[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Taking it out is frankly unacceptable, and IMO would be sufficient reason to switch to Windows if the latter weren't so godawful.

I'm sorry that your needs can't be met by a modern operating system.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

I'm sorry that your needs can't be met by a modern operating system.

Ah, the predictable, patronizing, condescending reply.

Actually some of the apps that don't have OS X versions do still have Windows versions, because the company only quit developing the Mac version. So these needs could be served by another modern operating system - Windows. So how about that? It's just that this particular modern operating system has decided to be an absolute craphole when it comes to backward compatibility, which is really a shame, since the Mac used to have the best backward compatibility in the industry.

[nbnz]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I use it often enough that the Classic menu extra has a permanent space in my menu bar. For both my parents, as well, the Classic environment is pretty much always running.

Taking it out is frankly unacceptable, and IMO would be sufficient reason to switch to Windows if the latter weren't so godawful.

What apps do you (and your parents) use that need Classic? (serious question)

[CharlesS]

My parents use Folio Views, because they have to deal with files in its format every day for their jobs. It's a closed format, and there aren't any third-party readers for it. The guy who gives them the files they have to work with refuses to use a different Mac-compatible format, even though a lot of the people he sends those files to use Macs. His response is simply "Get a PC."

My own needs I'd like to keep confidential for the moment, because I'm trying to make a new app that will reproduce some of those things, and I don't want to give away my future plans at this time. I do like to use Classic for old games like Glider Pro, though.

[Thinine]

As they say, Windows is the new Classic. So just get a virtualizer and you're set.

[lookmark]

Just for the record: Glider Pro for OS X. Free, too.

Work on Sheepshaver continues as well... hopefully one day it won't too much of a PITA to get running. There was recently a decent-looking walkthrough on it here.

I would be really quite surprised though if Apple really cut Classic support for Leopard for PPC Macs.

[CharlesS]

Oooooookay, let's see how many problems there are with that.

1. A virtualizer costs money

2. A copy of Windows costs more money

3. A virtualizer won't run on a PowerPC Mac, leaving you 100% screwed if Leopard doesn't include Classic.

Plus, that only addresses my parents' needs. The apps I run, which I don't want to discuss here, don't run in Windows either.

Originally Posted by lookmark

Just for the record: Glider Pro for OS X. Free, too.

Have you ever tried the OS X version of Glider Pro? It sucks royally compared to the Classic version.

Originally Posted by lookmark

Work on SheepShaver continues as well... hopefully one day it won't too much of a PITA to get running. There was recently a decent-looking walkthrough on it here.

The fact that SheepShaver is a major pain to set up is only part of the problem. Other problems include the fact that you need a very specific version of the Mac OS ROM file which is probably different than the one that is in your OS 9 installation, and the only way to get the right version is to pull it from one of the Mac OS ROM updates, which requires TomeViewer, which only runs in Classic - a chicken-and-egg problem - and the fact that SheepShaver is buggy as all hell and crashes with the slightest provocation (I actually have to start my copy of it up two or three times before it gets to the Desktop without beachballing).

I would be really quite surprised though if Apple really cut Classic support for Leopard for PCC Macs.

I would be surprised as well - and angry.

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Have you ever tried the OS X version of Glider Pro? It sucks royally compared to the Classic version.

Because it doesn't include the house editor?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by lookmark

Because it doesn't include the house editor?

That is one problem that it has, yes.

Another problem is that they changed all the room backgrounds so that not only do they look dark and depressing, but they majorly clash with all existing house files that assume the room backgrounds are going to look a certain way.

[MartiNZ]

There was an edited .rsrc file and installation instructions posted in the Games forum ... I think it was here, either that or at AmbrosiaSW, that took the colours mainly back to their classic look, much nicer indeed.

Another issue it has is very slow transfer between rooms, compared to in classic. A shame, really.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by MartiNZ

There was an edited .rsrc file and installation instructions posted in the Games forum ... I think it was here, either that or at AmbrosiaSW, that took the colours mainly back to their classic look, much nicer indeed.

Another issue it has is very slow transfer between rooms, compared to in classic. A shame, really.

Heh, that might have been a link to the old app I made, GliderNostalgia, which I uploaded to the Glider Pro archive a few years ago, and which should be on this page somewhere:

Sacred Software - Glider PRO files

The game still isn't the same as the original, though. Better just to run it in Classic.

[MartiNZ]

Why I believe that would be it... should have guessed .

Maybe I'll give it a go in classic while I still have the option.

