real estate, unless you have a wide monitor.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    6. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by node+3 · · Score: 1

      I realize it's common, I just don't believe that a majority of the 60 million or whatever installs of OS X there are out there have their docks on the side.

      I suspect, for the aggregate of Macs, it's: dock on the bottom > dock on the bottom + audohide > dock on the side.

      Although certainly, among some subsets of the Mac user base, docks on the side are going to be more prevalent than among others, perhaps so much so in some as to make up the majority. But in the general sense (which is what I was replying to), I would be extremely surprised to find out most docks are on the side.

    7. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

      I'm not using OS X but my KDE is trying to resemble it
      Aren't you missing the whole point? It's look and feel. Skins won't replicate the subtle behaviors of every carefully crafted aspect of every user interface element. You, and the Firefox developers, would do well to learn that beauty is never skin deep.
      --
      Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
    8. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm a Mac head. Started with OS 6 I think. Man those were terrible days.

    9. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by LKM · · Score: 1

      I think most "normal" Mac users I know don't even know that they can move the Dock, and don't care, either.

    10. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by harry666t · · Score: 1

      No no no - I'm not talking about themes - the only one that could really make non-OS X unix look like OS X (Baghira) is slowing the damn box down so badly that I never used it for more than one hour continuously. BTW Macs are not so popular in Poland where I live, so I never had an opportunity to try out the "real" Mac OS.

      What I've found convenient is the top menu bar and a simple panel with launchers etc in the upper left corner, both setups were just /inspired/ by OS X.

    11. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by boscosmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      I maintain 12 macs for different friends and family. The people using them are not power users, but they know how to configure their machines. Anyway, of the 12, ONE person moved their doc to the side. Something to do with Final Cut Pro and wanting to have the video time slider at the very bottom of the screen. Other than that, everyone leaves it on the bottom.

    12. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I suspect this is the case. Among power users, my engineering dept. may or not be typical. There are 100 or so people in engineering, the majority of whom (including myself) are using Macs. FreeBSD is number 2, and Windows a distant 3rd. Mac seems to be gaining further ground, as almost everyone who is eligible for a hardware upgrade chooses a Mac, even if they had something else before (mostly Windows users; BSD users seem less likely to switch).

      I use Dock-on-Bottom w/auto-hide; this seems about even with Dock-on-Left auto-hide, and most people seem to use Dock-on-Bottom without auto-hide. If even most power users are using the default, it would be really unusual for most average users to be different.

    13. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is for me: hidden, on the left side so it doesn't errantly appear when reaching for a scroll bar.

      xoxo

    14. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by miller701 · · Score: 1

      Having it on the side is nice with a wide screen format monitor. Especially on a laptop.

    15. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by steveshaw · · Score: 1

      I have a MBP, so having the dock on the side makes for efficient use of the wide screen. Put it where you have the most room, especially if most of your documents are vertically oriented.

    16. Re:The Dock & the Menu Bar by solios · · Score: 1

      but most people who use their computer move the dock to the side,


      Of the dozens of Mac users I've met and hung out with over the years, I know of only ONE who kept her dock on the side. One out of dozens is hardly "most."

      I tried it on the side, but a few minutes in photoshop convinced me otherwise. So it's on the bottom on all of my machines - the same place I keep my Windows start bar. Not only is it less obtrusive, it's the default - one less thing to worry about.
  7. other elements by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    Well, not really. The unified look and feel is quite nice. It's much less of a distraction. The way emphasis of the window of current focus has improved a lot since Tiger, too.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:other elements by mmeister · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. The unified window look makes a huge difference. And it addresses a major complaint with end-users and developers (plain vs. metal vs. unified toolbar vs. HUD vs. other). So kudos to Apple for listening to its customers.

  8. please oh please submit feedback to ADC by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful
    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:please oh please submit feedback to ADC by bwy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you tried to link to, but it doesn't go to a forum post or anything like that- just the developer homepage. Anyway I agree, stacks needs work. I'm curious if you found a post or something about this that we can add our 2 cents to.

    2. Re:please oh please submit feedback to ADC by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      http://www.apple.com/feedback/ is an appropriate spot. The link the GP posted has a link to bugreport.apple.com.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:please oh please submit feedback to ADC by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      The ADC (Apple Developer Connection page has a way to sign up at the top right of the page. Once you've signed up you can log in and submit bugs to their Bug Reporter system. In my experience that is the most effective way to submit enhancement requests or defect reports to Apple. The "Feedback" pages are another option.

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  9. Agreed by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the transparent menu is unnecessary, and perhaps counterproductive, but not a huge deal. I'm curious about what is disliked about the dock though. Stacks seemed a nice feature, and other than that there really wasn't much to right home about. Oh actually I do have a complaint about the stack - smartly, the last item placed on the stack is the one visible in the dock, but when you go to fan them out, it become the farthest one away making it the hardest to click, even though it is the one you are most likely to open.

    I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore (yea! I hate using the desktop for anything but wallpaper). It didn't look like they were available in the dock though either. Is the finder sidebar the only place you will be able to find them now? I'd love it if they were accessible via a special stack in the dock, with newly inserted ones showing up on the top. I use DragThing right now to do something similar.

    While I'm drifting off subject, I've wondered how the shared volumes will work for large networks. Jobs mentioned that any computer will automatically be found (via netbios or zeroconf?) and will show up in the finder sidebar. What happens if you are on a company or dorm network - hundreds of computers in the sidebar? I'd hope not. Maybe after a certain number of computers, it is replaced with a "see entire network link" where you can browse and/or pick which computers should be in the sidebar.

    1. Re:Agreed by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I,too, am interested in stacks. And Spaces. I always made use of multiple virtual desktops on my Linux boxes. Oh and since I am bad about doing backups any more regularly than twice a year, I'll probably use Time Machine as well.

      Core Animation is sweet. As is 64 bit from top to bottom.

      Oh and what's the deal with the blazin' speed of Steve's demo machine that was at WWDC07? I've got quad-core 2.66GHz MacPro that just doesn't have the snappiness of the MacPro Steve demo'ed. Is there that much of a difference between mine and a 3.0GHz (quad or 8 core) in running regular apps? I just don't see it....

    2. Re:Agreed by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore

      The current Finder preferences have the option to not show volumes on the desktop. In all probability they've just changed the defaults. I've been using it this way for so long I didn't even notice they changed it.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    3. Re:Agreed by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore (yea! I hate using the desktop for anything but wallpaper)....Is the finder sidebar the only place you will be able to find them now?

      Apparently hate is not big motivator for you. I suppose that's a good thing. Anyway, you can already choose (in preferences) which items appear on your desktop. And an answer to your other question is in the Go menu.

    4. Re:Agreed by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

      Jobs probably had it packed to the limit with RAM. How much better would your system run with 16GB of RAM?

