Sorry about responding twice, came back a while later, forgot to hit "load all comments" and thought I'd neglected to hit post after previewing, as I am wont to do. Internets are too difficult for me, it seems!
The red one (X) (Command-W) doesn't hide, it closes the window. Hiding (Command-H) is something entirely different and affects the app as a whole. Have you actually used a Mac?
The yellow one (-) (Command-M) minimizes the window to the dock.
Neither of these things is even remotely "arbitrary." Both of them are completely consistent.
Now, to the green (+) Zoom button. It has no hotkey, but you could always set one up in System Preferences (I suggest you do, so you can quickly fix your Xcode window size/position when you change your monitor config). As I said, it's purpose is to size the window to the optimal size. This isn't the same size for every window in the system (i.e. it isn't a "maximize" button!), because not every window should be the same size. For an Xcode workspace window, it makes sense to fill the entire screen - and that's what the button does. Finder does not do this (what use is a Finder window filling a 27" screen when 90% of it is whitespace?) because the optimal size for a Finder window is "show as much content as possible without blocking anything else" - as such it'll expand (or shrink) to fit the content as necessary. There is nothing inconsistent about the principle behind this button, and the behavior that stems from it is generally logical. And certainly it is consistent enough that you can always rely on it to maximize your Xcode workspace.
Do you actually use a Mac? The red (X) one closes the window (also Command-W). Hiding (Command-H) is something different altogether and applies to the app as a whole. The yellow (-) button minimizes the window to the dock (Command-M). Neither of these two buttons are "arbitrary." They're both totally consistent.
The green "Zoom" button (+) (no hotkey though of course you could assign one in System Preferences if you want) does as I described before - sizes the window to "optimal size."* This is the only one that may not seem entirely "consistent," in that it results in different window sizes for different apps; but that only follows logically from the fact that not every window needs to be the same size (ie. full screen or whatever). What is is the "optimal" size depends on the app's developers and the content being displayed. There is no reason a Finder window should take up full width on a 27" monitor (it would be 80% whitespace and unnecessarily block other windows) so the zoom button causes the window to size itself to fit it's contents and no more. Xcode, on the other hand, is designed to make use of all that width, so the zoom button will size the window to fill all the available space. There's nothing inconsistent about this - the underlying principle is the same in both instances, and the behavior is reliably repeatable in each app.
For your purposes, I'd bind "Zoom" to some convenient hotkey and then you can easily fix Xcode's window size/position with a single keystroke when switching monitors (or try a window manager like Slate that can do this automatically when your monitor config changes; I don't think the one I mentioned before has that feature).
* Older versions of iTunes being an exception; this button used to transform the iTunes window into the mini player. Thankfully they seem to have fixed that recently. Another 20 years of incremental improvements and maybe iTunes won't be an abomination anymore...
3 displays is already possible on the Mac Mini (2 via the Thunderbolt connector and 1 via HDMI). In fact, I don't think there are any shipping macs that support less than 3 displays (which makes the badly-written summary all the more absurd).
There have been many Finder tab implementations on the Mac as well; from Finder replacements like Path Finder (which got tabs ~2005ish) to Finder plugins that modify the Finder such as Total Finder. I believe there were Linux file managers with tabs well before 2004. Tabs in apps are nothing new and nobody is claiming that. We are however happy to see them finally natively baked in to Finder (though honestly tags have me more excited).
There are a number of nice window-management apps for the Mac, like Window Magnet. Also, don't forget the little green "+" button in the title bar (next to the yellow minimize button). That button is used to tell the window "size yourself to an appropriate size." What is appropriate depends on the app; in Xcode (and probably most apps) this button will make the window fill all the available space (essentially full screen), which is what you want. (In Safari, it'll maximize the height of the window, but won't make it any wider unless the page content is already wider than the window currently is. In Finder, it'll size the window to try to fit all it's contents without scrolling, but no larger.... Whatever the app thinks is the best use of space.)
There isn't that much with the Maps software itself, though, is there? In fact, it is quite smooth and responsive. It was Apple's occasionally less-than-accurate maps database and very sparse points-of-interest database that seems to be the problem.
None of these boards are curved. The CPU and two GPU's are attached in a triangular arrangement around a triangular aluminum heat-sink. Much of the "wasted space" in the curved areas contains the SSD, RAM, and Thunderbolt/USB/other ports.
Yes, I think one or two companies will put in the effort to do it. Even back when Power Mac CPU's required all sorts of custom designs, there were a few companies offering upgrades. The market isn't huge, but it isn't negligible, either.
There are Thunderbolt to SATA/eSATA adaptors that can be had for $99-$199 today, and then you can use any cheap drive or disk enclosure you like. By the time this Mac Pro is actually out one might expect that this announcement will push the accessory makers so that even more options to be available. And I'd be shocked if Apple didn't release an enclosure of their own. We don't know the pricing on anything yet either, so for all we know the new Pro + enclosure will be the same price as the old Pro with built-in drive bays was.
Exactly. The summary didn't list any of the actual new features; it simply said "Macs will now support multiple displays," which is a ludicrous statement.
