[fortepianissimo]

... and I'm loving it! It fixes the biggest problem I had when it was b20 (catalog is not fully indexed when restart). I'm *officially* switching from LaunchBar/Butler to this great piece of art (yeah it looks great too!).

Now could anyone tell me if I can control via key shortcuts my iTunes? Then I can get rid of one more app in the background. Thanks!

[kovacs]

Originally posted by fortepianissimo:
... and I'm loving it! It fixes the biggest problem I had when it was b20 (catalog is not fully indexed when restart). I'm *officially* switching from LaunchBar/Butler to this great piece of art (yeah it looks great too!).

Now could anyone tell me if I can control via key shortcuts my iTunes? Then I can get rid of one more app in the background. Thanks!

You can control iTunes with the included scripts, check the catalog and see if they are activated... I use Synergy to control iTunes with my keyboard so I have deactivated these scripts...

The scripts were available as a seperate download with previous releases but are now imbedded in the app...

[fortepianissimo]

Originally posted by kovacs:
You can control iTunes with the included scripts, check the catalog and see if they are activated... I use Synergy to control iTunes with my keyboard so I have deactivated these scripts...

The scripts were available as a seperate download with previous releases but are now imbedded in the app...

Thx for the hint - I guess I was expecting a quick keyboard shortcut, not by typing a few keys + Enter... but that could very well be another thing I missed.

[Mike S.]

What's with this "Requires Panther" BS?

This mandatory yearly upgrade cycle just to use apps is ridiculous and developers not supporting previous versions should change their ways.

This one is free, so it's not like they'll lose money but in general it's not good to abandon customers even though Apple themselves seem to do it with impudence.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
What's with this "Requires Panther" BS?

This mandatory yearly upgrade cycle just to use apps is ridiculous and developers not supporting previous versions should change their ways.

This one is free, so it's not like they'll lose money but in general it's not good to abandon customers even though Apple themselves seem to do it with impudence.

Yes but you seem to forget that some of the things that are implimented in newer versions of things sometime take advantage of things within Newer versions of the OS to make them run better, more stable or whatever. how far back should companies support? Should Apple or other companies still support 7.1-8.6 just because people are still using them?

Also the Apple upgrade cycle is NOT Mandatory. You can still run OS X 10.2 just fine without upgrading to Panther, but if you want things like Expose and better performance, better Mail.app, things like that then you NEED to upgrade to 10.3 If not then Jag will run just fine for you. Also if you want to take advantage of some of the other benefits of Panther then you need to upgrade. I don't see Apple forcing you to upgrade to Panther or whatever newer version of the OS comes out.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
What's with this "Requires Panther" BS?

This mandatory yearly upgrade cycle just to use apps is ridiculous and developers not supporting previous versions should change their ways.

This one is free, so it's not like they'll lose money but in general it's not good to abandon customers even though Apple themselves seem to do it with impudence.

Is the app written in Cocoa? If so, it's probably using bindings, which is a huge addition to Cocoa and which is available only in 10.3.

You'd better get used to it, because before too long, just about all Cocoa apps will probably be using bindings.

[Krypton]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Is the app written in Cocoa? If so, it's probably using bindings, which is a huge addition to Cocoa and which is available only in 10.3.

You'd better get used to it, because before too long, just about all Cocoa apps will probably be using bindings.

Can you explain what bindings are? (I keep seeing this brought up a lot) Is it some sort of speed optimisation?

[phillryu]

"This one is free, so it's not like they'll lose money but in general it's not good to abandon customers even though Apple themselves seem to do it with impudence"

Yeah. It's free, and the hours he might put into bringing Jaguar compatability won't make him any more money either.

[Mike S.]

typoon said: how far back should companies support? Should Apple or other companies still support 7.1-8.6 just because people are still using them?

Keeping support within a product family generally. Mac OS X

Does any other platform feature software that can only be run on the most current version? Will Linux software only run on a certain kernel version? (I know all about lib versions and such but those can be updated)

Most Windows apps coded for NT will run just fine in XP as they're all basically the same product family.

Macs are the only place where this kind of fragmentation happens that I'm aware of and it's not a good thing.

Also the Apple upgrade cycle is NOT Mandatory. You can still run OS X 10.2 just fine without upgrading to Panther, but if you want things like Expose and better performance, better Mail.app, things like that then you NEED to upgrade to 10.3 If not then Jag will run just fine for you.

