Well the current Messenger 3.0 beta 1 for Mac which was released very recently is much better than to old one and it was just updated today to support talking to MSN contacts. If the not on the first run of YIM for Mac 3.0 is to be belived, later betas and the final 3.0 should be much closer to the Windows version feature wise, at least as far as actual messaging goes, especially with voice and video.
I don't know why you feel it's unlikely. Not only does it seem likely, but it also seems to be a very smart move. Even with their chips lagging behind AMD(or at least until the full Core lineup is released), Intel's biggest strengths are in it's full platform solution with chipset and all. ATI would give AMD the same advantage and level the playing field even further.
It is a device that isn't so big with the gadget crowd, but a must have for corporate users, mostly becasue it's not necesarily sexy, but it does do its job well. It's not something and individual geek would have.
I belive that the offical port has been more or less put on hold indfinitly for a non-X11, so the NeoOffice port is the only viable project to port for OS X.
But it still integrates very poorly. It's less Mac like than even Firefox. A large portion of people who use office, use it mainly for Word, and AbiWord does a good job there if you don't need a spreadsheet or presentation software.
Well OpenOffice isn't even a real contender on the Mac. They've had a half assed X11 only port and don't seem to have plans to go beyond that anymore, thus it can be counted out on the Mac side. As far as MS Office goes, Apple probably just wants a safety net there just in case Microsoft tries to drop it one day.
This is probably why they are leasing the dev machines until 2006. The "real" releases probably wont run on them, and supporting them would mean supporting generic PCs. Steve did say they are leasing them becasue they dodn't want any of them floating around. This is proabably why.
It's basically the same problem as using a Java program on Windows. It just feels out of place, and often doesn't behave like most normal Mac applications. For instance, the text boxes are non standard, so not only do they look different, but things such as Mac OS X's built in spell checking doesn't work like it does in Safari, and most native OS X application that use the standard method for drawing text boxes. And other items, such as radio buttons, check boxes, buttons and drop down menus look more like they would in a Windows application than they would in a Mac application. For the most part, it's just a poor Mac application.
Slashdot Mirror
You really shouldn't be using the horrible arcahic Mac verison any more. While still in beta, version 3 is much better.
They are probably counting "potential" IM users, those who have an account but don't necesarily use it for IM.
Well the current Messenger 3.0 beta 1 for Mac which was released very recently is much better than to old one and it was just updated today to support talking to MSN contacts. If the not on the first run of YIM for Mac 3.0 is to be belived, later betas and the final 3.0 should be much closer to the Windows version feature wise, at least as far as actual messaging goes, especially with voice and video.
Just out of off topic curiosity, do PNGs work in IE7?
I don't know why you feel it's unlikely. Not only does it seem likely, but it also seems to be a very smart move. Even with their chips lagging behind AMD(or at least until the full Core lineup is released), Intel's biggest strengths are in it's full platform solution with chipset and all. ATI would give AMD the same advantage and level the playing field even further.
Same here, it looks good, and the upgrade went much smoother than the upgrade to 1.5, mostly because it screw up my themes this time.
No, all the ugly brown is the theme, Gnome looks very nice and clean with Clearlooks theme.
I like Gnome much more that KDE and I think it looks much better, just the default Ubuntu theme is horrible.
This has more to do with VIA implementing a more generic x86 instuction set than an Ubuntu bug.
And yet they stick with the ugliest theme I've ever seen in a Linux distro. //Still use Ubuntu ///I just change the theme
I'll second the VLC suggestion. It can usually play anything I've every thrown at it.
I don't know, have you seen "The Day After Tommorow", it was rather horrible.
*<---------------Parent Comment
*<---------------Your head
It is a device that isn't so big with the gadget crowd, but a must have for corporate users, mostly becasue it's not necesarily sexy, but it does do its job well. It's not something and individual geek would have.
I belive that the offical port has been more or less put on hold indfinitly for a non-X11, so the NeoOffice port is the only viable project to port for OS X.
Just as with C++, regular C code can be used in an Objective C program, but still be treated the same, so you can us C with Cocoa.
But it still integrates very poorly. It's less Mac like than even Firefox. A large portion of people who use office, use it mainly for Word, and AbiWord does a good job there if you don't need a spreadsheet or presentation software.
Well OpenOffice isn't even a real contender on the Mac. They've had a half assed X11 only port and don't seem to have plans to go beyond that anymore, thus it can be counted out on the Mac side. As far as MS Office goes, Apple probably just wants a safety net there just in case Microsoft tries to drop it one day.
I hope so, I mean I already have all the episodes on DVD.
This is probably why they are leasing the dev machines until 2006. The "real" releases probably wont run on them, and supporting them would mean supporting generic PCs. Steve did say they are leasing them becasue they dodn't want any of them floating around. This is proabably why.
The big difference with the SGI and Compaq thing, is that they went to Itanium, which went nowhere.
Also, new apps will still be compiled for the G4 for the next few years probably, just in the fat binary format.
It's basically the same problem as using a Java program on Windows. It just feels out of place, and often doesn't behave like most normal Mac applications. For instance, the text boxes are non standard, so not only do they look different, but things such as Mac OS X's built in spell checking doesn't work like it does in Safari, and most native OS X application that use the standard method for drawing text boxes. And other items, such as radio buttons, check boxes, buttons and drop down menus look more like they would in a Windows application than they would in a Mac application. For the most part, it's just a poor Mac application.
Yes, but the advantage of Firefox is the extensions and stuff. Camino has no feature that make it better than Safari.
Was 1.1 going to fix the Mac version so it actually looks and behaves like a Mac application, or is that going to have to wait until 2.0?
hurds of pigs