That's something they fucked up a few years ago with OS X 10.7 and people have been howling about it ever since (and is exactly why I inserted the "(much-needed, IMO)" into my post). Nonetheless, that wasn't so much an issue of multi-monitor support as dumbass full-screen "feature" support; it could be mostly avoided by just maximizing your windows instead of using full-screen. The biggest issue with their multi-monitor support, IMO, was having the menu bar on only one screen. It's been that way forever and has always driven me crazy.
I'm glad to see they're finally fixing all of these issues - which is exactly why I was disappointed with the shitty summary saying "Macs will now support multiple displays, including HDTVs!"
FWIW - have you tried to upgrade a Mac Pro's graphics card in the past? There are unfortunately very very few options even with the standard connector. I'd bet the situation remains about the same with this newer design.
We waited a half hour after the end of the keynote for this terrible summary, really? Multiple-monitor support has been in the Mac OS since 1987; the summary doesn't make it even reportedly clear that today's announcement was about (much-needed, IMO) new features for said ability. And "including hdtvs"? Again, this has been possible since hdtvs came into existence (via hdmi out or div->hdmi adapters). The new feature here is being able to use an airplay-cable device as a secondary display.
Unfortunately, my local recycling center only takes animals labeled PETA 2, 3, and 5 (your general small furries). PETA 1 (reptilian) and PETA 6 (aquatic) need to be hauled all the way to the next county, so nobody really bothers. And god forbid you have a wolf or black bear to dispose of - NOBODY takes PETA 7.
If they really want us to recycle, they'll make this damned system easier...
Same reason applications that used to fit on a floppy and launched in 5 seconds on a 33 mhz computer now require multiple DVDs and still take 5 seconds to launch: more features (whether necessary or not) and better graphics and other resources. Pages in 2003 probably used more highly-compressed graphics and didn't rely half as much on externally-loaded fonts and all sorts of Javascript garbage (including 3rd-party-loaded material such as Facebook "Like" buttons that allow Facebook to track your every move around the web).
Romanian is a Romance language (descended from Latin, like the others on the list, and French and Italian as more examples). However, it's an eastern Romance language, while the others on the list are western Romance languages. It does seem somewhat random to have it in that particular list, but then I know little about Romanian other than its genealogy.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry about responding twice, came back a while later, forgot to hit "load all comments" and thought I'd neglected to hit post after previewing, as I am wont to do. Internets are too difficult for me, it seems!
The red one (X) (Command-W) doesn't hide, it closes the window. Hiding (Command-H) is something entirely different and affects the app as a whole. Have you actually used a Mac?
The yellow one (-) (Command-M) minimizes the window to the dock.
Neither of these things is even remotely "arbitrary." Both of them are completely consistent.
Now, to the green (+) Zoom button. It has no hotkey, but you could always set one up in System Preferences (I suggest you do, so you can quickly fix your Xcode window size/position when you change your monitor config). As I said, it's purpose is to size the window to the optimal size. This isn't the same size for every window in the system (i.e. it isn't a "maximize" button!), because not every window should be the same size. For an Xcode workspace window, it makes sense to fill the entire screen - and that's what the button does. Finder does not do this (what use is a Finder window filling a 27" screen when 90% of it is whitespace?) because the optimal size for a Finder window is "show as much content as possible without blocking anything else" - as such it'll expand (or shrink) to fit the content as necessary. There is nothing inconsistent about the principle behind this button, and the behavior that stems from it is generally logical. And certainly it is consistent enough that you can always rely on it to maximize your Xcode workspace.
Afraid to be proven wrong by an AC? I guess I'll step in and point out said Coward is absolutely right.
Do you actually use a Mac? The red (X) one closes the window (also Command-W). Hiding (Command-H) is something different altogether and applies to the app as a whole. The yellow (-) button minimizes the window to the dock (Command-M). Neither of these two buttons are "arbitrary." They're both totally consistent.
The green "Zoom" button (+) (no hotkey though of course you could assign one in System Preferences if you want) does as I described before - sizes the window to "optimal size."* This is the only one that may not seem entirely "consistent," in that it results in different window sizes for different apps; but that only follows logically from the fact that not every window needs to be the same size (ie. full screen or whatever). What is is the "optimal" size depends on the app's developers and the content being displayed. There is no reason a Finder window should take up full width on a 27" monitor (it would be 80% whitespace and unnecessarily block other windows) so the zoom button causes the window to size itself to fit it's contents and no more. Xcode, on the other hand, is designed to make use of all that width, so the zoom button will size the window to fill all the available space. There's nothing inconsistent about this - the underlying principle is the same in both instances, and the behavior is reliably repeatable in each app.
For your purposes, I'd bind "Zoom" to some convenient hotkey and then you can easily fix Xcode's window size/position with a single keystroke when switching monitors (or try a window manager like Slate that can do this automatically when your monitor config changes; I don't think the one I mentioned before has that feature).
* Older versions of iTunes being an exception; this button used to transform the iTunes window into the mini player. Thankfully they seem to have fixed that recently. Another 20 years of incremental improvements and maybe iTunes won't be an abomination anymore...