I am running Jaguar just fine and I don't expect Exposé, Mail improvements and the like to be available to me. What I do expect are updates to frameworks required for applications.

Apple has refused to make the newest versions of Webkit and Webcore available to their "older" OS'. If the OmniGroup is able to bring it over with 5.x then Apple can as well. Yeah, it'll be missing a few minor things not supported by the older versions of the OS but by and large it will still work.

Cocoa frameworks should similarly be backwards compatible, one of the developer appeals back in the Rhapsody days was it's portability. In the NeXT time frame you could run OpenStep under Windows because it was portable. What's Apple's excuse now? It's a ploy to "force" upgrades.

Yes, it is forcing because the user expectation going into a purchase is that they'll be able to use everything available on the platform without having to upgrade every year. They may as well just call it a subscription service.

CharlesS said: You'd better get used to it, because before too long, just about all Cocoa apps will probably be using bindings.

So, what? This means every time Apple makes an addition to the Cocoa frameworks users will have to upgrade or not have access to the latest applications?

Smells like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen to me especially considering how portable the frameworks are.

Again, I'm not saying they need to give away their application updates freely, just the frameworks that make them possible because they are not exclusive to Apple apps.

Yeah. It's free, and the hours he might put into bringing Jaguar compatability won't make him any more money either.

Which is why I brought up the point to begin with. I'm not focusing exclusively on QS I'm speaking in the broader sense that leaving customers behind is bad business.

Apple is doing harm to their own platform with these practices because it forces third parties to either abandon customers who don't upgrade the OS yearly, not take advantage of available improvements or fork their code.

All Apple would have to do is make a "Cocoa update" available via software update and the issue is gone. The real reasons to upgrade the OS (speed, new Apple apps, features, etc..) don't go away by doing this so I don't see how it harms them in any way.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Most Windows apps coded for NT will run just fine in XP as they're all basically the same product family.

There's alot of products out now that will not run under the second most popular Windows OS (98)

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
There's alot of products out now that will not run under the second most popular Windows OS (98)

I know, this is why I didn't mention it :-)

Windows 98 is analogous to Mac OS 9; an obsolete code base no longer supported or worked on by it's developer.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Krypton:
Can you explain what bindings are? (I keep seeing this brought up a lot) Is it some sort of speed optimisation?

It's a completely new way to write Cocoa apps that allows you to develop much faster if you're doing certain things.

For more detailed info, go here:

http://developer.apple.com/documenta...CocoaBindings/

Originally posted by Mike S.:
So, what? This means every time Apple makes an addition to the Cocoa frameworks users will have to upgrade or not have access to the latest applications?

Smells like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen to me especially considering how portable the frameworks are.

Yes, it means you'll have to upgrade to have access to applications that use the latest features. Basically, it works like this: Apple adds new features to Cocoa or Carbon. Developers write code that uses these features. Since said code depends on the new features, it won't work on systems that don't have the new features. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, well, that's the way it's been since the very beginning.

Supporting old OS's is hard. You not only have to limit yourself in the API's you can use, but you also have to test it in the old OS's, work around bugs in the old OS's that have since been fixed, etc. If you want to know in detail what it's like, try writing a multi-threaded Cocoa app that supports 10.1. Then, you'll understand. Class-action lawsuit, my ass.

[fortepianissimo]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Supporting old OS's is hard. You not only have to limit yourself in the API's you can use, but you also have to test it in the old OS's, work around bugs in the old OS's that have since been fixed, etc. If you want to know in detail what it's like, try writing a multi-threaded Cocoa app that supports 10.1. Then, you'll understand. Class-action lawsuit, my ass.

[typoon]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Keeping support within a product family generally. Mac OS X

Does any other platform feature software that can only be run on the most current version? Will Linux software only run on a certain kernel version? (I know all about lib versions and such but those can be updated)

Most Windows apps coded for NT will run just fine in XP as they're all basically the same product family.

Macs are the only place where this kind of fragmentation happens that I'm aware of and it's not a good thing.



I am running Jaguar just fine and I don't expect Exposé, Mail improvements and the like to be available to me. What I do expect are updates to frameworks required for applications.