[tonyallsopp]

I personally don't think we are going to see a complete re-design of the UI (as much as I would like to). OSX is a well recognised package now, and I think we will have to wait until OS11 (or whatever they name it) to see a radical overhaul of the UI. This opinion is very upsetting though because judging by the time between 10.?? updates, we have still got a long wait ahead of us, unless Apple don't intend to get as far as 10.9.

This said I do think there are some very exciting new features in the pipeline, and we will all love it. I don't think Apple's reason for not showing more of these features yet is to stop MS copying it though, they are already too far into the Beta testing with Vista to start copying Apple features now. They are struggling enough to get a stable version of their "Dumbed down" version out.

I think it is more likely that Apple are just behind with the development of Leopard. Jobs knew people would assume the best and think he is keeping exciting features close to his chest, so he used this to his advantage. Apple have only just completed a relatively quick and smooth transition to Intel chips, but I think it must have taken a lot more work than it looked like behind the scenes. Add to that all the other hardware that is being demanded by the mac users community (new iPod, iPhone, Tablet etc etc.), and I think Apple are just extremely busy at the moment, and are struggling to meet demands.

I do hope I'm wrong with everything I've written above, I hope Leopard is revolutionary, I hope they do bring out an iPhone and all the other products, and I hope Windows and Bill Gates fade into comupter oblivion, and I hope it all happens by the new year!

[kman42]

I'm wondering if one of Leopard's built in features might include .Mac along with Boot Camp, Photobooth and Front Row. It is becoming a central part of the OS and there are lots of competing services that are cheaper. In addition, I think MS is planning on something similar with Vista. Plus, I think Steve said "these are just three of the built in features" in his keynote.

kman

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by kman42

I'm wondering if one of Leopard's built in features might include .Mac along with Boot Camp, Photobooth and Front Row. It is becoming a central part of the OS and there are lots of competing services that are cheaper. In addition, I think MS is planning on something similar with Vista. Plus, I think Steve said "these are just three of the built in features" in his keynote.

kman

Apple open sourcing their Groupware software (i.e. iCal Server) is both an interesting and, I think, significant development.

The Groupware problem is a problem that needs to be solved. Exchange and other big monolithic systems have their share of problems and inflexibilities. I think Apple recognizes that in order to solve this problem they are going to need to take an open approach - nobody would be in yet another proprietary standard/solution.

Where I'm going with this is that Apple will need to get iCal to work with other servers, and likely their new Address Book sharing to round out this picture.

I hope Apple's era of closed web services is over. .Mac sells on its convenience factor, allowing other servers access to the same mechanisms does not take away this convenience.

[Horsepoo!!!]

People keep talking about Sheepshaver...but Sheepshaver is fahkin' terrible.

Use BasiliskII if you want a REAL Classic Mac OS emulator. While its UI is the abomination of abominations, it's fairly easy to set up and works flawlessly.

Once you got a good ROM and a good startup disk...you're set for life to run System 6 and 7 games.

mini vMac for anything between System 1 and System 6.

[CharlesS]

Unfortunately, Basilisk II only emulates a 68040. So if you want to run something that requires a PowerPC (or if you need to run OS 8.5 or greater in the emulated environment), SheepShaver is the only option. And it is, as you said, terrible.

[dimmer]

OSX is a well recognised package now

That's true. Just like the Apple II interface was recognized, as the PC-DOS interface was. We've done little to nothing since 1984. That can't be good. Apple keeps toying with this idea (Dashboard, a new mode for the OS; Time Machine, a new mode for the desktop) but we don't have a new answer to the basics that Jef and crew gave us in System 1.0; just fancier ways of playing with them.

Apple keeps kinda moving towards the Newton model (no documents, no file system, just information); but the users rail against it ("Why can't software update find the copy of final cut pro on my firewire harddrive that I shoved up a bugs ass that I then shoved up a spiders ass that I shoved up a chickens ass and then baked in an oven for three days? Those BASTARDS!)--we don't want to give up our old, clunky, pointless HFS ideas for a new world of do it, it's done. Same with interface. if you want to see what an IF of 2010 should be, look to PS3, even (gag me) x-Box 360; not here. Our day has passed.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by dimmer

if you want to see what an IF of 2010 should be, look to PS3, even (gag me) x-Box 360; not here.

I'll pass, thanks. Menu-based UIs are even older and less useful than the desktop + applications metaphor. If you really want to see what the future could be, look at a sheet of paper. Then think back to OpenDoc.

[TETENAL]

OpenDoc died for a reason.

Try iTunes on a sheet of paper. Try iMovie on a sheet of paper. Or DVD Player. The metaphor just doesn't work in anything but XPress and Indesign.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

OpenDoc died for a reason.

Try iTunes on a sheet of paper. Try iMovie on a sheet of paper. Or DVD Player. The metaphor just doesn't work in anything but XPress and Indesign.

