Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Apps that work in Leopard

Apps that work in Leopard
Thread Tools
pastusza
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Bensalem, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2007, 11:27 PM
 
Does anyone know if Toast works with Leopard?
How about Norton Antivirus?
Office 2004?

These are three apps that I care about most.

Andy
Andy Pastuszak
amp68(spammenot)-at-verizon.net
     
MrForgetable
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 12:09 AM
 
Toast 7 Works. (I'm assuming Toast 8 works too)

No idea about Norton.

Word was freaking slow to bootup for the first time but now it's fine and pretty quick actually. It's also pretty ugly if you have a background that shows off the new clear menubar.
iamwhor3hay
     
Curiosity
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 03:43 AM
 
Does Shapeshifter work in Leopard?
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 05:33 AM
 
Apps I've installed and run successfully so far:

Virtual PC 7
Transmission
Cyberduck
EyeTV
( Last edited by gradient; Oct 27, 2007 at 04:04 PM. )
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
Does Shapeshifter work in Leopard?
Nope, trying to load it crashed my System Preferences.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
Does Shapeshifter work in Leopard?
Nope, and probably never will.
     
pastusza  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Bensalem, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 03:00 PM
 
Now that Numbers is here, I'm thinking about dumping Office 2004 for iWork 08 anyway, so it may not be an issue for me. How well does iWork save MS Office versions of files?

Andy
Andy Pastuszak
amp68(spammenot)-at-verizon.net
     
brokenjago
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 08:20 PM
 
Pretty well. Nearly perfect.

Also, don't use Norton AV. It's old, outdated, obsolete, and dangerous. Use ClamAVX instead.
Linkinus is king.
     
rickey939
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cooperstown '09
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 08:25 PM
 
     
pastusza  (op)
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Bensalem, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by brokenjago View Post
Pretty well. Nearly perfect.

Also, don't use Norton AV. It's old, outdated, obsolete, and dangerous. Use ClamAVX instead.
Clam has no on-access scanning and cant repair infected files.
Andy Pastuszak
amp68(spammenot)-at-verizon.net
     
swiz
GUI Punk
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: S.E. Mitten
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 10:14 PM
 

Its a tough life for a software company whos main deal is tweaking the very code which Apple replaces with major updates.

24" AlumiMac 2.4ghz C2D, 4g Ram, 300g HD, 750g USBHD • 80g iPod • 160g ATV • iPhone 3g
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2007, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by gradient View Post
Apps I've installed and run successfully so far:

Virtual PC 7
Transmission
Cyberduck
EyeTV
Edit: The EyeTV problem I had was apparently a conflict involving DivX components.
( Last edited by gradient; Oct 27, 2007 at 10:32 PM. )
     
barn goddess
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2007, 10:27 AM
 
Is there a utility available yet that will analyze your current software and report Leopard incompatible programs? Or is there a comprehensive list somewhere with compatible and incompatible programs known to date.

Thanks
Barn Goddess
Watsonville, Ca.
     
brokenjago
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2007, 01:37 PM
 
No there is not. That's what this thread is for
Linkinus is king.
     
gradient
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2007, 05:40 PM
 
Toast 8 works. I just installed the 8.0.1 update, though 8.0 wasn't having any noticeable problems either.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2007, 09:27 PM
 
I sure wish Unsaity would post with some news on whether or not Shapeshifter is going to be updated for Leopard or not. Does anyone know? At this point I think that Unsanity's silence on the status of updates is becoming very unprofessional and rude towards their customers/themers/fans. Let us know one way or the other already.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 01:45 AM
 
If they told you one way and it turned out to be the other, would you be happier?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by swiz View Post
Its a tough life for a software company whos main deal is tweaking the very code which Apple replaces with major updates.
To be fair, Apple told them from the start not to do what they did. That it would be changing soon. So they brought that problem onto themselves. I guess they felt if their application was popular enough, that Apple wouldn't DARE do anything to stop it from working. I really have no clue as to what the Unsaninty people were thinking.

Not only that, I am sure Apple wasted a lot of resources and man hours dealing with OS problems that the APE architecture caused. (One of the main reasons they asked people NOT to go that route)

APE modules basically worked like extensions in OS 9. Apple wanted to get rid of those bug ridden add-ons. Apple made it clear it would. So no one from the Unsanity team should have been surprised when their APE hacks stopped working.

BTW I was never an APE fan because of these reasons. But Apple NEEDS to give it's users SOME sort of Themeing support. I don't give a shiz what Steve says.

I'd love to theme my OS the way some Linux/Windows guys are without having to use some 3rd party API that hacks in RAM on the fly. I used to mess with Kaleidoscope themes back in the day till I started having problems with it. Same with Aaron. I actually learned to REALLY appreciate Platinum, and they took it all away and gave us no other choice.