Apple has refused to make the newest versions of Webkit and Webcore available to their "older" OS'. If the OmniGroup is able to bring it over with 5.x then Apple can as well. Yeah, it'll be missing a few minor things not supported by the older versions of the OS but by and large it will still work.

Cocoa frameworks should similarly be backwards compatible, one of the developer appeals back in the Rhapsody days was it's portability. In the NeXT time frame you could run OpenStep under Windows because it was portable. What's Apple's excuse now? It's a ploy to "force" upgrades.

Yes, it is forcing because the user expectation going into a purchase is that they'll be able to use everything available on the platform without having to upgrade every year. They may as well just call it a subscription service.



So, what? This means every time Apple makes an addition to the Cocoa frameworks users will have to upgrade or not have access to the latest applications?

Smells like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen to me especially considering how portable the frameworks are.

Again, I'm not saying they need to give away their application updates freely, just the frameworks that make them possible because they are not exclusive to Apple apps.



Which is why I brought up the point to begin with. I'm not focusing exclusively on QS I'm speaking in the broader sense that leaving customers behind is bad business.

Apple is doing harm to their own platform with these practices because it forces third parties to either abandon customers who don't upgrade the OS yearly, not take advantage of available improvements or fork their code.

All Apple would have to do is make a "Cocoa update" available via software update and the issue is gone. The real reasons to upgrade the OS (speed, new Apple apps, features, etc..) don't go away by doing this so I don't see how it harms them in any way.

So what you are saying is that Apple should still be supporting 10.0 and 10.1 because they are also in the OS X family. OS X 10.3 has made great strides and improvements over all previous versions. So why don't you use 10.1? In order to run many of the new apps and things you NEED at least 10.2.8, according to you Apple should still be supporting previous versions because it is part of the OS X codebase/family. Why did you upgrade to 10.2 then? Apple didn't FORCE you to upgrade to Jag. Did they? You could still use 10.1 and get along just fine. If you want to run many of the newer apps you HAVE TO upgrade to 10.2 so that the new apps can take advanteage of many of the new features in 10.2 it's the same with apps requireing only 10.3. They take advantage of many of the new underpinnings in the new version of the OS. 10.1 still works fine why don't you still use that? Are you FORCED to upgrade to 10.2 if 10.1 still works fine? No, but if you want to use many new programs you need to upgrade to 10.2.8. No one is forcing you to upgrade but if you want to use many of the new apps you might need to.

[Mike S.]

Originally posted by typoon:
So what you are saying is that Apple should still be supporting 10.0 and 10.1 because they are also in the OS X family. OS X 10.3 has made great strides and improvements over all previous versions. So why don't you use 10.1? In order to run many of the new apps and things you NEED at least 10.2.8, according to you Apple should still be supporting previous versions because it is part of the OS X codebase/family. Why did you upgrade to 10.2 then? Apple didn't FORCE you to upgrade to Jag. Did they? You could still use 10.1 and get along just fine. If you want to run many of the newer apps you HAVE TO upgrade to 10.2 so that the new apps can take advanteage of many of the new features in 10.2 it's the same with apps requireing only 10.3. They take advantage of many of the new underpinnings in the new version of the OS. 10.1 still works fine why don't you still use that? Are you FORCED to upgrade to 10.2 if 10.1 still works fine? No, but if you want to use many new programs you need to upgrade to 10.2.8. No one is forcing you to upgrade but if you want to use many of the new apps you might need to.

I upgraded to 10.2 because the OS and it's feature set were considerably improved and I liked what it had to offer. This isn't in dispute.

I'm talking strictly about Cocoa Frameworks, they should be by and large backwards compatible. They're analogous to Java, looking at Sun's official system specs Java runs on every Windows from 98 to XP despite Win XP having a much more advanced feature set than 98. Cocoa frameworks make Cocoa apps work, not Mac OS X. You can theoretically port Cocoa frameworks to a different OS and Cocoa apps would work there. You can see this in action with GNUStep and their GNUMail client.

What is keeping Apple from making newer Cocoa frameworks available to previous systems? One can dismiss 10.0 and 10.1 if they like since they were considered rather half done by many people but Panther is a very mature and production quality product and there's no reason for it to be abandoned in this way.

Let's not forget Apple wasn't even providing regular security updates to previous versions until the press got wind and started making them look bad. Now they're doing the right thing and making security updates available to Jaguar at the same time as Panther.