So you end up with a mixed paradigm. Quite a few apps work in a document metaphor, and quite a few don't. This is already true in today's apps, it's just that combining elements in documents is harder than it should be. OpenDoc died because it had poor support from Apple, was very difficult to use, and wasn't very well documented. LinkBack is a nice implementation of the simple part of OpenDoc (content embedding, as opposed to editing embedded content), and I'm greatly in favor of seeing it used in more programs.

[Chuckit]

OpenDoc died because it had no support anywhere but Apple.

[dimmer]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

OpenDoc died because it had no support anywhere but Apple.

WHAT THE BEJESUS! That, my pally, is the most stupid thing I've ever heard said. OpenDoc was IBM's primo fascia technology for the 90's. EVERY IBM system was going to be part of it, mainframe, mini, workstation, desktop, laptop. Go look at the Annual Reports. OpenDoc was the core format of BluePink, IBM's OS/2.3. And it was also Novell's baby: IBM and Big Red N wrote OpenDoc for the PC platform. You want to see my developers CD's?

OpenDoc failed as BluePink failed: it was about 100 years ahead of it's time. It was impossible to do with the software and hardware we had at the time. It also was developer neutral (gee, kids, write your apps like this and anyone can see what they do!). Err, yeah.

Microsoft had OLE that was a pale copy. If you can find OLE even mentioned ANYWHERE on the MS website these days you'll be lucky. It was a horrid, ugly cludge.

Coming in Leopard: a universal system to share and update content between documents in real time that WILL NOT be called Publish and Subscribe.

[Chuckit]

I think you misunderstood me: OpenDoc failed because developers didn't support it. Apple supported it and IBM supported it, but how many actual Mac apps supported it? Other than Cyberdog, I don't recall seeing a single one at the time.

[monkeybrain]

For those of us not so familiar with OpenDoc (besides its name), can you explain what a modern OpenDoc app would be like?

[Chuckit]

Imagine if somebody released a spreadsheet app where you could include its spreadsheets in a Pages or TextEdit document — that's sort of the idea. Rather than working in apps that perform a certain function, you work with documents that include various components that do different things.

[dimmer]

OpenDoc was a document based philosophy: it assumed what you wanted to do was work, not deal with apps. So a la AppleWorks, you could embed a spreadsheet into a word processing document, ot a query to a remote database, or an RPC that would bring you back today's stock prices from NASDAC. It was a fundamental shift in the way we create stuff on our computers: it would version automagically, it would be cross platform, it would be scriptable in and out so you could not only use an app, you could make it do what you wanted. Every OpenDoc object had an embedded reader, so if you didn't own the authoring app, you could still see the content. The authoring (writing) app was a separate deal. Very like Adobe's Acrobat but much, much more powerful.

I can't post the videos here, but if you want give me an offscreen holla and I'll show you what the goal was. It was a very rich, grand ideal--designed to beat off MS for sure, but even beyond that it was just cool.

Then the internet happened. And suddenly crappy code with simple text files as the basis were cool again. Who, me, bitter?

---

OK, to answer your question: you start up your OpenDoc Mac. The desktop is a document showing you your stock portfolio, and the trades the major computers thing you should make. Your eMail from the boss has a pre-written reply, and a spot for you to drop a chart into. In the background (of the same document) is your sales figures, and some statistical tools that help you "look better", you choose the one you want and drop it in. You send it and then get news that the big deal you never thought would happen came through! Your spreadsheet gets updated and you get asked if you'd like to propegate that back. You say yes. The email you sent gets the new chart, you get to re-write the text.

OpenDoc was all about the paper being the thing, not the application, and then it added like a gazillion more things. It could have been wonderful.

[Eug]

Pix of 512x512 icons and vector Aqua

It looks like vector Aqua still needs some work...

P.S. I wonder how much CPU/GPU speed it will need.

[MartiNZ]

My word those are huge. I would only be able to fit one icon on my screen at a time lol.

Looking forward to the resolution independent GUI - can you do a reverse shot where everything looks much smaller?

[macfan01]

One area where Apple should improve its OS is mail. New mail options are cosmetic, what I really would like as part of the standart mail facitities is Return Receipt, Priority option and, for more readability, a facility that create mail group header when sorting mails, like Entourage is doing. These are really usefull options !!!!

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by macfan01

what I really would like as part of the standart mail facitities is Return Receipt, Priority option

Blech, "priority." I instantly delete any mail that's marked "important."

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Blech, "priority." I instantly delete any mail that's marked "important."

Hehe. Mee too.

[Eug]

Anyone with Leopard: How well do your printer and scanner drivers, etc. work?