3 displays is already possible on the Mac Mini (2 via the Thunderbolt connector and 1 via HDMI). In fact, I don't think there are any shipping macs that support less than 3 displays (which makes the badly-written summary all the more absurd).
There have been many Finder tab implementations on the Mac as well; from Finder replacements like Path Finder (which got tabs ~2005ish) to Finder plugins that modify the Finder such as Total Finder. I believe there were Linux file managers with tabs well before 2004. Tabs in apps are nothing new and nobody is claiming that. We are however happy to see them finally natively baked in to Finder (though honestly tags have me more excited).
There are a number of nice window-management apps for the Mac, like Window Magnet. Also, don't forget the little green "+" button in the title bar (next to the yellow minimize button). That button is used to tell the window "size yourself to an appropriate size." What is appropriate depends on the app; in Xcode (and probably most apps) this button will make the window fill all the available space (essentially full screen), which is what you want. (In Safari, it'll maximize the height of the window, but won't make it any wider unless the page content is already wider than the window currently is. In Finder, it'll size the window to try to fit all it's contents without scrolling, but no larger. ... Whatever the app thinks is the best use of space.)
There isn't that much with the Maps software itself, though, is there? In fact, it is quite smooth and responsive. It was Apple's occasionally less-than-accurate maps database and very sparse points-of-interest database that seems to be the problem.
At the link he gave you. Click the "continue" arrow at the bottom of the page. It shows a number of views of the internals.
None of these boards are curved. The CPU and two GPU's are attached in a triangular arrangement around a triangular aluminum heat-sink. Much of the "wasted space" in the curved areas contains the SSD, RAM, and Thunderbolt/USB/other ports.
Yes, I think one or two companies will put in the effort to do it. Even back when Power Mac CPU's required all sorts of custom designs, there were a few companies offering upgrades. The market isn't huge, but it isn't negligible, either.
There are Thunderbolt to SATA/eSATA adaptors that can be had for $99-$199 today, and then you can use any cheap drive or disk enclosure you like. By the time this Mac Pro is actually out one might expect that this announcement will push the accessory makers so that even more options to be available. And I'd be shocked if Apple didn't release an enclosure of their own. We don't know the pricing on anything yet either, so for all we know the new Pro + enclosure will be the same price as the old Pro with built-in drive bays was.
Exactly. The summary didn't list any of the actual new features; it simply said "Macs will now support multiple displays," which is a ludicrous statement.
That's something they fucked up a few years ago with OS X 10.7 and people have been howling about it ever since (and is exactly why I inserted the "(much-needed, IMO)" into my post). Nonetheless, that wasn't so much an issue of multi-monitor support as dumbass full-screen "feature" support; it could be mostly avoided by just maximizing your windows instead of using full-screen. The biggest issue with their multi-monitor support, IMO, was having the menu bar on only one screen. It's been that way forever and has always driven me crazy.
I'm glad to see they're finally fixing all of these issues - which is exactly why I was disappointed with the shitty summary saying "Macs will now support multiple displays, including HDTVs!"
FWIW - have you tried to upgrade a Mac Pro's graphics card in the past? There are unfortunately very very few options even with the standard connector. I'd bet the situation remains about the same with this newer design.
"Reportedly" -> "Remotely"
Now I'm angry iOS 7 doesn't include read-your-mind autocorrect.
We waited a half hour after the end of the keynote for this terrible summary, really? Multiple-monitor support has been in the Mac OS since 1987; the summary doesn't make it even reportedly clear that today's announcement was about (much-needed, IMO) new features for said ability. And "including hdtvs"? Again, this has been possible since hdtvs came into existence (via hdmi out or div->hdmi adapters). The new feature here is being able to use an airplay-cable device as a secondary display.
This classic YouTube video explains exactly how an innocent person can hang themselves with their own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Unfortunately, my local recycling center only takes animals labeled PETA 2, 3, and 5 (your general small furries). PETA 1 (reptilian) and PETA 6 (aquatic) need to be hauled all the way to the next county, so nobody really bothers. And god forbid you have a wolf or black bear to dispose of - NOBODY takes PETA 7.
If they really want us to recycle, they'll make this damned system easier...
What, is North Carolina stopping us from stealing Teslas now too?
Same reason applications that used to fit on a floppy and launched in 5 seconds on a 33 mhz computer now require multiple DVDs and still take 5 seconds to launch: more features (whether necessary or not) and better graphics and other resources. Pages in 2003 probably used more highly-compressed graphics and didn't rely half as much on externally-loaded fonts and all sorts of Javascript garbage (including 3rd-party-loaded material such as Facebook "Like" buttons that allow Facebook to track your every move around the web).
Wish I had my mod points today...
So inviable to westerners that there are over a dozen such plants built or under construction in the US.
Where was there an "uncontrolled 'lord of the flies' style anarchy"? What book did you read?
Romanian is a Romance language (descended from Latin, like the others on the list, and French and Italian as more examples). However, it's an eastern Romance language, while the others on the list are western Romance languages. It does seem somewhat random to have it in that particular list, but then I know little about Romanian other than its genealogy.