I'd be satisfied with even a two year support cycle but this every year thing is BS. If they want to upgrade the OS every year than great but not at the expense of those who don't upgrade on that unreasonable cycle.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
What's with this "Requires Panther" BS?

This mandatory yearly upgrade cycle just to use apps is ridiculous and developers not supporting previous versions should change their ways.

This one is free, so it's not like they'll lose money but in general it's not good to abandon customers even though Apple themselves seem to do it with impudence.

WTF? Why should he support 2 sets of APIs so a free product can be available to more people? There are new/additional APIs in Panther (that didn't exist in Jag) that make his life easier, he's entitled to use those.

[CatOne]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
Keeping support within a product family generally. Mac OS X

Does any other platform feature software that can only be run on the most current version? Will Linux software only run on a certain kernel version? (I know all about lib versions and such but those can be updated)

Most Windows apps coded for NT will run just fine in XP as they're all basically the same product family.

Macs are the only place where this kind of fragmentation happens that I'm aware of and it's not a good thing.
...

And most apps coded for 10.1 will also work just fine in 10.3. Same thing.

HOWEVER, most apps coded for XP *will not* work on NT. Hell, back when I used NT 4, it was necessary to install SP 4 before I could install the video driver! That was some frustration. Apps are usually forward compatible, they're not as often backward compatible, because they may leverage APIs which didn't exist in an OS that was released 1.5 or more years ago. Lots of new functionality is added to each new release of OS X, and that includes changes "under the hood" to make software development easier for 3rd parties.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by CatOne:
And most apps coded for 10.1 will also work just fine in 10.3. Same thing.

HOWEVER, most apps coded for XP *will not* work on NT. Hell, back when I used NT 4, it was necessary to install SP 4 before I could install the video driver! That was some frustration. Apps are usually forward compatible, they're not as often backward compatible, because they may leverage APIs which didn't exist in an OS that was released 1.5 or more years ago. Lots of new functionality is added to each new release of OS X, and that includes changes "under the hood" to make software development easier for 3rd parties.

Exactly. This isn't new; it's always been this way. When System 7 came out, a lot of apps started requiring it. Later, when 7.5 came out, same thing. When OS 8 came out, a ton of stuff required it right away. OS 9 was a piece of crap, but you still needed to upgrade to it to use the latest software for Classic.

It's how it works. Sorry if you don't like it. If you want to stick to older OS's, you have to content yourself with older versions of some software.

[Basilisk]

What is keeping Apple from making newer Cocoa frameworks available to previous systems?

Lack of sufficient demand to make it worth the cost? The fact that the frameworks _could_ be backported doesn't mean that its cost effective for them to do it. Especially in light of the fact that the backport is (by definition) for customers who aren't willing to pay for the update.

Your WebKit example is particularly apt, its been widely discussed that the Panther WebKit relies on new CoreGraphics routines that are Panther-only. Backporting this means either cutting features or backporting substantial portions of CoreGraphics. That's more than "Cocoa", thats a hell of a lot of the OS. Some of these may be minor features you can argue they can leave out, but stripping features and retesting is time consuming and costly too.

They're analogous to Java, looking at Sun's official system specs Java runs on every Windows from 98 to XP despite Win XP having a much more advanced feature set than 98.

No one is arguing that its not technically possible. Just that Apple isn't alone in deciding that its not practical from a cost perspective. Application developers make similar decisions all the time.

Sun has very specific business reasons for maintaining Java across a zillion different platforms, they have decided that it is cost-effective for them to do so. You can bet that they do so at considerable effort and cost, not out of altruism or because of a superior internal design.

I've worked on projects that had to support the same spectrum of Win32 releases as Java does, and let me tell you that it wasn't cheap or easy.

Cocoa frameworks make Cocoa apps work, not Mac OS X. You can theoretically port Cocoa frameworks to a different OS and Cocoa apps would work there. You can see this in action with GNUStep and their GNUMail client.

