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 > macOS > Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Thread Tools
alphasubzero949
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 03:07 PM
 
Since it won't be out until at least late 2006 or early 2007, what would you like to see rolled into it (besides the obvious Intel optimization)?

Discuss.
     
tigas
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 03:40 PM
 
Ftff!
     
iPhotoStuff
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In front of computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:15 PM
 
A big button on boot up called "Make OSX Function Properly" which the user can activate. Tiger seems to currently be missing that option.
     
ManOfSteal
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Outfield - #24
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by iPhotoStuff
A big button on boot up called "Make OSX Function Properly" which the user can activate. Tiger seems to currently be missing that option.
That feature was taken out with the latest debug code® optimizations.
     
:dragonflypro:
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Kuna, ID USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:30 PM
 
10.5 Leopard.

Apple Changes Its Spots!

T
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by iPhotoStuff
A big button on boot up called "Make OSX Function Properly" which the user can activate. Tiger seems to currently be missing that option.
Apple Menu -> System Utilities -> OS -> Make Apple Zippy
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh
Apple Menu -> System Utilities -> OS -> Make Apple Zippy
Don't you mean Apple Menu -> System Utilities -> OS -> Make Apple Snappy™ ?
     
MacManMikeOSX
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Location: U.S.A at the moment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:33 PM
 
Seeings as it'll probably be Mactel only, WINE. With WINE and 86x compatable X11 running apple will kick the markets azs.
     
OptimusG4
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: columbus, oh
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacManMikeOSX
Seeings as it'll probably be Mactel only, WINE. With WINE and 86x compatable X11 running apple will kick the markets azs.
I doubt that, considering 2006 they will still be selling PPC base macs, plus they would abandon the machines they are selling now, which is not a good idea if they want to keep customers.
"Another classic science-fiction show cancelled before its time" ~ Bender

15.2" PowerBook 1.25GHz, 80GB HD, 768MB RAM, SuperDrive
     
mac15
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 07:09 PM
 
It would also make developer's lazy, why spend money porting a Mac OS X application if you could use the Windows version through WINE?
     
tigas
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac15
It would also make developer's lazy, why spend money porting a Mac OS X application if you could use the Windows version through WINE?
Someone is going to port WINE. Darwinports, Fink, whomever.
     
midwinter
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by tigas
Someone is going to port WINE. Darwinports, Fink, whomever.
And that could be very bad. Depending.
     
calimehtar
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Toronto Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:34 PM
 
I think that'd totally rock. Save me having to keep that big ugly PC in the other room for testing my websites on. I can't help thinking Apple is going to support some sort of emulation so that OS X can run PC games at native speed.

I think consumer television and video are the future, so expect iTunes and iPhoto-like software for managing HD or some sort of PVR functionality.
     
midwinter
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by calimehtar
I think that'd totally rock. Save me having to keep that big ugly PC in the other room for testing my websites on. I can't help thinking Apple is going to support some sort of emulation so that OS X can run PC games at native speed.

I think consumer television and video are the future, so expect iTunes and iPhoto-like software for managing HD or some sort of PVR functionality.
And how much longer will M$ and Adobe continue to make Mac versions of their applications if people can just run them natively?
     
mac15
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by tigas
Someone is going to port WINE. Darwinports, Fink, whomever.

I'm talking about commerical Windows apps, they'll realise they can make a buck and well yeah release crap.
     
mac15
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by midwinter
And how much longer will M$ and Adobe continue to make Mac versions of their applications if people can just run them natively?
Did you watch the keynote?
     
SoClose
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:52 PM
 
Well, I guess we now know the fate of the rumored "Yellow Box" version of the Cocoa APIs that would run on Windows/Intel. It was there the whole time! Can you imagine being the Apple engineers walking around with the secret that Mac OS X has been compiled and executing on the Intel platform for almost 5 years?!
     
andretan
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:00 AM
 
But seriously, I thought His Steveness said that Tiger will be around for sometime before the next version of Mac OS X comes out?!

