Apple demonstrated Tiger and XCode’s new capabilities and features at the O’Reilly Mac OS X Conference tuesday. “I know you’ve heard statements like this before, but this is without a doubt going to be the biggest release for developers in Mac history,” said Apple’s Chris Bourdon.
“I know you’ve heard statements like this before….,”
Indeed i did, when MMX technology first came out.
I know you hear statements like this with every product release… its called evolving.
A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Not with Apple, somehow it’s a brand new product and the last ‘Great’ one just well, we never worked on that, it was someone else’s, Upgrade to the Newest!
Of course all companies are like that. Personally I liked how ProjectBuilder looked compared to Xcode, it was simpler really.
$
The Core Audio and Core Video development, is sweeet. I use Logic Audio everyday and these technologies bring bring power,clarity and elegance into the production workflow.
I was there before Core Audio.The after scenario is wa-a-ay better….
Ah yes, and an industrial strength nix, life is good.
Panther runs pretty well on my old PowerBook G3. It looks like Tiger has so many new features that it’ll run slower than Panther. How is Tiger supposed to compare with Panther WRT execution speed and resounce usage?
The OS X releases have gotten faster and faster on older hardware as Apple optimizes some of the code. Unfortunately, on a G3 I wouldn’t expect a huge speed boost, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t run as well or better than Panther – at least, that’s been the trend since 10.1. Each release has been noticeably faster on some G3 hardware I run OS X on.
It’s not because there are more features that it’ll run more slowly.. that depends on a bunch of things. LIke if all those features are active in memory at teh same time, then yes, it’ll run more slowly..
lol if more features would = slower, then installing more programs would always mean making your comp slower and slower. That only happens in win98 though.
True: With each release of os-x it in some parts got faster. But remember that os-x started as a unbearable dogslow OS, Apple really had no choice but make it faster.
Apple still has to re-learn (they once knew about that better) that LESS is MORE, talking esp. about the GUI.
like what? Apple does not put layer upon layer of abstraction in their OS like Windows does. in windows you have to be hand held through configuration and the manual set up in windows is buried deep.
what is it about apple that is bad in the GUI? other than your PREFERENCE for something.
and Window resizing is an issue, but that does not make the OS slow. OS X is more responsive on my 1 GHz machine in terms of loading and moving than my XP machine. and OS X stays that way even when I am playing an DivX movie, encoding a song and compiling code. XP chokes.
does that make OS X my favorite environment? no, I prefer Gnome because I can shape it the way I want, but that does not make OS X a bad environment by any stretch of the imagination which is why Os X is my most used machine.
“Apple still has to re-learn (they once knew about that better) that LESS is MORE, talking esp. about the GUI.”
Mac OS X is LOT more consistent than Windows is. It’s also better than Mac OS 9. Feel free to disagree but if you aren’t still using Mac OS 9 then I feel you agree even if you don’t want to admit it.
“Tiger has so many new features that it’ll run slower than Panther.”
Keep in mind that some features in Panther are automatically turned off (animated fast user switching for instance) on G3s due to lack of VRAM. The same will be true with Tiger. And I’m guessing that some features (due to lack of VRAM) might not work on G4s too. I’m NOT complaining about this.
I will note that I’m waiting to buy a new iMac until Tiger comes out. My G4 iMac runs most things very well with 512 MB of RAM so I can wait. Actually I’m surprised at how well Panther runs on my G3 tower with only 256MB of RAM. But then I’m not making DVDs or running GarageBand on it (the G3 tower) either.
When you say OSX is more consistent than Windows… this is OSX of the two seperate themes? Half the apps have the older pinstripe look and the rest have that newer metallic one….
Just an observation 🙂
Too bad only the g5 powermacs and g4 powerbooks will support it. The video card in all the imacs and ibooks cant run core.
I was wondering if you can develop app under XCode in C++ and Coca. I don’t want to learn Objective-C
Any one know that
I’m new here, and have a few observations.
I’m an IS student at a Microsoft institution (University of Cincinnati). I have a ton of free Microsoft software, and much of it is very good.
I choose, however, to run Mac OS X, instead. I have a 12″ iBook G4 running at 1Ghz with 256 MB RAM. It’s by no means a powerhouse, but it gets the job done. In my opinion, Mac OS X is the best consumer operating system available. For simple, day-to-day use (typing notes, browsing the web, playing music, etc.), you’d be hard pressed to convince me that anything else is as stable or easy to use.
The first real comment is about OS X being consistent in terms of GUI. Frankly, it’s not. As was already mentioned, some apps have the brushed metal look, while others have the “standard” look (I wouldn’t say this is new vs. old, but they’re definitely different). These aren’t the only themes, either. Apple has a third theme they use in some of their professional applications. I’m not the expert here by any means, but I would encourage anybody interested in this subject to go to DaringFireball.net and read what John Gruber has to say about themes (he’s talked about them a lot recently). I do know, though, that I’d very much like to see the brushed metal go away, and let all of the apps use the pro theme.