You're making and arbitrary and incorrect distinction between "Cocoa" and the rest of the OS. "Cocoa" is not some monolithic beast, its comprised of dozens of frameworks with many subdependencies. AppKit alone (what most people mean when they say "Cocoa") needs Foundation, CoreGraphics, CoreFoundation, parts of QuickTime and Carbon, etc. etc. Backporting Cocoa means backporting some or all of these. Simply said, besides the Darwin core kernel and services, those frameworks as a whole _ARE_ MacOS X. They define everything about how applications work, from the GUI all the way down to the most basic services.

Even if one does want to backport some part of it, which parts? Who draws the line? I suspect that if one were to list the features of Panther, one would discover that something like 80% of the improvements in Panther derive from improvments to the core frameworks and services. Apple isn't going to give that away for free, they want to sell upgrades at some point, so what magic line do they draw?

Sure they could port just the "Cocoa" AppKit and its dependencies, but that doesn't solve your problem. Any non-trivial MacOS X application has a pretty good chance of using APIs that aren't technically part of AppKit. If I use new QuickTime functionality in my app its not sufficient that they ported AppKit. I'm still 10.3 only. Or the new AddressBook access, or WebKit, or IOKit, or DiscRecording... The list goes on and on.

Again, your GNUStep example is apt. GNUmail is the exception, not the rule. Most MacOS X applications _won't_ port to GNUStep because it doesn't provide the complete set of APIs (and never will). Applications have to be designed to work with the limited subset of APIs. The same was true when AppKit and friends were available for Windows, non-trivial applications didn't magically just recompile on Win32. You had to be sure that you were using just the available APIs.


At the end of the day your complaint is with application developers. They are choosing to restrict their OS support based on their needs. Right now I choose to support 10.2 as well as 10.3, but that will likely change soon. As CharlesS notes, supporting old OS releases is hard and time consuming. If there's not sufficient benefit to me in supporting an old OS then there's little point in doing so.

I personally think that we're approching the turning point for 10.3. The number of 10.2 users is dropping rapidly (at least for my products), and 10.3.3 is pretty damn good and users are obviously upgrading. If 10.2 users are going to make up a small minority of my potential users, am I better served by spending the time testing on old machines or adding new features? The answer (for me at least) is pretty clear.

Alex

[Mike S.]

All right, I think I'm getting a better understanding of how the under the hood stuff works but I've still got some questions. BTW, the OS 9 > 8 > analogies make sense and I over looked them. The old Mac OS was a whole different kind of animal than NeXT/Mac OS X, however.

Now, my understanding of the Cocoa frameworks is that they are much like Java in that they are a self-contained environment that maps certain routines to a target platform. The whole "write once run anywhere" aspect of Java for example.

Keeping things in perspective, I'm reminded of OpenStep and pictures I've seen of the NeXT development tools running under Windows with a native UI. There was the whole "Yellow Box" for Windows, etc..

This is what my assumptions are based around, are they now outdated? Has Apple made radical changes that simply breaks this portability or was there an angle I wasn't aware of? Some degree of code forking being needed for multiple platforms perhaps (discounting optimizations)?

If the above is still in effect and it can be done then I still feel it should go backwards to the last major version providing an effective bi-yearly support period.

On WebKit specifically, the only feature that I heard would not be supported under Jaguar is text shadows. Something that's OS X (nay, Panther) exclusive to begin with and will likely not be used anywhere except Mac oriented sites and even then I expect it's usage to be tiny.

The Omni Group is going to backport it to Jaguar themselves since Apple won't. Yes, they have financial interest in doing so but the point is that it can be done and Apple refused to do it because they want to continue to "force" this every year upgrade policy.

This is not just an issue of some whiny guy on a message board throwing a fit, it's simply a bad corporate policy. Look at it from the perspective of big contract customers, no school or business wants to be on a yearly upgrade cycle and if more developers follow Apple's lead then you'll end up in a situation where you do indeed have to upgrade or possibly miss out on important updates.

A yearly upgrade cycle, while exciting, is just not reasonable. During the classic Mac OS era the big leaps came in two year cycles with an interim .5 upgrade that you could easily pass on.

I have no trouble passing on the features Panther provides but I don't think it's necessary to be missing out on third party improvements after a single year (or mere months depending on when you upgrade to the latest) without some really solid technical reasons as to why this must be.

Somebody above said developers shouldn't have to be bothered to fork their code to support Jag users, I agree with that and Apple should be ensuring that they don't have to fork the code or abandon users after mere months (not everybody upgrades as soon as the new product is available).