I mean Aqua? Come on. WTF Apple!!?
( Last edited by Kevin; Nov 25, 2007 at 12:41 PM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by swiz View Post
Its a tough life for a software company whose main deal is breaking the very code which Apple replaces with security updates.
Fixed for correctivity and by way of explicanation of Unsanity's silence on the matter so far.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 03:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
APE modules basically worked like extensions in OS 9.
Ugh. That is not technically accurate — at least not any more so than saying "APE modules basically work like system frameworks in OS X." I mean, there's no real need for you to know how this stuff works — it's not like it makes you a bad person or anything — but you'd probably do well not to talk about it for the same reason I don't talk about the internals of cars.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Nov 25, 2007 at 03:24 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 03:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Ugh. That is not technically accurate — at least not any more so than saying "APE modules basically work like system frameworks in OS X."
If you are implying that extensions on OS 9 worked the same way as system frameworks in OS X, then you certainly have no right to be this snotty:

I mean, there's no real need for you to know how this stuff works — it's not like it makes you a bad person or anything — but you'd probably do well not to talk about it for the same reason I don't talk about the internals of cars.
Extensions and APE modules both work by patching code in other applications. What makes them so fundamentally different that you have to be this insulting about it? The fact that extensions were a supported mechanism and APE has to sneak in via the debugger APIs?

edit: actually, since you think that APE and GDB do the same thing (link), I really think you should shut up.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
If you are implying that extensions on OS 9 worked the same way as system frameworks in OS X
Well, what APE and extensions have in common is that they insert code into applications, and what extensions and system frameworks have in common is that they insert code into applications. I admit that they're radically different things, and that was in fact my point.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Extensions and APE modules both work by patching code in other applications. What makes them so fundamentally different that you have to be this insulting about it?
I wasn't being insulting. That's your deal, Charles. I don't work for Unsanity, I'm not even an Unsanity user — I just don't appreciate your insulting attitude. My whole issue here is people unfairly slinging insults at people who made something cool.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
The fact that extensions were a supported mechanism and APE has to sneak in via the debugger APIs?
The fact that APE is targeted injection of code in a controlled manner as opposed to extensions, which were just loaded and told, "Hey, go crazy with the system trap table!" You couldn't say, "I want this extension to load and affect just this one thing." You couldn't say, "Oh, hey, I don't like what this extension is doing here — I want to turn that off." And that's just the what they do side of things: The fact that they use completely different techniques (as you noted above) is also a significant difference.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
If they told you one way and it turned out to be the other, would you be happier?
Why would you ask that? You think they have NO clue whether they can't get APEs working on 10.5 so they're being wise to say nothing? If so I think they could at least say they have no clue. Or are you actually saying that silence is really the most professional thing to do to their loyal customers who've paid between $50 and $100 for their product until they've got it all working perfectly? Or are you just being a snot?

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Why would you ask that? You think they have NO clue whether they can't get APEs working on 10.5 so they're being wise to say nothing?
They posted less than a month ago that they are still working on it. I wouldn't say they're "saying nothing." If that's not enough communication for you, you're entitled to your opinion. It just sounded like you were looking for something definite, and I was saying "We're working on it" might well be the most definite thing they have right now.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Nov 25, 2007 at 04:21 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Well, what APE and extensions have in common is that they insert code into applications, and what extensions and system frameworks have in common is that they insert code into applications.


System frameworks don't insert code into applications. System frameworks offer exported symbols which an application developer imports into an app by linking against the framework. A framework doesn't do anything on its own other than sit on the hard disk and take up space unless an app or another library/framework specifically links against it, and in that case the application developer is completely in charge of what is happening. It has NOTHING AT ALL to do with extensions and APE, which inject their code into other applications without the application developer being aware of (or able to plan for) their changes in any way whatsoever.

It's like claiming that being burglarized is similar to inviting someone over for dinner, because in each case someone other than you entered your house.

If you don't understand what you are talking about, then maybe you should talk about something else?
I wasn't being insulting. That's your deal, Charles.
You don't think this is insulting (and really, really ironic)?

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Ugh. That is not technically accurate — at least not any more so than saying "APE modules basically work like system frameworks in OS X." I mean, there's no real need for you to know how this stuff works — it's not like it makes you a bad person or anything — but you'd probably do well not to talk about it for the same reason I don't talk about the internals of cars.
Sheesh.
I don't work for Unsanity, I'm not even an Unsanity user
Well, you seem to be pretty fanatical about them, given that you almost always show up the moment any thread mentions APE or Unsanity. It's almost as if you're using the search feature to turn up any thread that mentions them.

