Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

King Bob On The Cob · Jul 28, 2003, 02:38 PM

Which is better at patching applications?
They both seem to do similar things but could someone with a little more experience tell me what the difference is?

sandsl · Jul 28, 2003, 03:11 PM

SIMBL and APE do the same thing - patching applications.

Smart InputManager Bundles are nothing more than standard Cocoa bundles created by Project Builder with a slight addition. APE modules seem harder to code with a lot more C type programming.

SIMBL, for me, is safer than APE because by simply removing the package from /Library/InputManagers all negative effects disappear.

Using SIMBL is also free, whereas using APE is subject to license agreement and fees under certain conditions.

Its possible APE, technically, is a more advanced system of patching but I really couldn't say.

gorickey · Jul 28, 2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by sandsl:
SIMBL and APE do the same thing - patching applications.

Smart InputManager Bundles are nothing more than standard Cocoa bundles created by Project Builder with a slight addition. APE modules seem harder to code with a lot more C type programming.

SIMBL, for me, is safer than APE because by simply removing the package from /Library/InputManagers all negative effects disappear.

Using SIMBL is also free, whereas using APE is subject to license agreement and fees under certain conditions.

Its possible APE, technically, is a more advanced system of patching but I really couldn't say.

I'll just add that APE can also be turned off immediately and even "temporarily dis-abled" if any negative effects arise via APE Manager; however, you can simply delete the offending APE module as well from:

~/Library/Application Enhancers

Also, keep in mind that APE does not actually touch any system or application files, I'm not sure if SIMBL does or not.

blackbird_1.0 · Jul 28, 2003, 03:55 PM

SIMBL so far...

clarkgoble · Jul 28, 2003, 05:22 PM

There are only three available plug-ins for SIMBL though, aren't there?

I admit that after several bad experiences with APE I've been exclusively APE free. The experience reminded me of the old Mac way of patching too much. Further I rarely needed the patches.

Adam Betts · Jul 28, 2003, 06:26 PM

What is SIMBL?

King Bob On The Cob · Jul 28, 2003, 06:47 PM

4. A new one which allows for Full Screen Surfing in Safari was released today which is why I thought of asking.
I think APE was released alittle to early and that gave it a bad rap.

Leibowitzn · Jul 29, 2003, 06:55 AM

APE's have more funconality. Besides the ones mentioned above you can:

- allows patching of c code (i.e. finder, etc..)
- using APE you automatically get a prefrence pane (saves on coding)
- other stuff mentioned on their site: http://unsanity.com/haxies/ape/

Arkham_c · Jul 29, 2003, 09:24 AM

I very much dislike APEs. They remind me of the old "Extensions" under OS9, patching parst of the OS they have no business messing with, possibly compromising stability as a result.

I'd much prefer that people use an Apple-supported API that some crappy hack that does God-knows-what under the hood.

I will never run APEs, and I recommend the same to anyone who I encounter.

Adam Betts · Jul 29, 2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
I very much dislike APEs. They remind me of the old "Extensions" under OS9, patching parst of the OS they have no business messing with, possibly compromising stability as a result.

I'd much prefer that people use an Apple-supported API that some crappy hack that does God-knows-what under the hood.

I will never run APEs, and I recommend the same to anyone who I encounter.

apephobia..

Gul Banana · Jul 29, 2003, 11:10 AM

SIMBL does not actually include function patching capabilities - this means that there are a lot of things it simply can't do, and it can't work with Carbon applications.

nickm · Jul 31, 2003, 11:37 AM

APE does not patch the OS. It patches running applications. In this sense, it is safer than kernel modules.

For what it's worth, I love APE. I use Labels X and Metallifizer with it and haven't had any problems.

WJMoore · Aug 1, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Arkham_c:
I very much dislike APEs. They remind me of the old "Extensions" under OS9, patching parst of the OS they have no business messing with, possibly compromising stability as a result.

I'd much prefer that people use an Apple-supported API that some crappy hack that does God-knows-what under the hood.

I will never run APEs, and I recommend the same to anyone who I encounter.

This is exactly how I feel and the very reason I've never used an Application Enhancer.

WM

Diggory Laycock · Aug 1, 2003, 06:44 AM

APE ==

york28 · Aug 1, 2003, 11:25 AM

APE has saved me lots of time and frustration. I have been using several modules from Unsanity to tweak OS X to run much smoother on my iBook 500: Fruit Menu, WindowShadeX, and also Metalifizer and Clear Dock.

I haven't had any instability problems that I could determine were actually caused by APE, and I wouldn't give up the functionality for anything.

I understand that in theory, the concept of patching applications sounds dangerous, but is there any actual data to support such claims?

fisherKing · Aug 1, 2003, 12:00 PM

i'm using APE for uControl (to give my pismo a second command key),
and SIMBL for pithhelmet (essential)

no problems as i can see...

Developer · Aug 1, 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by fisherKing:
i'm using APE for uControl

uControl doesn't use APE:

CharlesS · Aug 1, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by york28:
I understand that in theory, the concept of patching applications sounds dangerous, but is there any actual data to support such claims?

Well, it doesn't make me very happy when someone sends me a particular bizarre bug report for one of my apps, and I can't reproduce it or figure out what on earth could be causing it, and in the end it turns out to be due to some APE that the user installed which is screwing with my app and making it do things it's not supposed to...

moki · Aug 4, 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by nickm:
APE does not patch the OS. It patches running applications. In this sense, it is safer than kernel modules.

Well, that's not entirely true.

It certainly is true that a 'kext' can cause a kernel panic if it encounters a situation that it cannot handle properly, or if it has lingering bugs in it.

However, kernel extensions are written using published Apple APIs; indeed Apple provides quite a bit of the functionality of the machine you're using right now (assuming you're on OS X) via kernel extensions.

The way APE works, it is unlikely to cause a system-wide freeze, but the same mechanism that is used to add features to existing programs is both the strength and the weakness of APE.

No matter how bug-free and perfect Unsanity makes APE (and they are highly skilled coders, make no mistake about it), they are providing people with the ability to muck up other programs in new and exicing ways.

When a new (major) version of Mac OS X is released, it's likely you'll need a new version of the APE framework. Similarly when a new version of the application that a "haxie" (for lack of a better term) patches into is released, you'll likely need a new version of that haxie as well.

I personally had enough of "extension conflict sluething" and constant updating of software to address conflicts in Mac OS 9. Many people love APE-based programs, and enjoy the functionality they provide -- so it's really just an individual choice.

mrmister · Aug 4, 2003, 07:39 AM

What Moki said. I am addicted to FruitMenu, but I recognize that APEs can be harder to trouble shoot...so I never install them on other people's computers that I maintain, and I always shut them down if I am encountering a bug and check to see that they aren't conflicting.

On the whole, while I did experience some system slowness a few generations ago, APE 1.3 has been very solid. No flakiness, and it appears to be working very well for me.