I can't believe nobody else disagrees with this yearly schedule especially when you consider the cost involved. I've seen people on these boards balk at paying $20 for shareware that provides free upgrades for life. I remember the outrage over paying for a beta of OS X and being asked to pay $20 "S&H" for 10.1. Now, $130 per year to Apple is perfectly fine? Reality Distortion indeed.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Mike S.:
All right, I think I'm getting a better understanding of how the under the hood stuff works but I've still got some questions. BTW, the OS 9 > 8 > analogies make sense and I over looked them. The old Mac OS was a whole different kind of animal than NeXT/Mac OS X, however.

Indeed. OS X is far more complex than OS 9 was.

Now, my understanding of the Cocoa frameworks is that they are much like Java in that they are a self-contained environment that maps certain routines to a target platform. The whole "write once run anywhere" aspect of Java for example.

Keeping things in perspective, I'm reminded of OpenStep and pictures I've seen of the NeXT development tools running under Windows with a native UI. There was the whole "Yellow Box" for Windows, etc..

This is what my assumptions are based around, are they now outdated? Has Apple made radical changes that simply breaks this portability or was there an angle I wasn't aware of? Some degree of code forking being needed for multiple platforms perhaps (discounting optimizations)?

Cocoa is not a VM like Java, nor has it ever been. It is a set of frameworks (libraries plus shared resources). Code written for NeXTSTeP did not automatically run on Yellow Box for Windows. It's just like all those components that came with OS 7/8/9, only more complex and consequently more difficult to backport. Plus, as others have pointed out, backporting it would give away the major features of new OS X versions for free.

Bottom line: It's up to developers, not Apple, to decide if they want to support older versions with their software. And for many, it's not worth the cost.

A yearly upgrade cycle, while exciting, is just not reasonable. During the classic Mac OS era the big leaps came in two year cycles with an interim .5 upgrade that you could easily pass on.

Hmm, a major X.0 release every 2 years, with a .5 in between - what's that? A yearly upgrade cycle. Let's look at the last few paid upgrades of the classic OS:

7.6: January 1997
8.0: July 1997 (same year!)
8.5: October 1998
9.0: October 1999

Each one of these introduced new API's, causing software to be written that only worked on the latest OS. Really, the only difference between now and then is that Apple now wants to hang on to the 10 number, so they're calling the upgrades .1, .2, .3 instead of .0, .5, .0.

I have no trouble passing on the features Panther provides but I don't think it's necessary to be missing out on third party improvements after a single year (or mere months depending on when you upgrade to the latest) without some really solid technical reasons as to why this must be.

Which there are. Brand-new projects are very likely to require the latest OS, especially with the huge addition of bindings in 10.3. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is.

I can't believe nobody else disagrees with this yearly schedule especially when you consider the cost involved. I've seen people on these boards balk at paying $20 for shareware that provides free upgrades for life. I remember the outrage over paying for a beta of OS X and being asked to pay $20 "S&H" for 10.1. Now, $130 per year to Apple is perfectly fine? Reality Distortion indeed.

Seriously... Windows XP Pro costs $300. $130 isn't that bad. And you only need to upgrade every year if you have to always be on the bleeding edge of software. Maybe you can skip 10.3 and deal with older versions for a year, then jump to 10.4 next year and get up to date. Then, you're only paying $130 every two years. It's only necessary if you have to be the 1337est guy on your block with all the latest software.

[waffffffle]

The way I see it, Apple is partially at fault for making the OS X APIs moving targets. Carbon, specifically, was apparently changing so quickly a couple of years ago which is what delayed a large number of the big commercial OS X applications. I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't improve the OS or the APIs but it seems like some better planning could have made this whole annual transition thing much smoother. If Apple wants to do it this way then I really think they should be charging MUCH less for the annual OS updates ($40 for an upgrade, $80 full copy). Of course this is all my opinion.

[Basilisk]

Has Apple made radical changes that simply breaks this portability or was there an angle I wasn't aware of?

Nothing has changed about the portability of the underlying API. You're conflating two distinctly different things, the portability of an application written to the API and the portability of the libraries implementing the API.