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    5. Re:Agreed by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, the MacPro suffers from increased latency if you fill all the memory slots. So 8GB of RAM would be the balance between the most RAM and keeping latency down. The performance review I read, which unfortunately I cannot remember which site I read it on, stated that using only 4 memory slots was best if you wanted to keep down latency. For me that's the only knock on the MacPro is that it uses FB-DIMMs (expensive RAM and more latency). Other than that I really like this machine.

    6. Re:Agreed by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just pray that Leopard's Finder doesn't flip out if a network share suddenly goes missing, as Tiger's does. It's enough of a pain that I need to fully quit out of Azureus and iTunes which I have configured to do all of their storage on a network drive, and it's entirely my fault. But when my computer flips shit and locks up for fifteen minutes because I unplugged the network cable before unmounting all the shares... you get the idea. An auto-mount option, preferably with location-based configuration (sort of how I use MarcoPolo.app right now, with its scripting tools) would be great, but I'd be content if it simply gracefully disconnected from network shares that have become unavailable.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    7. Re:Agreed by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      yea! I hate using the desktop for anything but wallpaper

      So, am I the only Mac user left in the world that has their disk icons and a "Documents" folder lined up along the right side of their desktop? Maybe because my first real computer was a Performa running System 7.1 I'm just used to working on the desktop. What I liked most when the Dock first came out was that it worked so much like the old Launcher.

    8. Re:Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The impact of memory latency is usually overstated, especially when you are looking at the performance of media-related tasks (i.e. throughput oriented). The Core 2 Duo has massive L2 caches to compensate for latency, and the win from having fast amounts of physical memory (instead of relying on virtual memory) would completely outweight the latency penalty.

      As for why Jobs' demos really flew... if anything I'd guess that he had a maxed out GPU.

    9. Re:Agreed by foo+fighter · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Put your Documents folder under the Finder icon on the doc. Then click and hold on either to see them popup like the "Stacks" feature coming in Leopard.

      That's right, Stacks is already available on OS X, just with a less shiny UI.

      I think this is much more efficient than having to clear windows to see the Desktop to access mounted volumes.

      --
      obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
    10. Re:Agreed by paleo2002 · · Score: 1

      Bleck!

      I just tried this and its like the Start menu in Windows. How wretched! All those nested menus, everything in alphabetical order. Its bad enough I have to look at Windows if order to play Half-Life.

      The icons in my Documents folder are organized so that folders containing work-related material are in one part of the window and recreation stuff is in another. If I'm having trouble finding a folder, I type the first few letters of its name. My real-world office is organized the same way. Papers for one class are in one stack on the desk, papers for another are on top of a filing cabinet, etc. I only wish that stack of missing lab quizzes would flow when I thought of its name.

      I would probably use Stacks as a way of listing all the apps on my Mac in the Dock with only the most-used getting their own icon.

  10. Transparency craziness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "What we may expect is additional settings and [some] user interface polish[ing]. Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

    Okay, I was wondering what the "new menu bar and Dock" were referring to. Here's Apple's page on the subject. Damn, I was really hoping they were bringing back NextStep-like vertical menu bars a an option, but, nooooo, they're making the menubar transparent. Useless. One of the most key UI elements transparent? Why? For a few extra pixels of the desktop that you won't usually see behind windows anyway? What is this? Windows Vista? Thank goodness they are apparently leaving the window border transparency alone.

    It's a bad sign when the OS isn't released yet and there's already a patch to remove this new "feature". Please, Apple, at least make it optional in Preferences.

    1. Re:Transparency craziness... by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Ew.

      Windows reflect in the dock... that strikes me as a really horrible idea.

    2. Re:Transparency craziness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really is horrible is the fact that you are evidently quite happy to use this site as a forum to discuss your trashy machines.

      Hey, loads of people reckon that purchasing stuff can be a form of self expression, after all it seems to be a part of life nowadays.

      But not that many people are prepared to use "information processing devices" as a vehicle for their masturbatory lives.

      Is this a reason why apple never seem to sell that many computers?

  11. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bullshit. In grid mode, the icons display with file names, and a right-click gets a menu, and one of the items is to open the folder in the Finder. Yeah, there are some rough spots that need fixing up, but because of the NDA I won't go into that. But I figured I'd stretch the NDA a little when I saw blatant misinformation about dock behavior, from someone whom I'm guessing doesn't actually have the beta but is just passing on misunderstood info.

  12. What I'd like to know by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 1
    Has it been announced (e.g. on Apple developer mailing lists) what versions Leopard will have of
    • apache
    • bash
    • ksh
    • openssl
    • perl
    • postfix
    • python
    • ruby
    • sqlite
    • ssh
    • svn (?)
    • zsh
    • x11
    etc...?
    1. Re:What I'd like to know by xSacha · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's that important what version it ships with. You can guess it would be a pretty recent version and that they would update it when stable updates were released.

    2. Re:What I'd like to know by mgv · · Score: 1

      Has it been announced (e.g. on Apple developer mailing lists) what versions Leopard will have of

              * apache
              * bash
              * ksh
              * openssl
              * perl
              * postfix
              * python
              * ruby
              * sqlite
              * ssh
              * svn (?)
              * zsh
              * x11


      For some of them, yes.

      But seeing that those who know, like myself, have a NDA on the matter, I can't really comment too much.

      I don't think that too many developers will be disappointed with these *nix level packages in Lepoard, but then again, alot of developers already know the answer to this question. I can say that apple puts a lot of effort into keeping its developers happy.

      One thing I'm sure of - if the package you want isn't the most up to date, Apple won't stop you installing it. They never have in the past, and I doubt that they will any time soon with these sorts of packages.

      Michael

      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    3. Re:What I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can guess it would be a pretty recent version and that they would update it when stable updates were released"

      Apple does not automatically update tools when new stable releases come out with Tiger. Why would they start doing it with Leopard?

    4. Re:What I'd like to know by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 1
      Well typically point updates (e.g. 10.4.x) have rarely if ever updated those components; except perhaps ssh in security updates.

      So, I would expect that the 10.5 versions are already being tested in current builds, and that we'll be stuck with them for quite some time.

    5. Re:What I'd like to know by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 1

      NDA
      Yeah, I kind of expected this reply, since of course the answers are a --version away for anyone with a beta build. That's why I specifically asked about anything said on the mailing lists, e.g. by Apple engineers, which I guess is then fair game to repeat. (I've seen that done before, those are not HUGE secrets; just didn't follow this time.)

      if the package you want isn't the most up to date, Apple won't stop you installing it
      Of course. It's more about what I can expect other people, who won't bother to use fink or macports, to have as the standard versions.
    6. Re:What I'd like to know by mgv · · Score: 1

      Of course. It's more about what I can expect other people, who won't bother to use fink or macports, to have as the standard versions.