Originally Posted by MartiNZ

My word those are huge. I would only be able to fit one icon on my screen at a time lol.

Looking forward to the resolution independent GUI - can you do a reverse shot where everything looks much smaller?

No, cuz I don't have Leopard.

[MartiNZ]

Arrrr dammit, always some excuse .

Oh yeah, I'm the same with 'important' mail. I suppose it -could- be a useful feature if it weren't abused.

[I WAS the One]

Whoa! somebody tell me if this is some kind of a joke, a fake video or something like that... because it seems that Leopard will introduce tabs on the Finder and everything seems to be rock solid cool!

First video

Second Video

[TETENAL]

Looks fake to me.

[Art Vandelay]

First one is real. Second one is fake. The second one was making the rounds before WWDC.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Blech, "priority." I instantly delete any mail that's marked "important."

Return receipts I'd just rather not see, either. I can't think of many things that spammers would love more than to have a notification that your e-mail address is valid.

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

First one is real. Second one is fake. The second one was making the rounds before WWDC.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by macfan01

One area where Apple should improve its OS is mail. New mail options are cosmetic, what I really would like as part of the standart mail facitities is Return Receipt, Priority option and, for more readability, a facility that create mail group header when sorting mails, like Entourage is doing. These are really usefull options !!!!

Priority has been there since 10.4.0. Return Receipts are a big welcome sign to more spam.

[JLL]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Second one is fake. The second one was making the rounds before WWDC.

We really don't know if it's fake. Even features shown in the keynote aren't in the dev seed and everyone seem to expect a Finder update.

[Art Vandelay]

True, we can't know for certain that it's a fake but I believe it's a fake. It doesn't have any of the new default Leopard Dock icons. It's says pre-release in the About Mac window when the actual Leopard pre-release builds don't. It appeared when all the other fakes appeared before WWDC. Also, there was a general consensus at the time that it was fake.

[PER3]

Originally Posted by macfan01

One area where Apple should improve its OS is mail. New mail options are cosmetic, what I really would like as part of the standart mail facitities is Return Receipt, Priority option and, for more readability, a facility that create mail group header when sorting mails, like Entourage is doing. These are really usefull options !!!!

The priority option is already there–you just have to check a box on the left when customising a new letter. Return receipts (sending or receiving) can be enabled in Terminal (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.p...50512155856402)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by PER3

The priority option is already there–you just have to check a box on the left when customising a new letter. Return receipts (sending or receiving) can be enabled in Terminal (macosxhints.com - Generate 'Read Receipts' in Mail.app)

The hint says that it destroys other custom email headers. I'll pass.

THanks though!

[Eug Wanker]

So, Leopard is going to have 32-bit and 64-bit apps running on Intel side by side.

I thought this was going to be big problem with Intel chips. How did they get around it, or am I misinformed?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

So, Leopard is going to have 32-bit and 64-bit apps running on Intel side by side.

Tiger does too. Leopard just makes Carbon and Cocoa 64-bit so your 64-bit apps don't have to be faceless tools.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Tiger does too. Leopard just makes Carbon and Cocoa 64-bit so your 64-bit apps don't have to be faceless tools.

Yeah, but I was under the impression that it was hard to make Intel chips switch back and forth on the fly. Or is that just the Netburst architecture?

P.S. I wonder how big a hard drive will be ideal for an external Firewire drive for time machine. I already have over 240 GB of data and apps on my current iMac. With no inside info, it seems to me that a reasonable size for the external backup would be a drive that's roughly twice as big as how much data you have your drive.

Given that my 24" iMac is coming with 500 GB, and will likely have 300 GB worth of data by next year... so a hard drive somewhere around 400-750 GB would be ideal. I currently have a 400 GB and a 160 GB external drive. I guess I'll make the 400 GB a time machine drive, and the 160 an extra manual backup drive.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, but I was under the impression that it was hard to make Intel chips switch back and forth on the fly.

Oreos claimed that, but he can not back it up with any facts.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Oreos claimed that, but he can not back it up with any facts.

Actually, I had read that on Windows boards too. Unjustified rumour, or Windows issue?

[cgc]

Originally Posted by NeXTLoop

It's been widely rumored that 10.5 will feature major unification of the interface. If that's the case, that's probably some of the "top-secret" stuff that Jobs didn't want to demo. No reason to give M$ anything more to copy this early on.

But if it does feature UI Unification, that alone would be worth the upgrade.

So how does the wacky iTunes 7 UI fit into the overall UI concept? I think iTunes 7 is around Apple's fifth interface for Tiger with all variants coexisting in various apps and driving people nuts.

Heck, I'd love to see a Shapeshifter GUI customization tool inclued in Leopard but that will never happen.