The point of a "portable" framework of any scope (Cocoa, QT, WxWindows, Java) is that it shifts a major burden from the application developer to the framework developer (where there are economies of scale). Developers use those APIs because they present a common interface that can be (in theory at least) ported to other platforms (or older/newer versions of the same platform). That makes porting "easy" at least for the portions of the app that use the "lowest common denomintor" represented by the framework API.

But the burden hasn't disappeared, its shifted. Now its up to the framework developer to make things work on every platform the framework supports and that is hard and time-consuming. Apple has decided that its not cost-effective for them to backport current AppKit features to Jaguar. Sun has a different purpose for Java. Neither is "self-contained" in the sense that they can be expected to just work anywhere, someone has to spend a lot of time and money to guarantee consistent operation everywhere the framework runs.

A yearly upgrade cycle, while exciting, is just not reasonable. During the classic Mac OS era the big leaps came in two year cycles with an interim .5 upgrade that you could easily pass on.

This seems to be the heart of the matter, and while I don't agree with you, your point has merit. Yes, Apple has an agressive upgrade schedule (both paid and unpaid updates) when compared to Windows (or Solaris, etc.). Paid updates are unpopular, no doubt.

My perspective is that a rapidly advancing platform is healthier overall, at least for now. Remember then comparing to Classic that Classic was a more mature platform on a 2 year schedule. OS X is still changing by leaps and bounds. I expect it will continue to do so for a while, but I doubt that will last forever.

In the meantime 10.3 has arrived, and it has new library features that makes some things easier for developers. As a result developers are using those features and are (in some, very specific cases) leaving 10.2 behind.

Could Apple make those library features available on Jaguar? Absolutely. The point of my post was to point out that in order to guarantee operation for any non-trivial third-party app using new library features Apple needs to do more than recompile just "Cocoa" for Jaguar, they need to backport all of the actual underlying plumbing of those APIs to Jaguar (remember, that's the hard part).

At some point the scope of such a backport becomes impractical. Or more to the point, the scope becomes exactly the same as the new OS. At this level Panther is nothing more than the culmination of all those plumbing upgrades.

Its essentially saying that instead or releasing Panther as 10.3 they just call it 10.2.9. That might be a good thing, but its not what they chose to do.

Alex

[Mike S.]

I get the point now, I still don't like the situation but it's clearly more difficult than I thought to support the older system.

Thanks for the lesson.

[kovacs]

MacDevCenter compares Launchbar, Quicksilver, Butler and A Better Finder Launcher:

http://www.macdevcenter.com/lpt/a/4762

[kovacs]

B22 has been released:

iTunes support improved, new queue action
Preliminary support of (Email Item To...) action for Eudora, Entourage, AOL, and Mailsmith
Support for OmniWeb Shortcuts and Camino's new bookmark format
Modified searching mechanism-
qss-http:// (GET) and qssp-http// (POST) url searching protocols will search in QS
Interface tweaks and bug fixes

[andretan]

Heya. Was wondering, how do I clear the last search item in QS?

And how do I control iTunes from QS?

Thanks

[Sage]

I *just* found out today that you can have Quicksilver's search thing come up in the menubar... that is the coolest friekin' thing I've ever seen (I started flapping my arms in delight). Awesome.

[kovacs]

B23 has been released:

Omniweb and IE History
Sherlock Support
Command line tool improved
Shelf Source & put on shelf action
AppleScript and Shell Script actions improved

edit: signature removed

[TC]

Originally posted by andretan:
Heya. Was wondering, how do I clear the last search item in QS?

Just set up a separate user for your girlfriend/wife/mom and then you can leave as much pr0n on your computer as you like!

And how do I control iTunes from QS?

Get it to display iTunes and then hit / and you should be able to browse your library.
For control there are some applescripts included, try typing in next and you should see the one for next song. Not sure if there is an easier way to get to these directly from having iTunes in the result window?
Their documentation says the same thing, type in next for next song to appear.
Another way to do it is to rename their scripts + add the word iTunes in there, so it becomes Play iTunes.scpt for example. Then you see it after typing iTunes or typing play.
(You can find these scripts in the package contents in Resources/Extra Scripts/Applications/iTunes. Don't forget to refresh the catalog after you change things.)

Originally posted by Sage:
I *just* found out today that you can have Quicksilver's search thing come up in the menubar... that is the coolest friekin' thing I've ever seen (I started flapping my arms in delight). Awesome.

Got any video? It's a slow morning here.