The fact that APE is targeted injection of code in a controlled manner as opposed to extensions, which were just loaded and told, "Hey, go crazy with the system trap table!" You couldn't say, "I want this extension to load and affect just this one thing." You couldn't say, "Oh, hey, I don't like what this extension is doing here — I want to turn that off."
Yeah, you can turn it off for individual apps. In most other respects, APE is more invasive than extensions ever were, sticking its _ape_agent thread into every single app on the system even if it's not actually going to patch anything in that app.

And that's just the what they do side of things: The fact that they use completely different techniques (as you noted above) is also a significant difference.
That's nothing but implementation detail. The fact is that APE and extensions do pretty much the same thing.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Nov 25, 2007 at 05:02 PM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 05:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
System frameworks don't insert code into applications. System frameworks offer exported symbols which an application developer imports into an app by linking against the framework. A framework doesn't do anything on its own other than sit on the hard disk and take up space unless an app or another library/framework specifically links against it, and in that case the application developer is completely in charge of what is happening.
So when I go into Pacifist and have the option of grammar-checking in the search field, you mean to tell me you specifically put that in there? That was awful considerate.

But anyway, I do agree they're not the same thing. That was my point: The fact that two things can be described in the same terms and even the fact that they achieve the same thing (inserting a grammar checker would have been a good use for APE) does not mean they actually are the same. God is in the details.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
You don't think this is insulting (and really, really ironic)?
Not really, no. It's a bit frank, but it pales in comparison to the vitriol people are slinging at me and Unsanity.

I just think the hate here is really sad. Like, if you don't want to use Unsanity's stuff because you don't like the tradeoffs, don't use it — I don't. But this isn't normal "Oh, I don't like this app," it's just poison directed at Unsanity and anybody who doesn't also hate them. I don't get that at all.

Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Well, you seem to be pretty fanatical about them, given that you almost always show up the moment any thread mentions APE or Unsanity. It's almost as if you're using the search feature to turn up any thread that mentions them.
Wait, what? Last week you were complaining that I wasn't turning up in APE threads often enough. Good grief, man.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Nov 25, 2007 at 05:40 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 05:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
So when I go into Pacifist and have the option of grammar-checking in the search field, you mean to tell me you specifically put that in there? That was awful considerate.
Um, yes, I did in fact link Pacifist against the Cocoa framework and tell it to use Cocoa's NSSearchField class, which includes that grammar checker.

Not really, no. It's a bit frank, but it pales in comparison to the vitriol people are slinging at me and Unsanity.


I just think the hate here is really sad. Like, if you don't want to use Unsanity's stuff because you don't like the tradeoffs, don't use it — I don't.
Oh, if only it were that easy.

1. If you develop an app, you are going to have tons of your time wasted troubleshooting problems caused by rogue APE modules installed on your users' machines, and you are going to be accused of having bugs that are not your fault.

2. If you are an end-user, APE might get installed behind your back by some other installer (*cough* Logitech *cough*) without your knowledge.

3. APE decreases the stability of the system, and causes all sorts of weird problems that waste people's time troubleshooting them.

4. As long as things like APE are possible, any virus or other malware can hack its way around any security mechanism you can think of. As long as there is patching, there is NO SECURITY whatsoever in OS X.

5. Apple seems to share my belief that patching is something that should not be allowed.

Wait, what? Last week you were complaining that I wasn't turning up in APE threads often enough. Good grief, man.
No, I pointed out that this thread was pretty much the only APE-related thread you hadn't shown up in. And for good reason - it demonstrates very well the wasted time that APE causes, in a way that you'd have a hard time arguing against.
( Last edited by CharlesS; Nov 25, 2007 at 06:04 PM. )

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2007, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
4. As long as things like APE are possible, any virus or other malware can hack its way around any security mechanism you can think of. As long as there is patching, there is NO SECURITY whatsoever in OS X.
5. Apple seems to share my belief that patching is something that should not be allowed.
Sounds like you're blaming UnSanity for patching Apple's operating system. Maybe you and Apple should thank them for pointing out the vulnerability before the viri did!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
So when I go into Pacifist and have the option of grammar-checking in the search field, you mean to tell me you specifically put that in there? That was awful considerate.
I hate to entertain your obviously dumb argument that I'm sure you know better than to seriously argue... but CharlesS when he wrote Pacifist established that Cocoa was a trusted framework he would link to in his app, and he decided he would allow his app to use future versions of Cocoa that include features such as grammar check. CharlesS could also link to a framework that supplied code for an application to change it's appearance, add a live previewing font menu, and so on... But of course the reason there are APE's for those things is because it would otherwise rely on developers opting in to all those frameworks. Regardless, a framework is analogous to inviting someone in for dinner, and patching is analogous to breaking the door down and holding the occupants of the house hostage.