      Think happy developers.

      Michael
      --
      There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
    7. Re:What I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is this a hint that fink is installed by default?

    8. Re:What I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't.
      I do know that there's Python 2.5.1 and X11 based on Xorg 7.2
      Also Bash 3.2. Haven't seen any info about other stuff.

    9. Re:What I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can't speak for the final release, but the WWDC beta has the following versions:

      apache - 2.2.4
      bash - 3.2.9(1)-release
      ksh - Version M 1993-12-28 s+
      openssl - 0.9.71
      perl - 5.8.8
      postfix - 2.4.0
      python - 2.5.1
      ruby - 1.8.6
      sqlite - 3.3.17
      svn - 1.4.3
      zsh - 4.3.4
      x11 - Xquartz server based on X.org Release 7.2, built on ?P

    10. Re:What I'd like to know by An+Anonymous+Hero · · Score: 1
      Thanks. Good news! This essentially matches what's currently available in macports:

      $ port info --version apache2 bash ksh93 openssl perl5.8 postfix python25 ruby sqlite3 subversion zsh-devel xorg
      version: 2.2.4
      version: 3.2.17
      version: 2007-01-11
      version: 0.9.8e
      version: 5.8.8
      version: 2.3.8
      version: 2.5.1
      version: 1.8.6
      version: 3.4.0
      version: 1.4.4
      version: 4.3.4
      version: X11R6.8.2
  13. Multitouch ! by tronnolon · · Score: 1


    What about multitouch? -- It's already incorporated into the iPhone interface,

    and the iPhone is running Leopard ...

    1. Re:Multitouch ! by kimble3 · · Score: 1

      Just wildly speculating, but what if Apple announced new iMacs with a multi-touch display? How cool would that be? And a whole lot more affordable than Microsofts coffee table!

    2. Re:Multitouch ! by tronnolon · · Score: 1

      Indeed! -- See pics here on the parent post ...

    3. Re:Multitouch ! by mmeister · · Score: 1

      I'd definitely pick me up a 24-inch multitouch iMac. That would rock!!

  14. Still crap resizing of windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, only one place, bottom right. Come on Apple, we could resize windows from any edge 20 fscking years ago! Heck, OS X doesn't even let you change the system fonts without the use of 3rd party tools.

    1. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by Goaway · · Score: 1

      On of my favourite changes when I moved from Windows to OS X was getting rid of the goddamn resizing borders.

    2. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      How true!

    3. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      yeah, but half the resizing options are two-step processes. I want to make the top of a window higher? Move the window up. Straight up - not perfect with the mouse? Gotta get it where you want it horizontally again. Now, drop the bottom down. Better move your mouse peftectly down. What? You didn't go straight down? Now you get to line it up horizontally on the right side now.

      PITA.

    4. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the solution is to get rid of this habit of obsessively resizing windows.

    5. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Restricting what the user can do is always an option.

    6. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by LKM · · Score: 1

      Your comments soulds trollish, but I have actually found that I manually resize windows under Windows much more often than under Mac OS X. The thing is, most often I want to see "all of it." If I open a an image and zoom it, I want the window to fit the zoomed image. If I open a file browser containing files, I want the window to fit the width and height of its content. This is easy on OS X, you just click the "zoom to fit" button. On Windows, there is no "zoom to fit," just "full window" or "normal." So seeing everything involves a lot of manual window resizing.

    7. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by oliderid · · Score: 1

      I had to work on a mac for the last two weeks.
      I have to confess that I had real difficulties switching from Windows to Apple...(I do work on KDE/Linux too) Finder/Application is probably the most difficult (relatively speaking )concept to apprehrend when you come from the windows world ...

      The overall impression that they are simply too many windows :-). The desk quickly becomes a mess. the Application top menu is sometimes confusing. Some keys aren't even represented like [] (on a QWERTY keyboard), you have to google to find the combo.

    8. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be so bad if Apple would give us a maximize button. On a Mac, you have to drag the window to the top left, then move the mouse cursor to the bottom right of the window, then drag it to the bottom right of the screen. Be sure to get all the way over too, or else you'll end up clicking on something else when you try to apply Fitt's law to the scroll bars. Compare to one mouse click on any other OS.

    9. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by Goaway · · Score: 1

      Sorry, most of the rest of us are capable of multi-tasking, and don't need to compensate for lack of brain capacity by maximizing windows.

    10. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maximizing windows makes everything look ugly. Nobody should ever need to fully maximize a window, unless they're running at 800x600 or less.

      If you can't use a 'page down' key or the scroll wheel that's on every mouse in existence then fine, stick to using the scroll bars. I haven't touched a scroll bar in years.

      Seriously, a complaint about scroll bars? Are you on AOL or something?

      btw, on a Mac, you can just open System Preferences, go to Keyboard & Mouse, and set a global (system-wide) hotkey for Window->Zoom. (I use F12) Then every window will do the Mac version of maximizing, which is called 'Size To Fit' and makes a on more sense than having all sorts of wasted space in every win/lin maximized window.

    11. Re:Still crap resizing of windows by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not always multitasking all the time, sometimes I'm just surfing the web (for example). Why not have the web browser take up the entire screen? Yeah, I know about the "Zoom" feature, but why should I be constantly rezooming every time I go to a site with a different layout? Just maximize the window and be done with it.

  15. You're not alone. by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

    I keep my Dock on the bottom as well. I wanted more screen real estate, so I bought a Samsung 22" widescreen. Problem solved. Oh and I love DVI.

    1. Re:You're not alone. by Paisley+Phrog · · Score: 1

      That's actually why I keep my dock on the side. I have a 20" iMac, so I have more width than height. I'll typically have a window stretch all the way up and down, but rarely side to side...so I found myself accidentally triggering the dock at the bottom. So, left side it is for me.

    2. Re:You're not alone. by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 1

      My 22" widescreen has the same vertical resolution as a standard 4:3 19" monitor. Most people don't need more vertical than that. OTOH, I work with annoyingly-wide spreadsheets on a regular basis at work, so having a widescreen both at home and at work is very nice. :D

    3. Re:You're not alone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My biggest problem with widescreen monitors is losing the amount of vertical space I'm used to having.

      My 22" widescreen has the same vertical resolution as a standard 4:3 19" monitor.


      My 'standard' 4:3 19" monitor runs at 1856 x 1392.

      Your widescreen monitor does 1392 or higher of vertical resolution?

      If so, what brand and model is it?
  16. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You're right that by default the Stacks sort by and use the last added item icon, but you can change to different sort criteria and thus a different icon will be reflected in the stack.

    It may be possible to manually change the stack icon but i haven't looked into it very much.