Second, it is possible to write code in XCode using C++. I don’t know what the limitations are, but I know that I used to write console applications for programming classes using it, and it worked like a champ.
If the g4 lacks vram shouldnt the be working hardcore on a oh lets say a g5 power/ibook like learn how to cool the beast as well as the other problems they have
No one really wants to learn a new language.
Just start with any Cocoa tutorial. You’ll end up writing small code snippets in Objective C, as the language is _very_ easy to learn, in contrast to C++.
If you then decide to not like ObjC you can just call normal C routines from ObjC (which might call C++ routines)…
The only thing that personally bothers me about ObjC is the square bracket syntax which is hard to type on my German keyboard
The G4 is a CPU, and has no video RAM at all. Neither does any other CPU. You’re confusing the GPU with the CPU. The iBooks have Radeon9200 Mobility chips, so aren’t good for Core Video. The PowerBooks should meet the minimum spec, so can use it.
As for PPC970-based laptops… Don’t hold your breath. The iMac G5 is very tightly engineered for speed and silence, and still is nowhere near a laptop (despite a lot of criticism that it’s a laptop on a stand, it’s nothing like a laptop internally).
Cooling is an issue for the PPC970, but not a lot. The real issue seems to be that Apple want a G5-based laptop that’s as cool and silent as the G4-based ones. That’s a real challenge. I suspect that it’s possible to make a G5-based laptop like Dell’s Inspiron 9100 behemoth that is nearly 6cm thick, weighs half a ton and has a battery life of about 20mins when you run DoomIII. That’s not anything Apple would do though, because the focus is different.
my thing on the vram came from sabebin who said it first and when ive been up for like a long time i dont think much i just go off previus post instead of doing my own
I was wondering if you can develop app under XCode in C++ and Coca. I don’t want to learn Objective-C
Cocoa is Objective-C, so no, you can’t make calls to it in C++, you could however use Carbon and a C++ structure if you’re that way inclined (some of the very large apps depend on it, eg Photoshop, so it’s not going away, HIView stuff looks cool too).
Learn a new language; Objective-C took me about 2 days to wrap my head round the syntax and from then on it couldn’t have been easier. Having used C++ in the past, I was reluctant to have to learn a new language, but actually I’d say Objective-C is more intuitive – everything is a message. The messaging syntax actually makes a lot of sense when you acclimatise. The NextStep stuff is very consistent about things like method names etc once you get used to it and Cocoa is a nice API even if it still has some rough edges in terms of GUI details.
There’s a reason lots of new languages are based on things like SmallTalk (Ruby for example)!
um. yes. lets see. office 2003 (smurf colors), comctl 5 (classic look and feel), comctl 6 (xp look and feel), visual studio 2003 (custom look and feel) windows media player (skinned) and you’re trying to tell me that WINDOWS has better consistency than mac? yeah freaking right.
if you’re excuse for not wanting to use obj-c is you “don’t want to learn it” you really should just stop programming. seriously. just stop. because if taking 2 hours to pick up the language, which is about all it does and should take you, is too much then you’re in the wrong profession.
at any rate, since you’re lazy, here’s my obj-c tutorial. http://www.otierney.net/objective-c.html
not stop being lazy and learn the superior language. c++ sucks in comparison to obj-c
ATI Radeon 9800 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600 XT
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra
NVIDIA GeForceFX Go 5200
NVIDIA GeForceFX 5200 Ultra
that’s the list of video cards core video / core image will support
that means the powerbooks, powermacs, and imacs will run it just fine. it’s not just the powerbooks and powermacs.
The iBooks, emacs and pretty much any other Mac that doesn’t have the supported video cards should still be able to run CoreVideo. Only thing is they’ll be very slow since they don’t have the hardware support to perform all those effects.
Strange thing is though, that the Radeon 9000/9200 ain’t supported. I thought these cards came with pixel shader support too.
– Anyone here anything about Java 5 ( or 1.5 ) in Tiger?
– Will Apple optimize the use of long’s in the JVM to use those 32 64bit registers?
I think there might be two versions of the JVM, one for PPC, and one for PPC64, with the latter one having optimized long ints (this might also just be a little if-else in the JIT-engine, so one JVM can do both CPU types).
Mac OS X is LOT more consistent than Windows is. It’s also better than Mac OS 9.
-> yes and no.
OS-X is nice, but wastes WAY too much screen estate for nothing, os9 is more effective in this task, plus it has the possibility to change the fonts and sizes for listviews etc. OS9 is still a joke, but OS-X is worse in this area. Can’t change the desktop-fonts (don’t tell me anything about haxies, don’t work consistent). Ok, size can be changed but the resulting small aa-fonts are ergonomically unacceptable. If AA is disabled, the resulting bitmap-fonts are poor. By “poor” i mean, they lack perfect hinting. i DON’T mean bitmap-fonts in general are poor. Handcrafted bitmaps look awesome and offer unbeatable readability.