It's only a few months since Tiger came out. :bugeye:
mac.goodies webstore / Switched to an iBook in November 2002. Never looking back.
iBook R.I.P. 20 Nov 2002 - 2 Aug 2005
Hello Leopard! On iMac 17" Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz 2GB, iPod 5th gen 30GB and iPhone
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by midwinter
And how much longer will M$ and Adobe continue to make Mac versions of their applications if people can just run them natively?
They won't exactly be running natively if they're running Windows on an Apple box. Windows apps run natively on Windows. Mac apps run natively on Macs. I don't want to run Windows on my Mac. I'll only be buying Mac apps.

Chris
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:29 AM
 
Major software companies are not going to drop support for Mac OS X. Watch the Keynote.
The Universal Binaries mean the software will run on both PPC Macs and the upcoming intel Macs. This means that your current Power Mac, iMac, iBook, etc. will be supported under Mac OS X Leopard just like they are now under Tiger. Eventually like every other Mac they will be phased out after a couple years and you'll get a new intel Mac. They'll still continue to make innovative technologies and hardware design so no worries there.
There will no longer be any excuses from hardcore gamers and PC users hopefully.
     
gururafiki
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Good question...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by andretan
But seriously, I thought His Steveness said that Tiger will be around for sometime before the next version of Mac OS X comes out?!

It's only a few months since Tiger came out. :bugeye:
2 years is not THAT soon, is it?
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:35 AM
 
Considering the idea is to have Leopard launch at the same time as Longhorn (and running on Intel-chipped Macs) is stepping up the battle vs M$.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:47 AM
 
I heard that they have the BSOD almost completely implemented and that it's just a matter of a couple compiler settings to change your app from beachballing to full-blown BSOD.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
alphasubzero949  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by SoClose
Can you imagine being the Apple engineers walking around with the secret that Mac OS X has been compiled and executing on the Intel platform for almost 5 years?!
I'm sure that his Steveness had a bounty over their heads if they leaked that secret.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
I heard that they have the BSOD almost completely implemented and that it's just a matter of a couple compiler settings to change your app from beachballing to full-blown BSOD.
Luckily, it'll be running OSX so the BSOD will be kept at bay. Besides, isn't Longhorn going to have a red SOD?

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
juanvaldes
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:15 AM
 
RSOD = Hardware failure that is VERY VERY bad and as I recall is/has been in the NT line since inception.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1787
     
midwinter
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by mac15
Did you watch the keynote?
Yup. And I didn't hear either Roz "the best speaker in the WORLD" Ho or the guy from Adobe (they both sounded like they'd been knocked in the head before they came onstage...does Ho have Bell's Palsy? Does the Adobe guy have some kind of speech impediment?) say that they planned to continue making Mac versions of their applications through this transition. Or for a long, long, time.

Once WINE is ported to this new Mac and Windows apps can run without emulating a different chip—and therefore at near-native (or native) speeds—why would MS or Adobe bother compiling a universal binary? Why not just bundle WINE with their software or say that Mac users need to have it installed?
     
alphasubzero949  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:27 AM
 
Good thing I wasn't the only one who thought that the MS and Adobe nonsense was 100% bovine manure-grade marketing propaganda.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 02:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by midwinter
Once WINE is ported to this new Mac and Windows apps can run without emulating a different chip—and therefore at near-native (or native) speeds—why would MS or Adobe bother compiling a universal binary? Why not just bundle WINE with their software or say that Mac users need to have it installed?
Because that would be stupid in the same way that it would've been stupid for them to require you to use Virtual PC before? Both Adobe and the MacBU realize WINE does not provide even a distant approximation of how a Mac app is supposed to work. Both companies have always worked to support the Mac very well (many people even think the Mac Office is better than the PC version), and there's no reason to believe they will suddenly decide to start half-assing it.