    Another big complaint people had with Leopard is that a previously advertised feature of screen sharing within iChat appeared to have been moved to the new Finder instead. While the Finder does indeed support screen sharing i can state that iChat appears to have the feature there too. At least there is a screen sharing button in iChat and one of the capabilities iChat 4 reports is apple:iq:rd:server and apple:iq:rd:client.

    For any XMPP devs that might read this post here's a list of all the capabilities reported when i did a service discovery on iChat:

    iChat v3 capabilities

    http://jabber.org/protocol/si
    http://jabber.org/protocol/si/profile/file-transfe r
    jabber:iq:version
    http://jabber.org/protocol/bytestreams
    apple:iq:vc:capable
    apple:iq:vc:multivideo
    http://jabber.org/protocol/sipub
    http://jabber.org/protocol/xhtml-im
    vcard-temp:x:update
    apple:iq:vc:video
    apple:iq:vc:available
    apple:iq:vc:audio
    Service Discovery (http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info)
    apple:profile:bundle-transfer
    apple:iq:vc:multiaudio

    iChat v4 additional capabilities

    apple:iq:rd:client
    apple:iq:vc:recauth
    apple:iq:vc:ice
    apple:iq:rd:server
    apple:profile:efh-transfer
    apple:iq:vc:auxvideo
    http://www.apple.com/xmpp/message-attachments
    apple:profile:transfer-extensions:rsrcfork

    So it looks like iChat will get some new abilities. I think the ICE stuff will solve one of the major problems that Tiger users have complained about, NAT traversal for audio/video. I believe the efh stuff is encrypted file transfers but am not sure. Looks like there's no Jingle or true SIP support coming though. :(

  17. You know... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 5, Informative

    > I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed
    > that they were not on the desktop anymore (yea! I hate using the desktop
    > for anything but wallpaper).

    You can take HDs, CDs, iPods, servers, and mounted disc images off the desktop right now, if you're so inclined.

    Go to Finder>Preferences, or use command-comma while Finder is the selected app. From there, just uncheck the top three ("Show these items on the Desktop") boxes in the "General" pane. Bamf... nothing on your desktop but what you purposely put there.

    cya,
    john

    --
    Imagine all the people...
  18. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by mgv · · Score: 1

    A coworker came back from WWDC with his copy. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!


    You are mistaken.

    I think that there is enough from the keynote alone to demonstrate that it doesn't operate entirely as you have stated. Beyond that I can't say (NDA). And, in any case, this is still in beta, so don't get tied down on minor points.

    As TFA states, there are several releases planned - and I think that whilst I don't know the timescale for the releases any more than you, I'd be stunned if the Developer preview ships unchanged. That is a major point of a beta preview, right? Partly to update your software, but partly to field test the whole shebang on a group of people who aren't going to cry the house down if not every feature is perfect or stable.

    It is a preview, for developers. It will undoubtedly change.

    Michael

    Michael
    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  19. Dock 3D is a major improvement by gig · · Score: 1

    > Among the most criticized parts of the new user interface [are] the new menu bar and Dock."

    The menu bar obviously needs a control of some kind in Preferences, that enables you to set the amount of the new effect, even to zero. There is already a third-party app that fixes this for the developer preview, they can make it a non-issue entirely with a single check box or slider.

    The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D. Instead of a strip of flypaper with 2D photos stuck on it, now you have a shelf with 3D objects sitting on it. Some objects are behind other objects. In a single position you can have a "stack" of documents where one is clearly in the front and many more behind, and you can leaf through them with a gesture. The Dock's look has not even changed, it just has an extra dimension.

    It's like when you're taking a group photo and you get too many people for one row you have to make a second row and then a third. The Dock has a way to do this now. We have more stuff than ever. Vastly improved.

    1. Re:Dock 3D is a major improvement by dr.badass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.

      No, sorry. It's 2D that looks 3D. You don't need 3D to create the reflection effect, or to have objects appear to be behind other objects. Also, Stacks don't work quite how you seem to think. They're just a different view for Dock folders. You can't create a "second row" of apps, for instance.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  20. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by mgv · · Score: 1

    ullshit. In grid mode, the icons display with file names, and a right-click gets a menu, and one of the items is to open the folder in the Finder. Yeah, there are some rough spots that need fixing up, but because of the NDA I won't go into that. But I figured I'd stretch the NDA a little when I saw blatant misinformation about dock behavior, from someone whom I'm guessing doesn't actually have the beta but is just passing on misunderstood info.


    I'm torn between (a) breaking my NDA, (b) refusing to post anonymously and (c) watching someone who has very little exposure to Leopard make comments.

    I guess I'll stick with keeping my mouth shut :)

    For those who block all AC comments, I've repeated the quoted here. Make of it what you will.

    Michael

    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  21. Blu-Ray & HDDVD Support? by aldheorte · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have definitive information on what HD formats Leopard will support? Last I checked. rumors swirled around support for one or the other or none. I use a Mac Mini as media center and if Leopard does not support the HD formats (and someone does not come out with an affordable combo, or at least HDDVD. drive), it does not sound like a very appealing upgrade for that use.

    1. Re:Blu-Ray & HDDVD Support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple has backed Blu-Ray for a very long time now. They even joined Board of Directors of the Blu-ray Disc Association. Thus, Bu-ray support is a certainty. That said, however, rumors have it they will also hedge their bet by supporting HD-DVD.

  22. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by dr.badass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    . Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!

    You are mistaken. Both views have a "Show In Finder" option, and the grid view most certainly does contain text. The screenshots on Apple's site, as well as the keynote demo both show this, which casts some doubt on everything else you've said.

    --
    Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  23. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by jimicus · · Score: 1

    ICBW, but if memory serves people were saying similar things about the Dock when Mac OS X 10.0 was in development.

    I'm pretty sure they're not saying that now.

  24. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by mgv · · Score: 1

    They do exactly one of two things: if they have 8-9 items, they open up in that stupid fan shape. More than that, you get a dopey grid. (No text, nothing but icons. Yeah, *that's* useful.)


    Actually, someone (not me!) has posted this stuff online:

    Example of Stacks (Needs Flash, so it won't work on an iPhone!)

    I think this shows enough to contradict what you have said.

    Check this out before apple no doubt removes it and sets the lawyers on the website.

    Michael
    --
    There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
  25. It's "two-and-a-half" D, no? by argent · · Score: 1

    It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.

    Really?

    In the videos it looked like a typical "two-and-a-half" dimension interface, where the third dimension is an effect applied to a two-dimensional interface, like the "3d" drop shadowed-windows in OS X, or the "3d" buttons that have become the norm for windowed GUIs over the past decade and a half: you would get the same functionality with a short vertical stack of objects in two dimensions.

    This isn't intended to put it down, or anything... I don't think that full 3d makes a lot of sense here, actually, so I'm curious as to what you mean by "it actually is 3d".

