Forums | MacLife

That does indeed suck then. I've long been of the opinion that Registry is a keystone issue behind many of Windows's stability problems. There's a definite lack of compartmentalization that contributes to DLLs and settings being overwritten by older or different completely ones. The Registry both demonstrates and compounds it. Separate settings files does make it far less likely for something as simple as a instant messenger taking out an OS if it's settings corrupt.

Light Speed wrote:

I thought Vista was a from the ground up new OS. Why are they using old functionality like registry or is this not a new OS and just a rehash of XP?

Blacksheep? was, and it looked like it would be on par with what we see in 10.5 now. Longhorn back in 2003 basically dumped the new framework as it wasn't backwards compatible. Vista is now, basically, XP service pack 3 with a bunch of BRM crap in there.

Back on what I was saying about 10.3->5, I'll have to go digging through my safari logs when I get back to college. (Stupid illness) 10.4 does seem like the evolution between 10.3 and 10.5, but it is supposedly just a temporary OS with features that happened to be ready at the time. The features are all in 10.5 of course, they were just tacked onto 10.3 and shipped as 10.4. As a result 10.4 is a branch that isn't part of the main development stem, it just includes features that were tacked on.

That is why Core Image was never activated. The framework was there for developers to use, but it wasn't ready for 24/7 use. Also the fact that Apple announced that Tiger wouldn't have components dropped in future OS revisions is part of the reason. 10.4 and 10.5 have the same components so apps won't break. (Not too badly at least) if we were still going on 10.3, all the developers apps could break when 10.4(what 10.5 is) was released. One final example. 10.5 works with PPC and intel, Tiger doesn't. Tracing the roots it branched from 10.3 and not 10.4. At this time, there are multiple builds of Tiger which Apple takes care of. 10.5 is designed to work on all Apple's hardware from the get go.

I'm gona have to find this document...

reece_james wrote:

10.4 does seem like the evolution between 10.3 and 10.5, but it is supposedly just a temporary OS with features that happened to be ready at the time.

More or less that's a description of any OS available at any given time, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 95, 98, 98 SE, ME, 2000, XP, Vista, and the various Linux distros included.

We are living in an alternate 1985!

Actually, though, what you are saying is not true.  In the 2005 WWDC Keynote, steve admitted to the existance of Marklar, and even pointed to the specific building it was developed in.  He went on to say that Apple has been maintaining both Intel and PPC builds of OS X for as long as OS X existed, for the "just in case" scenario.  So your diagram should look more like:

10.0 (PPC)-> 10.1 (PPC)-> 10.2 (PPC)-> 10.3 (PPC)->
                                                                                   10.4 (Universal) ->10.5 (Universal)
10.0 (Intel)->  10.1 (Intel)->  10.2(Intel)->  10.3 (Intel)->

The reason I drew 10.4 as Universal is because the development builds of Tiger/Intel were Universal and could actually be booted and Installed on both PPC and Intel Macs.  The only thing that appears to have changed in the final release is that Apple made the discs non-bootable on PPC hardware, but the OS itself remains Universal.  In fact if one were to somehow Install the Tiger/Intel on a PPC Mac, the OS should theoretically function just as it did in the dev builds.

Last edited by Mr. T (2006-09-05 9:14 pm)

Mmmmm...jiggawatts.

Tiger always felt bloated, and slow.  I noticed the performance drop in the games I play.  Maybe 10.5 will run faster than tiger, seeing as it's based on 10.3.

J.D.Hogg wrote:

Well I havn't tried it but I just wanted to point out something I've noticed in the screen shots of Vista. The Flip-3d Expose wannabe thing, it stacks the windows up one on top of the other. So if there are more than, five I would guess, you can't really see the contents. maybe there is another setting for it but it seems like worthless eye-candy if that's all there is to it.

Oh, is it 24 strikes and your out? I hope so. 

Now I will admit I've posted some supid stuff myself, but I'm personally getting a little sick of the vulgarity and mindless drivle. If I wanted to hear insessant inanity I'd join a political party.

Flip-3d..........fails MISERABLY at everything especially being a Expose wanna be……

You cant even change the smurfing hot key/mouse button!

The ability to see all the open windows at once in Expose is so far superior to Flip-3D…….its pathetic

I would just as soon MS leave crap like this out rather than have a very poor and not very useful implementation

reece_james wrote:

Anyone seen the Releace Client 1 of Vista yet? I wan't to laugh at it, but I don't think it's worth the bandwidth...

The preRC1 build wasn't bad. Don't get me wrong, Vista is just XP SP3 with a big price tag. Still, parts of it worked for a couple of days. It ain't worth paying for though.

Whoops slip of the toungue, or in this case, fingers.

I'm not looking forward to the Vista tech support calls next year, that is going to be evil.

Ah so the usual tech support strategy, easy!

Seriously though, I have enough trouble finding my way around Vista. If a normal home user gets dumped with a new Dell and that smurf next year it will be a huge learning curve.

Vista has a completly unfriendly and unintuitive UI. It took me 5 minutes to find the new window 'menu option' in IE. I know the shortcut , but if it takes me that long then what's the average user going to do? The menu structures have disapeared for some reason. No idea why, they just have. Anyone who uses a computer by looking through teh menus is in for a rather rude shock. Icons are a nono.

reece_james wrote:

Icons are a nono.

Tell that to Apple.

ScifiterX wrote:

reece_james wrote:

Icons are a nono.

Tell that to Apple.
http://home.earthlink.net/~petersadlon/ … kmenus.png

At least Apple's implimentation is easy to see and quite intuative. It is also not nesisary to operate the computer. Vista's implimentation is however. Nasty.

It was bad enough when Apple messed around and added an application menu, but even so, they didn't change the names of things by much. You know what you're after so you brouse the menus and go straight to it. It took me 2 minutes to find teh flipping menus in IE!

I want to grab their interface designer, take him out back and put him out of his misery. Apple's got teh best interface design of the OSes so far, but still, it's a poor effort. Hope it's fixed in Tiger!