OS-X is superior, bc. fresh software is developed for it and the kernel is quite good. The GUI, and i don’t stop saying this over and over, is still not good enough. IMHO It uses too many FX, Zooms, Transparencies – the User is forced to watch them over and over, which is annoying if you don’t want to look at. Apple is weak in the offering an OS-X that can be leaned and lightened for speedy workflow.
Ok, and if OS-X is better than OS9, ok, but it’s still not good enough. It’s FAR from very good.
then I suggest you have fun with Window Maker.
>>The iBooks, emacs and pretty much any other Mac that doesn’t have the supported video cards should still be able to run CoreVideo. Only thing is they’ll be very slow since they don’t have the hardware support to perform all those effects.
Quoting: http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/core.html
The performance gains and features supported by Core Image ultimately depend on the graphics card. Graphics cards capable of pixel-level programming deliver the best performance. But Core Image automatically scales as appropriate for systems with older graphics cards, for compatibility with any Tiger-compatible Mac.
Doesn’t that just mean if your card can’t do the effect it wont? So there will be no slow down just a lack of an effect?
You wrote:
I was wondering if you can develop app under XCode in C++ and Coca. I don’t want to learn Objective-C
Cocoa is Objective-C, so no, you can’t make calls to it in C++, you could however use Carbon and a C++ structure if you’re that way inclined (some of the very large apps depend on it, eg Photoshop, so it’s not going away, HIView stuff looks cool too).
Learn a new language; Objective-C took me about 2 days to wrap my head round the syntax and from then on it couldn’t have been easier. Having used C++ in the past, I was reluctant to have to learn a new language, but actually I’d say Objective-C is more intuitive – everything is a message. The messaging syntax actually makes a lot of sense when you acclimatise. The NextStep stuff is very consistent about things like method names etc once you get used to it and Cocoa is a nice API even if it still has some rough edges in terms of GUI details.
There’s a reason lots of new languages are based on things like SmallTalk (Ruby for example)!
In short: You are misleading the original poster. Yes you can write C++ within Cocoa. The link below reveals that what you can’t do is interchangeably utilize features unique to each language and have them accessible to each other’s opposing language.(See the following)
ObjC++ Overview: Using C++ With Objective-C
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Objective…
quote: OS-X is superior, bc. fresh software is developed for it and the kernel is quite good. The GUI, and i don’t stop saying this over and over, is still not good enough. IMHO It uses too many FX, Zooms, Transparencies – the User is forced to watch them over and over, which is annoying if you don’t want to look at. Apple is weak in the offering an OS-X that can be leaned and lightened for speedy workflow.
end quote
You right, it doesn’t need to shrink windows by using a lot of ILM BS. Brushed metal VS pinstripped apps is something most EU’s who don’t read these boards won’t be bothered by…but overall OSX needs less bells and whistles.
OSX is nice, windows has always felt a little limiting to me. I tend to like OSX because it tends to flow nicer, windows from 98 up until just lately has always reminded me of a grey prison. Windows take up the whole screen, its hard to know which one has focus….the task bar is a bad f’in idea on many levels….the start menu is also poorly implimented, and there is no reason to have to hunt around the operating system to figure out how to permanantly remove a program from the system tray.
OSX falls prey to that sort of counterintuitive problem from time to time, but generally far less. Apples has slightly lost its focus on the end user esxperience in a few ways….but in some ways its better than ever…System wide spell check was LONG overdue.
OSX ships with good but incosistent software….which is a shame. iPhoto….don’t get me started. That said…It is the operating system I would suggest for someone wanting to get involved in computers. Its GUI is nice and runs well…and it holds in its bowels the tools to do some really high level computing. Its a solid OS that grandma can sit down, and learn quickly…and if she wants she can learn bash scripting or objective C with just what the machine shipped with…and a nice internet connection.
OSX is the best choice for some people…such is fact. It has good flow and is more intutive than windows…but yes, Apple needs to let us turn off things that just get in the way and eat CPU/GPU cycles….or ship with 1 gig ram standard.
“Tiger has so many new features that it’ll run slower than Panther.”
I’ve been testing all the builds of Tiger so far, and in many areas it’s already running faster even though it’s a very early beta. Most noticeably;
– 2D drawing. Window resizing etc now is silky-smooth, as it should be.
– Application launch time. System Preferences is open before the first bounce, iTunes is open on the bounce etc etc.
– Finder & UI. Windows display their contents instantly, fades are smoother etc.
Also there are other nice improvements, like for example full-screen switching (QT) is now instant, and even accompanied by a nice scale effect if you want.
Matt