    (as an aside, what I want to see is the ability to run applets in the dock... it's one of the things I miss from the enhanced NeXT-style dock in Windowmaker/GNUstep)

    1. Re:It's "two-and-a-half" D, no? by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      Applets in the Dock sound like a great idea. I use neither the Dashboard nor do i like the Vista way of putting applets on the desktop. I would actually use applets in the Dock.

  26. They don't BUILD MacOS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mortals did not write and build Leopard. It had been hidden away years ago by the Knights Templar.

    It's late because the secret to its existence was discovered by his Steve on a trip to the Louvre and it took this much time to discover its true location.

  27. The problem with the new dock by alms · · Score: 3, Informative

    is that you can't tell which applications are running and which are not. In the Tiger dock, running applications have a very visible black triangle under them. In the Leopard dock, there is a much more subtle shadowing effect that indicates running applications. It needs to be less subtle.

    1. Re:The problem with the new dock by duckbillplatypus · · Score: 1

      It depends on how you use the dock. I have the dock set to the smallest setting with magnification and auto hide. I prefer more screen real estate and less clutter. I use command-tab to scroll thru my open programs. This allows for me to move more quickly thru my programs and the command q quits the program. I find this is much faster than mousing to bottom of my screen. I almost use the dock exclusively to launch programs and nothing more. I dont find the subtle glow to inhibit my productivity. However your mileage will vary. So I said all of that to say this, it is a personal preference thing and hopefully there will be settings to address these preferences.

  28. Aqua tweaks by Y-Crate · · Score: 1

    I would hope that the Aqua interface elements get a reworking before the final release. They look absolutely out of place in the new unified interface scheme. If they simply copied over the iPhone style Leopard would look a whole lot better. Take a look at them side by side and tell me which you prefer.

    1. Re:Aqua tweaks by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      Look at the dates on the web pages. The before shot is the after, and the after is the before shot.

  29. iPhone doesn't run Leopard by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

    iPhone does run an os named 'OS X' but that doesn't mean it has anything in common with the Darwin-based OS X running on the Macs. Just because Microsoft calls several products 'Windows' doesn't mean they share much (if any) code.

    --
    Place nail here >+
  30. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by fermion · · Score: 1
    I seldom complain about mods, but this post is indicative of why the mod system does not work well. It seems many people on /. mod to protect corporate stock prices, rather than promote realistic discussion.

    I don't know how stacks are going to work. I suspect that I will not like them, in the same way I ddi not like dock. I still have issues with the dock, but have made it work for me. Any changes they make to the dock, might be to the better.

    I am not sure what is happening with menus. What I do know is that the fix menu is not working well for large screens. I actually like the fact that I go into x-windows for my office applications. I don't want to go the random order and tiny icon route that MS seems to favor, as I live by the expectations that certain menu items will be in a certain spot, just like I live by the fact that the keys on my keyboard will be in a certain spot. In any case, menus can be improved.

    Back to stacks, it this not the piles motif that has been floating around for years? Things kind of come and go with the Apple OS. If people use it, and it is reliable, it stays. If not, it goes. Sort of like the location option for various settings.

    I am not in hurry for this version of Mac OS. I think it will mostly be of interest to those who have the new Intel macs and want to run MS Windows. I will likely acquire with my next Mac, and see if it is worth upgrading the other machines.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  31. Ported to ARM? by tronnolon · · Score: 1

    "Ihnatko and Apple's insistence that the device is running OS X contradicts suggestions that, to be blunt, it is not, as a post on tech site Slashdot explains."

    There are conflicting rumors, with comments coming from Chicago Sun-Times columnist Andy Ihnatko suggesting iPhone does indeed run Leopard - pared down and ported to ARM - for shared code base and to take advantage of Core Animation. When a developer SDK is released it would make sense to have cross-compatibilty, and multitouch functionality as a Leopard module would make a complementary match.

  32. iPhone Cocoa, Core Animation, Objective-C, AppKit by tronnolon · · Score: 1


    ... much more on the iPhone codebase here.

    To the original point, whenceforth multitouch Apple hardware?

  33. iPhone Darwin BSD OS X Port by tronnolon · · Score: 1

    ... and more here.

    " (2) a substantiated look at how the iPhone is indeed running OS X (contrary to reports that it isn't), and (3) what it means to users and developers, and how ARM is involved, in Mac OS X, ARM, and iPod OS X, and why the supposedly 'closed' system Apple describes for the iPhone won't preclude third party development."
  34. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by Tickletaint · · Score: 1

    Those who block AC comments don't deserve to be informed.

    --
    Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
  35. Re:Multitouch: Already there in Mac OS X 10.4 by atrocious+cowpat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "What about multitouch? -- It's already incorporated into the iPhone interface, "

    Actually you have (limited) Multitouch-capability already in OS X 10.4. The MacBooks' and MacBookPros' Trackpads will interpret actions you do with two fingers differently than actions you do with one finger. Examples:

    click [one finger] = "left click"
    click [two fingers] = "right click" ("control click" for you 1-button-mouse-maccies ;) )

    drag [one finger] = nothing (unless trackpad-button is depressed, then it's "drag selected item")
    drag [two fingers] = scroll horizontally or vertically, depending on direction of drag

    The latter function (two-finger-scroll) is actually one of the nicest input-features i've ever encountered, right on par with the scroll-wheel (slightly better even, because it works horizontally too, without having to press any modifier key). I had heard about it and could not quite imagine how this would be good, but once I tried it I was hooked immediately.(*)

    I, too, hope that Apple will expand the Multitouch-capabilities of their OS/Trackpads, but the basic functionality is already here.

    (*) Yes, I know there were Trackpads before with dedicated strips for scrolling (or software, that would create a "scrolling-area" on your trackpad, but this works without having to think about where you put your fingers (and it works seamlessly in the x/y-directions).

    --
    sig? Oh, that sig...
  36. Patterns are bad by ghutchis · · Score: 3, Informative

    The more small patterns you have in the image (or section of the image near the top), the worse the menu bar looks.

    I have my Mac set to change the desktop once a day. At first, everything was great -- it was picking images with sky at the top -- essentially solid color. Then it brought up a zen rock garden, which is one of my favorite images.

    On Leopard, it makes the menus unreadable. The dark/light pattern in the rocks makes it impossible to find letters in the menu. I've also found many pictures will make it difficult to read or identify menu extras on the right side of the screen.

    They need to fix this ASAP. Oh, and the new Finder icons are horrible too. There's zero color contrast to identify the different folders.

