Forums | MacLife

I have absolutely no idea what you just said.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-10-18 1:49 pm)

volk wrote:

It's kind of obscure, but I am actually quite excited about Automator's new record feature.  If I am reading correctly, it actually provides a way for you to record scripts for applications that aren't coded to support Automator

I just read about this and I think it's huge. One thing I have really missed in OSX was the really easy and almost pervasive ability to knock off quick and handy Apple scripts by recording. AS [i] still has the ability to record in OSX but its a sad, miserable shadow of the old way.
This offers the promise of something Apple used to be pretty proud of returning.

Hmmmm.....I don't have that problem.

¿Weird?

But now that I've derailed my own thread, back on topic!

If I hear that it will improve the performance of my hardware, I'll upgrade. That is what I would look forward to.

Otherwise, the disk will sit and collect dust until it's necessary to move to the new OS.

I am REALLY happy with what I have right now, and I feel like I don't want to risk making changes to that for some new features that I won't use (I don't even use 10.4 stuff like dashboard, I deleted it from my work laptop). I guess you could say I'm resistant to change, or just completely satisfied with my current setup. Either way, curiosity may not help things.

My favorite feature is the hack the people are going to make for Time Machine so we can go back in time with our macs.

pirloui wrote:

Looking foreward to the new finder, but then again, it's still carbon..
A bit affaid of visual gadgets like the glowballs and the two different "stack in dock" views.

reece_james wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

I highly doubt the Leopard Finder is Carbon. It's supposed to be Universal Binary which means the code had to be converted from Carbon to Cocoa in order to be used.

Then again unless some developer breaks NDA, I'm guessing we wait for the launch to find out for sure.

This has been common knowledge on the net for quite a while.

There's a lot of features. I can't see a reason to not upgrade. especially at the price.

That the Finder is UB, that the Finder is Carbon, or that because the finder is UB it's probably Cocoa and not Carbon?

Address In order of options, Indeed; common knowledge is not always accurate; and yet pirloui some how missed it.

Pariah wrote:

A well written carbon app will preform as good as a well written cocoa app.
I don't know where the persistent idea that the problem with the Finder has been with it being carbon. Both are completely native under OSX.

Agreed, I do not know either, Native under OS X but not typically under Intel or UB.

My understanding of Apple's developer suite ATM, is the Finder is UB and Cocoa for a number of reasons. Apple has done complete rewrite of the Finder from the ground up as well as . Why would you write it in Carbon which is or soon will be depreciated? Furthermore some of the code libraries/features included in the Finder are not accessible in Carbon as far as I know. Have a poke around in Xcode and confirm for yourself.

"A well written carbon app will preform as good as a well written cocoa app."
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Anyone with a knowledge of programming should know that what is true in one programming language isn't true in another. I will admit that, in this case, they are similar, but there is no way that you can prove that they are as good as one another. (Someone with a PHD in maths and 100 years might give it a go) Write a prime calculator in FORTRAN, then give it a go in Literate C, followed by LISP and then finish up in Prolog. Compile and give them a shot. You will notice the following;
A) You can't use the same program syntax between the 4. (Literate and Fortran you can to some extent, but you can't and keep the style of the language.)
B) You can't implement the calculator the same way as it will affect efficiency or the language just won't allow it.
C) Implementation, compilers and management all make a difference to runtime speed.

Just my 2c

Don't be a jerk, reese. Many of us in here can understand Pariah means that the nature of the two code bases is such that one can program identical interfaces and assuming each code base is written correctly the stability & performance of each will be comparable. Certainly the amount of code needed to accomplish each task will be different and Cocoa will support architectures outside of what's possible for Carbon. However that does not make his statement any less valid.

reece_james wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Don't be a jerk, reese. Many of us in here can understand Pariah means that the nature of the two code bases is such that one can program identical interfaces and assuming each code base is written correctly the stability & performance of each will be comparable. Certainly the amount of code needed to accomplish each task will be different and Cocoa will support architectures outside of what's possible for Carbon. However that does not make his statement any less valid.

Fair enough, fair enough. I went a bit far in spelling it out. Sorry I'm used to Pariah arguing the same thing over and over again. (RI for instance) I'll also admit that despite being able to program in multiple languages, I've never coded in Carbon or Cocca. My knowledge is all theory and not practical experience. I wasn't getting on my high horse, I appologise if it came off that way. There is, however, enough evidence to suggest that the Finder is now written in Cocca and no-longer carbon.

Oh and it's Reece BTW.

What I was addressing was the persistent myth that the problem with the Finder has been that it is a Carbon app. That the coding language itself is the problem and that is simply not true, at all.
Now obviously with the Intel switch the Finder has to be rewritten and clearly that offers opportunity for improvement as the app is reworked. But it would be an excellent recoding that would bring improvement, not just the change of basis. So if Apple finally devotes the resources to do a good job on the Finder things will improve, but the code base change is just incidental, the improvements could have been made earlier under carbon if the will had existed, which it did not.
As for me "arguing the same thing over and over", well. My beliefs and conclusions arent all that variable and if a problem persists why should my position on it change? On the whole I like OSX, quite alot actually, as far as I am concerned it is by far the best OS available. But the MacOS has always been the best.
Now if we are talking about under the hood stuff obviously OSX kicks OS9's ass around the block but I make a distinction between the underling operating system and the graphical user interface.
With OSX the underlying technology is rock smurfing solid, the desktop environment, on the other hand, took a BIG hit with OSX relative to OS9 and has yet to recover from that.
So I calls em like I sees um. See, the thing is I am not and have never been an Apple "fan" in the way many here are. I simply prefer their OS over the other offerings but I am not "on the team", never have been. If a better alternative came along I'd drop Apple in a heartbeat, which I am hardware wise but the operating system is still the best. But that could change just as the hardware situation already has.
No loyalty here that's for sure.

Last edited by Pariah (2007-10-20 8:47 am)

I'd be looking forward to full support for AMD and nVidia mainboard chipsets in Leopard.

Mail data detectors? That's a new one.