As a side note, Frameworks is actually another vector for forcing code into another application. If you manually patch (on disk) a framework that everyone links into such as Cocoa, any app that touches Cocoa would load your code. For obvious reasons, no one actually does this, and code signing additionally puts a stop to the possibility of this happening.

Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
The fact that APE is targeted injection of code in a controlled manner as opposed to extensions, which were just loaded and told, "Hey, go crazy with the system trap table!" You couldn't say, "I want this extension to load and affect just this one thing." You couldn't say, "Oh, hey, I don't like what this extension is doing here — I want to turn that off." And that's just the what they do side of things: The fact that they use completely different techniques (as you noted above) is also a significant difference.
I don't think anyone here has an issue with the way APE manages which applications it patches. The issue is with the patching itself. I didn't mind patching so much when it was just done on PowerPC. Intel added some wrinkles but it wasn't so bad. Rosetta needs a buffer overflow attack to be executed for patching, and no one has even publicly tried 64 bit yet (although we already know input managers will never be coming to 64 bit land).
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 05:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Sounds like you're blaming UnSanity for patching Apple's operating system. Maybe you and Apple should thank them for pointing out the vulnerability before the viri did!
Apple already knew. Apple told people not to do it. That it would be closed off. Unsanity did it anyhow. And now Apple has turned it off, they are all "surprised and shocked" trying to make Apple out to be the bad guy. Yet you never hear anything from Unsanity about such a thing
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 07:33 AM
 
[QUOTE=goMac;3541645] Regardless, a framework is analogous to inviting someone in for dinner, and patching is analogous to breaking the door down and holding the occupants of the house hostage.

As an unsanity fanboy, I'd say a framework is analogous to inviting someone in for dinner and patching is analogous to the guest bringing his own food instead of constantly complaining about what the host serves.

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Apple already knew. Apple told people not to do it. That it would be closed off. Unsanity did it anyhow. And now Apple has turned it off, they are all "surprised and shocked" trying to make Apple out to be the bad guy. Yet you never hear anything from Unsanity about such a thing
So you're saying I can quit waiting for Unsanity because it's probably not going to happen right? That's all I want to know so I can start figuring out new workarounds for Fruitmenu etc in my little mind. I just keep expecting that all the haxies will be back any day. I just want to know one way or the other.

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 26, 2007, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
So you're saying I can quit waiting for Unsanity because it's probably not going to happen right?
Nope, not saying that at all. And if they are saying they are working on it, I am sure they think they can get it to work. I kinda hope they do in a way. I wont use it if it works in the same way, *sigh* but I think the option should still be out there. Maybe Apple create a framework specifically for these things.
That's all I want to know so I can start figuring out new workarounds for Fruitmenu etc in my little mind. I just keep expecting that all the haxies will be back any day. I just want to know one way or the other.
Maybe look elsewhere for things that work like it? I know I replaced the Apple menu with a folder in the dock that worked just like it.

Of course in 10.5 Apple removed that ability... but there are 3rd party applications that are not hacks in that way, that add it back.
     
mrtew
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Nope, not saying that at all. And if they are saying they are working on it, I am sure they think they can get it to work. I kinda hope they do in a way..
I guess they will be able to according to this statement from their blog... "First and foremost, we are actively working on the Leopard compatibility for all our haxies (Application Enhancer being the #1 there, as most of our and lots of third party products depend on that). We have a build internally that works with Mac OS X 10.5... so it's a matter of days for the compatibility update." (although it's been weeks now)

Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Maybe look elsewhere for things that work like it? I know I replaced the Apple menu with a folder in the dock that worked just like it.
Wow, "Classic Menu" was updated on versiontracker yesterday and I tried it for the first time and like it better than Fruitmenu (especially the name). It has a choice of nice looking replacement apples too and I love the rainbow striped one... so cool... it's how it should have looked this whole time in OSX. Unsanity better hurry before other people come along and fill all the gaps left by their absence!

I love the U.S., but we need some time apart.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by mrtew View Post
Wow, "Classic Menu" was updated on versiontracker yesterday and I tried it for the first time and like it better than Fruitmenu (especially the name). It has a choice of nice looking replacement apples too and I love the rainbow striped one... so cool... it's how it should have looked this whole time in OSX. Unsanity better hurry before other people come along and fill all the gaps left by their absence!
I think anyone else trying to patch OS X would probably be running into the same troubles as Unsanity. That "Classic Menu" app seems to just work by overlaying a fake Apple menu on top of the real one rather than doing any actual patching. If you click on the application menu and then move the selection over to the left, you get the real one.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2007, 09:48 PM
 
Well I hope it's worth it for Unsanity. I'd LOVE to know how they are gonna do it. It would have to be a whole new re-write. It might not even work the same way hopefully.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,