    1. Re:Patterns are bad by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have something like a star field cluster for a background. Pretty much a bunch of black with greenish white dots. There's some of the cluster behind the "Help" menu but it doesn't keep me from being able to read "Help" and it doesn't look bad, either. The regular menus being transparent over my open document/browser/whatever actually is pretty cool.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  37. What the future may bring ... by tronnolon · · Score: 1


    Front and side, concept multitouch iMac mockup.

    Perceptive Pixel demo by Jeff Han, TED talk, research homepage. Fingerworks, purchased by Apple, 2005.

  38. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by FLAGGR · · Score: 1

    You have the best sig ever.

  39. zfs by yahurd · · Score: 0

    we will add features
    like zfs? sun doesnt lie about these things, _you_ do.
  40. It's like Copeland all over again! by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Personally, I think Apple has finally lost it after several years of producing innovations that have changed much of the world. The fact that they are touting a transparent menubar as a major feature suggests their idea pool for MacOS X development is starting to collapse in the same way Copeland did in the mid 90's. They've become too focused on presentation and eye candy, rather than improving what goes on under the hood.

    Of course, that isn't to say MacOS X hasn't been a mess in terms of the Human Interface Guidelines (on which the Mac OS was based) since the earliest public releases, but making the one visual concept that has remained consistent and immediately recognizeable in all versions of the Mac OS almost completely invisible has to be the single worst offense to date. The menubar was supposed to be a fixed (and always visible) reference point for the user to rely on while the rest of the desktop evironment continually changes during each session of use. It's the one part of the OS that keeps everything else organized and easily understood.

    Aside from Leopard, we'll soon have the iPhone to contend with, which is sure to be a nightmare once the early adopters get past the hype and Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field and start to realize just how confining the device really is due to all the red tape that comes with it. It will probably sell as expected, but in the end, it may go down in history as on of the worst products in Apple's history, next to the Lisa, as a result of all the artificial limitations imposed upon it that kept it from being the killer product everyone really wanted it to be.

    By the time this all plays out, Steve Jobs may get ousted for both 10.5 and the iPhone, much like Gil Amelio was due to Copeland and mac cloning.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:It's like Copeland all over again! by mmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow.. do you absolute NOT know what you're talking about.

      Copland failed because it was much too ambitious. They wanted 100% backward compatibility + protected memory and other modern OS goodies.

      As for the menu bar reference point -- it is still fixed, as always and is still quite visible. There may be some bugs where certain images make it disappear, but I'd call that a bug at this point. It isn't a major feature (the feature is the improved desktop which focuses on removing clutter so you can see more of your digital images). Stacks is a big deal. Once you actually start using it, you'll realize it vastly improves the dock.

      Why would iPhone be a nightmare? Sure, there's the Steve RDF, but it seems pretty clear that for the first time, an emphasis on usability has been placed on a smart phone. I'm sure that there will be issues, but they'll be solved with software updates and I think calls that this will be a flop are incredibly premature. I'm sure you want it to be a flop, that is clear from your statements.

      Steve Jobs will not get ousted for 10.5 or iPhone.

      I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe.

      The iPhone will do well. The secret is that much of the functionality is in software that can easily be updated via syncing with iTunes. Bugs can easily be addressed. Improvements can be made and sent out much in the same way Apple does for its standard applications. I'm sure there will be glitches (when several hundred thousand people start using something, there are bound to be edge cases that come up). And the 2nd generation will do even better.

      I predict that Apple will have an iPhone battery replacement program (much like for the iPod, possibly better since you'll likely take it to a AT&T store) which, while not resolving the user replaceable battery, will relieve the anxiety of what to do after two years of battery use.

      In the end, I'm sure there will be some limitations, as this is a 1.0 product, but those limitations will be worked out. There will be some very vocal nay sayers out there, but based on what I've seen thus far (and my own experience with previous phones), Apple is changing the game here. It is putting emphasis on the end user experience -- something that's apparently new to the industry -- and I think they will be successful because of it.

    2. Re:It's like Copeland all over again! by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

      Sure, Apple *did* spread their resources thin considering the initial goals they set out for. But that was not the only issue involved. The fact is, they never *achieved* those goals before they started concerning themselves with the superficial areas of the OS, such as the goofy new themes ("Hi-Tech", "Gizmo", "Drawing Board") that would use non-square windows and large isometric icons, among other things.

      Mac OS X has been development for nearly a decade now and Apple still doesn't have something as simple as a unified user interface implimented yet. However, they seem to have no problem changing the window designs and shinier icons with every other major release of the OS.

      If Apple put half as much effort into what's going on under the hood as they put into making the OS shinier, maybe we'd have machines that are better at getting a job done rather than acting as a "my computer is prettier than yours" conversation piece. Dumb "innovations" like a transparent menubar aren't going to improve the efficiency or usefulness of the user interface.

      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
    3. Re:It's like Copeland all over again! by mmeister · · Score: 1

      If Apple put half as much effort into what's going on under the hood as they put into making the OS shinier, maybe we'd have machines that are better at getting a job done rather than acting as a "my computer is prettier than yours" conversation piece. Dumb "innovations" like a transparent menubar aren't going to improve the efficiency or usefulness of the user interface.

      Let's look at just a *few* of the things that have been added under the hood in just Leopard: 64-bit GUI APIs (and the ability for 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run side by side), Core Animation, Garbage Collection in ObjC, significant additions to ObjC language, major revamp of Xcode & Interface Builder, Multi-Threaded OpenGL, improved file watching, improved kernel scheduling, Ruby & Python integration, and lots more. There's one feature that is still under development and won't be user configurable in Leopard. Go back to Tiger and you'll get a slew of additional "under the hood" technologies that were added or improved upon.

      So I would say they are putting in much more than "have as much effort" under the hood as they are on making the OS shiny. You'll see this as I think a number of developers (esp. smaller ones) are going to require 10.5 minimum for their newer products because there is such a huge change between 10.4 and 10.5.

    4. Re:It's like Copeland all over again! by LKM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a transparent menu bar is hardly revolutionary or even worth mentioning. That doesn't mean Leopard doesn't have a huge amount of new stuf. It's just that most of the changes in Leopard are in APIs.

    5. Re:It's like Copeland all over again! by real+gumby · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the thoughtful note.

      [...]I think Mac OS X 10.5 is going to be a very solid release. Perhaps it is not as end-user feature laden as some would like, but it has plenty of useful features that will make it worth the $129 upgrade. More importantly, the features and functionality added for developers means that there will be some very cool apps coming down the pipe. Yeah, I think most people, and the mainstream press in particular, don't understand what to look for (the mainstream press doesn't cover Oracle's feature set, nor Dell's, but Apple has decided to play in that area and so that's part of the deal.)

      I also hope (for my own sake, as a Mac user) that 10.5 stresses robustness and solid under-the-hood foundations. I don't need for Apple to spend much energy at all on showy stuff -- I want the results, showy or not, in the apps I use.