[andretan]

Originally posted by TC:
Just set up a separate user for your girlfriend/wife/mom and then you can leave as much pr0n on your computer as you like!

Duh.

Originally posted by TC:
Got any video? It's a slow morning here.

Set QS to run in menu instead of Bezel or something.

[brutal]

I'm glad they finally got the menubar-icon vertically centered. I was getting seriously tired of fixing it myself with every update.

[TC]

Originally posted by andretan:
Set QS to run in menu instead of Bezel or something.

I meant video of him flapping his arms around.
I wanted to see if he was waving them around like a mute mime artist whose house is on fire.

[ThisGuy]

is it still available for download? i have tried macupdate, but it gives me an error and the developer's site does not have a link listed.

[threestain]

if you have an old version just check for updates and it'll download you a copy - at last that link seems to work.

have you tried www.versiontracker.com ?

[ThisGuy]

all three of the sites give me the following.

Not Found

The requested URL /QS.C4.dmg was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

[RooneyX]

Stupid application with a sloppy interface. I typed the name of a file I'm working on. It brought up the name but it was hard to tell if it was the folder or file because it showed the wrong icon. I clicked on it and it gave me an obscure option with another generic icon (a gear). I clicked on it and it sent the file's path in an Email to a Hollywood production company who shouldn't be getting dumb Emails. Stoopid app beyond belief. Stick to the basics.

[andretan]

I think you need to register at QS's website if you want to get the latest beta. They want to make it a "private beta".

[ThisGuy]

private beta. pffft, they can eat it. i would not register for anything just for the opportunity to do beta testing and work the bugs out of their stupid software, for free.

[andretan]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
private beta. pffft, they can eat it. i would not register for anything just for the opportunity to do beta testing and work the bugs out of their stupid software, for free.

All you need is register at their forum page. Simple as that.

[superfula]

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
private beta. pffft, they can eat it. i would not register for anything just for the opportunity to do beta testing and work the bugs out of their stupid software, for free.

The creator of the app started a thread in his forums asking for beta testers. Just reply and he'll put you on the list. Course you have to register at the forums...but if that's too much work...

[superfula]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Stupid application with a sloppy interface. I typed the name of a file I'm working on. It brought up the name but it was hard to tell if it was the folder or file because it showed the wrong icon. I clicked on it and it gave me an obscure option with another generic icon (a gear). I clicked on it and it sent the file's path in an Email to a Hollywood production company who shouldn't be getting dumb Emails. Stoopid app beyond belief. Stick to the basics.

It would help if you re-catalogged that directory first. Reading up on how to use the program BEFORE using is something you should do.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by superfula:
It would help if you re-catalogged that directory first. Reading up on how to use the program BEFORE using is something you should do.

I know full well how to use the app. But when you choose the bevel GUI it becomes even more obscure as to what is being presented to you.

[superfula]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
I know full well how to use the app. But when you choose the bevel GUI it becomes even more obscure as to what is being presented to you.

Well from you post I wasn't sure. Try changing to the "beta" option under prefs. I happen to use the "BEZEL" gui, and had zero problems, even when first starting out using the app. It offers no more, or no less info than any other gui.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by superfula:
Well from you post I wasn't sure. Try changing to the "beta" option under prefs. I happen to use the "BEZEL" gui, and had zero problems, even when first starting out using the app. It offers no more, or no less info than any other gui.

I'm not singling this out. I've tried all the different launchers and think they're all a bit silly, this one just happens to be the worst (at the moment). I really have no use for these gimmicks as OSX really does its job fine enough.

[Sage]

Originally posted by TC:
I meant video of him flapping his arms around.
I wanted to see if he was waving them around like a mute mime artist whose house is on fire.

Sorry, don't have a digicam. Otherwise, I'd love to!

[thePurpleGiant]

Launchbar still seems more intuitive to me. Each to their own.

[jerseyfreeze]

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
Launchbar still seems more intuitive to me. Each to their own.

That's how I feel. I think Launchbar does so much more with just the space bar.

-Jason

[Mike S.]

I saw that QS beta 25 was available through it's built-in update system so I downloaded it but it seems that unlike beta 24, 25 doesn't get themed by ShapeShifter.

Has anyone else noticed this? Did they switch to a new, custom resourced UI or something?