Now you kids stop with the FUD.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
RevEvs
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:15 AM
 
No commercial app will use WINE if its ported by anyone but Apple. Can you serioulsy see a company trusting some other developer to keep WINE up to date so their apps work? Unless apple said they were implementing WINE and keeping it really up to date/optimized then it is not going to happen (in the same way mac on intel will never happen )
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:38 AM
 
But what about dual-booting? To wit:

Customer: "Do you still offer a Mac version of application x?"

Sales: "You can now run our Windows version on your Mac by booting into Windows."

Customer: "But I don't want to run Windows."

Sales: "Well, I understand your concern, but our company decided that it was more economical to support the Windows platform solely. And there's no reason why can't run our Windows software on your Mac now that it is Intel based."

Windows will run on anything and everything. Apple said there will not be an effort made to prevent it. And then the final developer exodus will commence. Companies will drop Mactel support (and that perpetually troublesome Mac support with it) as soon as these "Macs" are capable of running Windows. Please, show me how I'm wrong.
( Last edited by Big Mac; Jun 7, 2005 at 08:46 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
amsalpemkcus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Where Lysimachia mauritiana blooms
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 09:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
But what about dual-booting? To wit:

Windows will run on anything and everything. Apple said there will not be an effort made to prevent it. And then the final developer exodus will commence. Companies will drop Mactel support (and that perpetually troublesome Mac support with it) as soon as these "Macs" are capable of running Windows. Please, show me how I'm wrong.

It sure is a gamble but I think the reverse may well be true. More customers demanding they get their mission critical apps to work in os x.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
But what about dual-booting? To wit:

Customer: "Do you still offer a Mac version of application x?"

Sales: "You can now run our Windows version on your Mac by booting into Windows."
Customer: "I can't, you slow-witted mouth breather. I don't have Windows."

Now, that's the correct response.

Again, while it's now possible for companies to tell people to run their software in Windows, it was also possible before with Virtual PC or even just by buying a real PC. Some companies do care little enough that they'd be inclined to offer one of these options to people, but those that cared enough to actually support the Mac all along aren't going to stop now. All in all, it's not likely there will be much of a change.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Parky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by iPhotoStuff
A big button on boot up called "Make OSX Function Properly" which the user can activate. Tiger seems to currently be missing that option.
Tiger works great for me !
Computers - Au MacBook 2.4Ghz, iMac 24" 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo
iPods - 5GB original iPod, 4GB nano - Red, 1GB 2G shuffle - Silver, 4GB 3G Shuffle - Black, 16GB touch, 16GB nano Red, 16GB iPhone 3G.
OSX User Since Public Beta, current OS 10.6.1, iTS UK purchases - 5377 songs.... and growing!
My website - www.idparkinson.co.uk
     
mpancha
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
I heard that they have the BSOD almost completely implemented and that it's just a matter of a couple compiler settings to change your app from beachballing to full-blown BSOD.

haha... cheers!

sad but oh so true.

but then again, I had my first beach balling, and that was only to show off expose to a friend last night, and to show its true effectiveness I opened... itunes, safari, terminal, mail, iphoto, addressbook, ichat w/3 caht windows, msn messenger w/3 chat windows, automater, word, excel, and pages. I had a beachball for about 3 minutes, but then the iBook was as responsive as my previous 600mhz ibook with 10.2 was.

Once I closed all the extras and just went back to itunes, safari, terminal, mail, iphoto, it was back to being zippy.
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
[APi]TheMan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chico, CA and Carlsbad, CA.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kristoff
I heard that they have the BSOD almost completely implemented and that it's just a matter of a couple compiler settings to change your app from beachballing to full-blown BSOD.
Spinning beachball of death == SBOD
Blue screen of death == BSOD

OMG coincidence?
"In Nomine Patris, Et Fili, Et Spiritus Sancti"

     
cambro
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Laurentia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
Sales: "Well, I understand your concern, but our company decided that it was more economical to support the Windows platform solely. And there's no reason why can't run our Windows software on your Mac now that it is Intel based."
100% correct.