      [...]Copland failed because it was much too ambitious. They wanted 100% backward compatibility + protected memory and other modern OS goodies.[...]

      [...]Apple is changing the [mobile phone] game here. It is putting emphasis on the end user experience -- something that's apparently new to the industry -- and I think they will be successful because of it. To be fair, Nokia in particular tried to do that too, so it's not new to the industry. The problem is that the carriers have had too much control, even in Europe.

      What's different is two things, I think:
      • Apple may have enough market clout to change the dynamics of the business. In the 90s Nokia had that much clout too, but by then the dynamics of the market had been set, and making an aggressive change would have fukt their market position in the short term (and fatally in the long term if it failed). Apple's a new entrant and though they're making a huge bet, there's a better chance it wouldn't be company killing for it to fail. It also builds on an existing tail (iPod biz) that Nokia didn't have.
      • What OS X showed is that Apple is not afraid to make a change that kills backwards compatibility. Copeland tried too hard to accommodate users' needs; OS X said (to the anguished cries of many) "sorry, anything before OS 9 will probably not work and even many OS 9 things won't either....just enough of the ones you have to help you transition". (an inability to do this, by the way, is responsible for at least the majority, and likely 90%, of the problems in Windows. It's not because people who work for Microsoft are idiots).


      In the case of the phone, I suspect that the OS on it is not really that OS X-like -- likely less like OS X than Windows Mobile 3 is like Vista. Perhaps they will gradually move more functionality into it, as they do with OS X releases, as the platform matures. But again, they appear unafraid to tell developers "hey, you get limited extension capability" which for any other company would be risky. I don't know how they manage to get away with that but somehow they do.
  41. The Dock: The Left Side by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

    I know quite a few old time NeXT users who keep the Dock on the side, even though NeXTSTEP had it on the right. This is because the left side position clusters the controls better. Less mouse travel between app launch on the left and menu selection on the top/left. I know a bunch of ordinary users (old school Mac users and Windows switchers) who try it in different places and wind up with it on the left, too.

    It would be interesting to know what the statistics are for dock position.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  42. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

    If you have folders within folders, how does it handle that? Do you wind up with yet another grid? I really like having my Documents folder in the dock, with a right-click I can get into all the subfolders by hovering and get to documents much more quickly than through a finder window.

    --
    Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  43. OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The iPhone operating system is OS X, and it's probably a Leopard variant. Although I haven't seen reliable indications of this, I'm sure such details will emerge after people get their hands on the iPhone. There are a few hints that iPhone's OS X is probably Leopard based, however. Certainly the iPhone could have been developed *without* some of these technologies, and some could have been back-ported to Tiger, but it seems more likely that iPhone is based on Leopard code. Some of the hints include:
    1. iPhone has a 160 dpi screen, and Leopard has been revamped with Resolution Independent Displaywhich makes support of panels with higher pixel densities essentially automatic, compared to tons of extra work required without it
    2. DTrace and XRay would be extremely helpful in deep performance tuning required to get excellent performance on handheld class hardware. These tools were undoubtedly used to optimize many modules of the Leopard codebase. Optimizing Tiger using other tools for the iPhone is certainly possible, but would have been more resource intensive (skilled labor).
    3. Objective C 2.0's garbage collection feature would be handy to help ensure efficient overall use of memory on low-memory devices like handhelds
    4. multi-threaded network stack is probably useful on a device that runs multiple network connections concurrently (WiFi and cell phone voice network)
    5. Applications on the iPhone, notably Safari and Mail, appear to perform in a much zippier fashion than their counterparts on Tiger, particularly on a lower-horsepower device. These applications have undoubtedly been optimized using XRay and DTrace. Heck you can tell this just by watching the iPhone demos in the keynote and the commercials, but also by using the Safari 3 beta, which is much, much zippier than Safari 2 was.

    You are correct that this approach using a common code base for a mainstream OS and the "mobile version" is not true for Windows. Windows CE/PocketPC/Windows Mobil are radically different animals to the Windows 2000/XP/Vista operating systems that were contemporaneous with them. The early versions were actually forks from the Windows 95/98/ME code base.

    This common code base between Macintosh and iPhone will prove to be a tremendous advantage to Apple as the OS X platform evolves. By contrast, Symbian has fractured into at least 3 different systems, Windows Mobile is a forked codebase from an old version of Windows, and there are at least several different Linux forks, each with a manufacturer custom middleware layer on top. It will be harder than people think for other cell phone manufacturers to catch up with, and keep up with, iPhone's OS X.

    It's very likely that OS X has a great deal more in common with Mac OS X than you think. In fact, it's very likely to be built from the same source, managed in the very same respository (well, certain modules may have been forked during the secret R&D phase, but if it isn't already, it will be merged back in soon enough). I know that this is a little hard to believe, because there are too many examples to the contrary, which make it seem as if this must be "hard". However, it's really much more labor intensive to do this "wrong", e.g. to fork a code base then try to constantly back-port all the fixes and enhancements you get from the energy going into the main code branch.

    If you want to better understand how this can work, examine two things. (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true. (One could argue that any version of FreeBSD or Linux can function equally well as a server and a client, but one could also argue that neither really functions all that well as a desktop/notebook client OS). (2) Consider the way that Cocoa applications are built for both PowerPC an

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 0, Troll

      . (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true.

      Do you realize Windows NT since 1992 has had a shared code base between the client and server versions. (You could literally make Windows NT Workstation into Server by changing a registry key.) The only exception is Windows 2003 Server which was delayed for security updates, and even then, it is still the same OS, but recompiled and a bit more optimized. Vista and Longhorn are essentially the same EXACT product as well, as Vista SP1 will be Longhorn without the server features.

      Why are all the Mac experts clueless to anything non-Mac?

      Oh BTW as to the iPhone and running OS X giving it an advantage is not as true as many would like to think. When development is closed to Web only widgets it is severly limited for creating custom solutions or doing anything outside of the 'Apple locked in Vision'.

      Even though Windows and Windows Mobile have different architectures, applications designed for .NET run fine on both. (Add in Vista's .NET technologies and Windows Mobile will already do things with Silverlight or the slimmed down version of .NET 3.0 that OS X itself can't even do running on a Mac let alone a phone.)

      This is why you are already seeing iPhone interface rip-offs running on Windows Mobile just to demonstrate it is not only possible, but insanely easy for Windows Mobile and a single developer to create what the iPhone UI is.

    2. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      multi-threaded network stack is probably useful on a device that runs multiple network connections concurrently (WiFi and cell phone voice network)

      Yeah, it's not as if it'd be useful for servers running OS X, after all, so it must've been done for the iPhone.

    3. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      . (1) The distinction between Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server is non existent. It's the only commercial operating system in the world where that's true.

