Mac OS X 'Leopard'-related Discussion

By .Neo
in Apple (macOS)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Xero

Posted
Posted
Are you referring to the "Respect image DPI for Actual Size" option?

Well I'll be damned. Its been over a year since I've been using it and never knew that, well sob. lol

However I do wish they would update the zooming technology so it didn't make the images so blocky, quicktime does a much better job.

Grand Master

PyX

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok, for Resolution Independance :

Resolution Independence

The old assumption that displays are 72dpi has been rendered obsolete by advances in display technology. Macs now ship with displays that sport native resolutions of 100dpi or better. Furthermore, the number of pixels per inch will continue to increase dramatically over the next few years. This will make displays crisper and smoother, but it also means that interfaces that are pixel-based will shrink to the point of being unusable. The solution is to remove the 72dpi assumption that has been the norm. In Leopard, the system, including the Carbon and Cocoa frameworks, will be able to draw user interface elements using a scale factor. This will let the user interface maintain the same physical size while gaining resolution and crispness from high dpi displays.

The introduction of resolution independence may mean that there is work that you’ll need to do in order to make your application look as good as possible. For modern Cocoa and Carbon applications, most of the work will center around raster-based resources. For older applications that use QuickDraw, more work will be required to replace QuickDraw-based calls with Quartz ones.

Source : http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/

Now we have to know what's happening with ZFS. One says ZFS read kext is already in Leopard and another one with read and write might be on the ADC website.

Possible answer? :

On assiste ? un v?ritable feuilleton ? suspense avec le syst?me de fichier ZFS qui serait ou non int?gr? ? Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

Au cas o? vous auriez manqu? les ?pisodes pr?c?dents, la semaine derni?re le PDG de Sun Jonathan Schwartz a indiqu? que Leopard int?grerait le syst?me de fichier ZFS.

Quelques jours plus tard Brian Croll, directeur marketing d’Apple, d?mentait les propos de Schwartz en pr?cisant “ZFS is not happening“.

Alors qu’on pensait l’histoire termin?e, un nouveau rebondissement a eu lieu hier.

Un porte-parole d’Apple a en effet d?clar?

ZFS est disponible en ligne de commande en option lecture seule.

Brian Croll explique que ZFS n’est pas le syst?me de fichier par d?faut de Leopard, qu’il est simplement pr?sent en tant qu’option pour les syst?mes disposant d’une importante capacit? de stockage.

Sous Leopard, ZFS est seulement accessible en lecture seule.

Si plus tard il faut g?rer des volumes ZFS, Leopard pourra les lire mais pas ?crire dessus.

Selon un lecteur d’Information Week, on peut acc?der ? ZFS en passant par le “Disk Utility program” du menu “Erase”.

Il ajoute que ZFS est seulement disponible pour les disques qui ne sont pas des unit?s de d?marrage sous les syst?mes Sun (Solaris), ce qui est ?galement le cas sous Leopard.

Source : http://www.laptopspirit.fr/3189/apple-leop...zfs-ou-pas-zfs/

Talking about read and write... I don't know if Steve Jobs talked about it... but NTFS read and write partitions in OS X would be nice, wouldn't they?

Edited by PsykX
Veteran

osirisX

Posted
Posted
Talking about read and write... I don't know if Steve Jobs talked about it... but NTFS read and write partitions in OS X would be nice, wouldn't they?

And that will only happen if MS tells Apple how to properly write to an NTFS partition.

Grand Master

PyX

Posted
Posted
So does that resolution independance mean im screwed with my current 30" Cinema HD?

Why? It's up to developers to make their applications Resolution Independant. Apple will make their GUI elements Resolution Independant on their side though. Resolution Independance is useful for any recent monitor that uses more than 72ppi, it doesn't mean Leopard has to be compatible with your hardware and monitor.

@osirisX : But how did they manage to code something to read these partitions?

Oh btw, I read on another french website something a little funny. The person said if Apple is a little... let's say, crazy about numerology/numbers/dates, they would release Mac OS 10.5 on October 5 because it's going to be 10.5.2007 ... They'd have to code 24/7 and have their Apple Coffee Machines ready for that I believe, but it's still a good try IMO.

Veteran

osirisX

Posted
Posted

I should have been more specific. MS has let everybody out there know how to read an NTFS partition. But they keep the instructions on how to write to an NTFS partition a closely guarded secret. Now, people have reverse engineered how to write to an NTFS partition *Points to NTFS-3g and Macfuse* but these are of course not perfect and something Apple more then likely wouldn't implement in OS X.

Grand Master

divinatum

Posted
Posted
@osirisX : But how did they manage to code something to read these partitions?

I believe the NTFS support bundled in OSX is the same one used in *nix (Not NTFS3g.)

Oh btw, I read on another french website something a little funny. The person said if Apple is a little... let's say, crazy about numerology/numbers/dates, they would release Mac OS 10.5 on October 5 because it's going to be 10.5.2007 ... They'd have to code 24/7 and have their Apple Coffee Machines ready for that I believe, but it's still a good try IMO.

Hah! I hadn't thought of that. With how complete 9a599 was... Who knows, it might have hit CD Duplication stages already.

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
*Points to NTFS-3g and Macfuse* but these are of course not perfect and something Apple more then likely wouldn't implement in OS X.

Strangely enough I installed and tried that out last night. It does indeed seem to work ok but performance is SLOW.. probably about 1/8th the speed of the native NTFS read only driver in OS 10.4... maybe they'll get there one day. I wish Microsoft would open up NTFS enough to allow people to code a safe, fast Read/Write driver!

Grand Master

PyX

Posted
Posted

Woah... I just... can't believe that....

I'm on 9A559 at this moment... and I'm starting to believe that it's possible to get the Golden Master for Friday. Everything looks so stable, fast and beautiful... Hell it took no more than 25 minutes to install and it's like 11 GB of data, so even the install process is awesome!

With such a nice OS, I fail to see why people who want new high-end computers and are not gamers would go for Vista. 10.5 really beats it in most ways.

So now I believe Leopard is extremely close to the final version...

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
Woah... I just... can't believe that....

I'm on 9A559 at this moment... and I'm starting to believe that it's possible to get the Golden Master for Friday. Everything looks so stable, fast and beautiful... Hell it took no more than 25 minutes to install and it's like 11 GB of data, so even the install process is awesome!

With such a nice OS, I fail to see why people who want new high-end computers and are not gamers would go for Vista. 10.5 really beats it in most ways.

So now I believe Leopard is extremely close to the final version...

Because Vista runs on a lot more hardware, comes pre-loaded on much cheaper hardware, etc. Not to mention that Vista has its own share of unique features, as well.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.