This spells the end of Mac OS application development. No company in their right mind would EVER make an OS X application now.

We will all be running Windows apps cobbled onto the Apple OS...which itself will be hacked to run on Dells and Gateways.

The sad part of this is that the ONLY positive outcome of a switch to a platform that is virtually identical to Windows machines is rapid market share growth of the OS.

This, of course would spell the end of what, to me anyway, makes Apple unique (no viruses, integrated mac-like solutions etc.).

In short, Apple will no longer become a hardware company and will become Microsoft 2.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:20 PM
 
Well, Adobe and Microsoft are both on the record as continuing to support the move. And if Apple's market share continues to grow, companies would be stupid not to take advantage. You may just see more software for Macs on Intel.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
cambro
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Laurentia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Randman
You may just see more software for Macs on Intel.
100% correct.

We macusers can now run and enjoy the 1000s of highly useful Windows applications out there, the lack of which previously made our computing experiences sub-par.

The issue isn't lack of applications.

The issues is homongenized applications that are built for the dominant OS - Microsoft Windows and cobbled onto the marginal OS - Apple OS X - with little or no thought about what a Mac application should be or do.

I guarantee that Adobe is ecstatic about this and they will be able to layoff much of their mac development staff in the next several years.
     
krove
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by cambro
100% correct.

We macusers can now run and enjoy the 1000s of highly useful Windows applications out there, the lack of which previously made our computing experiences sub-par.

The issue isn't lack of applications.

The issues is homongenized applications that are built for the dominant OS - Microsoft Windows and cobbled onto the marginal OS - Apple OS X - with little or no thought about what a Mac application should be or do.
This is 100% wrong! (emphasis mine) Without emulation of the Windows API (from WINE, for example) no windows application will "just run" under Mac OS X on intel.

Just because an application is compiled to run on x86, it still contains OS-specific APIs that tie it to a particular platform. This is why we will still have Mac-specific versions of Adobe and M$ software.

That is not to say that all the dumb sales people at stores like Circuit city, best buy, etc will not confuse this to death and run their customers away with MS Windows for their Mac on Intel box.

How did it come to this? Goodbye PowerPC. | sensory output
     
Detrius
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 01:18 PM
 
Back to the issue of 10.5...

I hope they finally get their butts in gear and offer a remote graphical terminal. Why shouldn't we be able to share one very powerful Macintosh amongst several people with far less powerful Macs? At least they offer a cheap Mac now to fulfill the terminal end.

And along those lines, it would be really freaking awesome if you could connect two keyboards, two mice, and two monitors to one high-end Mac and have two people sit down at it and use it. They could even offer us a dual multi-core machine with the capability to hook up upwards of 4 to 8 displays and keyboards, and then we would have a true workstation... It would be optimal if we could hook up more displays than keyboards so that some people could have multiple monitors.

drool...
ACSA 10.4/10.3, ACTC 10.3, ACHDS 10.3
     
sniffer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norway (I eat whales)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man
Don't you mean Apple Menu -> System Utilities -> OS -> Make Apple Snappy™ ?
Perhaps you mean Schnappi ?

Sniffer gone old-school sig
     
PurpleGiant
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by cambro
100% correct.

This spells the end of Mac OS application development. No company in their right mind would EVER make an OS X application now.

We will all be running Windows apps cobbled onto the Apple OS...which itself will be hacked to run on Dells and Gateways.

The sad part of this is that the ONLY positive outcome of a switch to a platform that is virtually identical to Windows machines is rapid market share growth of the OS.

This, of course would spell the end of what, to me anyway, makes Apple unique (no viruses, integrated mac-like solutions etc.).

In short, Apple will no longer become a hardware company and will become Microsoft 2.