      Do you realize Windows NT since 1992 has had a shared code base between the client and server versions. (You could literally make Windows NT Workstation into Server by changing a registry key.) Why are all the Mac experts clueless to anything non-Mac? He didn't say difference, he said distinction. Why is it that Windows experts can never tell the difference between two distinct words?
      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    4. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      You mean 'distiction' as in:

      "Condition of being different; difference"

      Is using a dictionary really that hard for Apple nuts? No wonder Jobs said that more than one button on the mouse would confuse his customers...

    5. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      You mean 'distiction' as in:

      "Condition of being different; difference"

      Is using a dictionary really that hard for Apple nuts? No wonder Jobs said that more than one button on the mouse would confuse his customers...

      So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse.

      Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    6. Re:OSX is Mac OS X, with extraneous bits removed by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1

      So you admit YOU can't use a dictionary, including not being able to tell the difference between different and distinct. The distinction is in the way Microsoft treats the two, you confused Microsoft user (both by Microsoft and yourself), too dumb to use a one-button mouse.
      Not to mention that you admited that Windows and its Server versions are different, if only by a setting in the Registry.


      Actually that DEFINITION was from the dictionary, you freaking idiot.

      NT is a shared code base and it is a commerical OS and it even uses the same binaries for the core OS. They don't get ANYMORE the SAME that that. PERIOD. OS X and OS X server have MORE differences between them in the OS than Vista and Longhorn does.

      Somehow you seem to think that OS X for the desktop and OS X is the SAME EXACT product. IT IS NOT! OS X Server has extra services, servers, features, and even has modified core differences for priorities and other needed changes for a server responding OS and a Desktop OS.

      So keep telling us all they are the same and how NT is not the same and everyone that actually has a freaking clue will move on because you are either stupid or insane.

  44. WWDC 2007 Keynote vs. Leopard feature set by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everybody has their undies in a bunch about the 10 things the Jobs showed in the recent keynote. Those things were carefully chosen by Jobs, likely with a great deal of input from other executives and managers at Apple, probably more such input than any keynote ever before. Why? Because Apple was trying to motivate the 5000 developers at WWDC to be more innovative with their use of some of the Mac OS X technologies. Apple focused that keynote on things like creative use of CoverFlow in several places, and other uses of CoreAnimation, to get developers to think more creatively.

    Leopard has a bunch of interesting OS level features (some described here: Leopard and here: Leopard Server

    Your complaints about the menu bar are valid, but can be easily solved by adding a user preference setting to the Dock for transparency level, and making the default be "very nearly opaque".

    I think you're missing the point about the iPhone.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  45. Finder flipping out when network shares go missing by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think this issue of the Finder flipping out is due partly to the finder and partly due to the automounter (autofs), both of which appear to have received a major overhaul in Leopard. Autofs has apparently been threaded. If the Finder is instrumented with NSOperation (I can find no publicly available documentation to that effect), then the combination of those efforts should be a "Finder" which appears to be much more responsive than on previous versions of Mac OS X.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  46. The Solution(s) by LKM · · Score: 1

    If there's no defaults write command, just make the top part of your background image a solid color, or use one of the thousands of utilities that will appear (and have already appeared) doing something like this.

  47. Mounted Volumes on Desktiop is a Finder option by LKM · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Showing mounted volumes on the Desktop was always a Finder option. Maybe Steve simply had it turned off. I think early versions of OS X did not have this option, and Mac users complained, so Apple put it in.

  48. Re:Finder flipping out when network shares go miss by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think this issue of the Finder flipping out is due partly to the finder and partly due to the automounter (autofs), both of which appear to have received a major overhaul in Leopard. Autofs has apparently been threaded.

    If nothing is in the process of being automounted, the automounter has precisely nothing to do with any Finder hangs.

    With the old single-threaded automounter, if a mount was in progress, the automounter would be incapable of responding to any other requests. As the old automounter was a user-mode NFS server, which handled /Network/Server, as well as directories such as /Network/Applications and /Network/Server, those paths referred to symbolic links in the file system implemented by that server, so any references to them turned into requests to the automounter - which, as noted, would hang, if the automounter was in the process of trying to mount a file system from an unresponsive server (which includes servers that aren't on your network because you've disconnected from the network on which they reside).

    If, however, the automounter wasn't in the middle of a mount, it could respond to those requests. However, if the server in question was unresponsive, subsequent NFS requests would hang.

    With autofs:

    • references to already-mounted file systems would be handled entirely by the autofs kernel code, without involving the automount daemon at all;
    • references that trigger a mount, because they're referring to a file system not already mounted, would be handled by a thread in the automount daemon separate from threads handling other mounts, so if the mount hangs because the server doesn't respond, other references that involve the automount daemon can still make progress (although if they also try to mount from an unresponsive or unreachable server, they won't make much progress until they time out).

    So switching to autofs and a multi-threaded automounter will help some hangs - but not all hangs.

  49. Docklets by LKM · · Score: 1

    Docklets existed in early versions of OS X. They were removed because (I guess) not a lot of people used them. It probably makes more sense to have a real application that updates its Dock icon regularly.

    1. Re:Docklets by argent · · Score: 1

      They were removed because (I guess) not a lot of people used them.

      Not a lot of people used early versions of OS X, for that matter. It wasn't stable enough for production until Jaguar. :p

  50. Translucency sucks by Steeltoe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Translucency really, really sucks. It is distracting and makes it harder to read. Just look at Word for Mac or iTerm. The translucent effect just makes it harder on the eyes, while providing NO benefit. It should really be optional overall.

    Now, MenuShade is a program that gives your menu a less-brighter shade. THAT is a good idea, because it prevents the menu from burning in your fancy LCD. Im using it all the time, and it is easier on the eyes, AND simple to read.

  51. Testing and Tweeking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't believe the iPhone can honestly be called a 1.0 Product when it comes out. There have already been external changes. I'm sure there have been internal changes early in it's life as well. Then there's the software side, which we all should be able to to see that as evolving. I'll give you 1.0.x

  52. Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS! by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

    Some of us are stuck with old IE6 at work and that seems to have problems with the AC postings.

    And anyway, blocking AC postings by choice probably raises the average quality of the discussions.

    --
    If this were really happening, what would you think?
  53. Kill the Traffic Light by nightcats · · Score: 1

    I just want them to make the OS work better on the Intel boxes. And please, can we get rid of the traffic light control buttons and have a plain old Windows-style thing with bigger, square buttons? You can put them on the left, right, or center, I don't care--just make them so a fellow working on a laptop doesn't feel like he's practicing microsurgery by just trying to click a window control.

    --
    Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
  54. adjustments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't there be anything, maybe a slider or something, that would allow you to change the transparency of the menu? That would be a simple and practical solution, especially since you're able to adjust the transparency of the doc in the same way.