Quoted for hilarity. Let's bump this in a year, two years, three years even, and see if you are right about no companies making OS X applications. It will be like the iPod predictions
     
crooner
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sin City�, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 06:51 PM
 
Hmm, new features in Leopard? How about getting rid of Stoplight (er.. I mean Spotlight) and bringing back the good old Find implementation.


To dislike Sinatra is a sign of highly questionable taste. To dislike the Beatles is a serious character flaw.
     
Krypton
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cambridge UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:05 PM
 
If there were WINE for OS X, it would obviously be the killer app, whatever you happen to think.

Does WINE allow access to the graphics card? If so, I wouldn't have to buy a PC for engineering software.
     
galarneau
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Canastota, New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 07:57 PM
 
I don't know what you mean by "access to the graphics card", but I know that under WINE, some PC games actually run as fast or a little faster than under Windows.
     
Geobunny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 08:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by crooner
Hmm, new features in Leopard? How about getting rid of Stoplight (er.. I mean Spotlight) and bringing back the good old Find implementation.
Here here! I thought I had found a use for Spotlight but I was wrong. I started using it to search my current web development directory for all documents containing a link to a URL which has recently changed - for some reason it only threw up a very small handful of the documents it should have.
ClamXav - the free virus scanner for Mac OS X | Geobunny learns to fly
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 09:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
Back to the issue of 10.5...

I hope they finally get their butts in gear and offer a remote graphical terminal. Why shouldn't we be able to share one very powerful Macintosh amongst several people with far less powerful Macs? At least they offer a cheap Mac now to fulfill the terminal end.
I'd like to see something like the Citrix/Metaserver solution Windows has for implementing virtual machine access. In case you're not familiar with it, its a lightweight Windows app that lets you use an application hosted on a remote machine as if it was installed on your machine. For example, at work we use Microsoft Outlook for email, scheduling, etc. From my PC at home, I can log in and use Outlook (hosted on the office's servers) just like I would use any other Windows app - its own window, menu bar, etc... Now, its not just logging in and using using a copy of Outlook loaded on my machine - I don't have Outlook installed on my machine. I can do this with any app hosted on my work's servers (Word, PowerPoint, etc.) as if they were installed locally. Think rootless X11 apps on MacOS X.

I'd love for something like this to be available on MacOS X (even MacOS X Server). A true remote GUI.
     
andretan
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Singapore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
Back to the issue of 10.5...

I hope they finally get their butts in gear and offer a remote graphical terminal. Why shouldn't we be able to share one very powerful Macintosh amongst several people with far less powerful Macs? At least they offer a cheap Mac now to fulfill the terminal end.

And along those lines, it would be really freaking awesome if you could connect two keyboards, two mice, and two monitors to one high-end Mac and have two people sit down at it and use it. They could even offer us a dual multi-core machine with the capability to hook up upwards of 4 to 8 displays and keyboards, and then we would have a true workstation... It would be optimal if we could hook up more displays than keyboards so that some people could have multiple monitors.

drool...
Bingo!
mac.goodies webstore / Switched to an iBook in November 2002. Never looking back.
iBook R.I.P. 20 Nov 2002 - 2 Aug 2005
Hello Leopard! On iMac 17" Intel Core Duo 1.83GHz 2GB, iPod 5th gen 30GB and iPhone
     
Cadaver
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2005, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Detrius
And along those lines, it would be really freaking awesome if you could connect two keyboards, two mice, and two monitors to one high-end Mac and have two people sit down at it and use it. They could even offer us a dual multi-core machine with the capability to hook up upwards of 4 to 8 displays and keyboards, and then we would have a true workstation... It would be optimal if we could hook up more displays than keyboards so that some people could have multiple monitors.

drool...
Duh! Because then Apple couldn't sell you that second machine for the wife and kids!


Just kidding.


But not really.
     
 
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 03:34 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.,