If you want 10.1 spoiled for you, read this!

[tenhead]

Originally posted by AdmiralAK
What you fail to realize, ten head, is that OS X IS NOT from the same blood as OS 9 and all previous MacOS !!!!!!
[...]
As for software, MacOS software was NOT writen in one night, or even 3 months span. It took a long long time for devs to deploy all the programs that are out there today and make the platform "popular", the same has to happen with OS X since IT IS NOT FORM THE SAME BLOOD AS OS 9.
Admiral

Actually, I am painfully aware of the different 'blood' from which OS X comes. I'm very familiar with the Pascal based Mac Toolbox and programming in C Unix environments as well as Obj-C NextStep/Rhapsody/Yellow/Cocoa. I know why OS X is different, I just think it shouldn't be.

FWIW, what I was mostly trying to point out in the context of this thread was that there are plenty of things to discuss and work on within the released versions and public information about 10.1 that don't require talking about unreleased builds. Things that were broken in 10.0 and we know will still be broken in 10.1.

One of the points brought up in the thread was the impact of a lack of 10.1 Seeds going out to a broad base of developers. It seems that only Premier developers are getting them, and that leaves the rest to rely on bootleg versions. Some claims were made that Apple has cut back distribution of seeds because of bootlegging. If that's the case, that would be ironic.

Apple has not succeeded in getting enough developer support, especially early on. Developers have had plenty of time to develop apps, they just aren't highly motivated to put their efforts on the front-burner. It's largely a chicken-and-egg thing - developers don't see the demand for OS X native apps - and customers are waiting for apps before they upgrade.

This is where Apple has to step in. They have to inject some kind of motivation. Maybe they could help fund some startups like Stizz and get him working 'for' them instead of having him in the mode he currently finds he has to resort to. ;-)

Apple seems to to be somewhat schizophrenic about new application development. They talk about the 'open-ness' of Darwin and such, and how that is going to open up the world of Unix software to all the Mac users. Well, that's bullshit - existing Mac users don't want awk and sed and grep. They don't even want X Windows and GIMP. Those things are great for developers and Unix heads - but that is not the existing Mac marketplace. The whole Unix thing is mostly lost on existing Mac users - they just know that it has something to do with why the machine will hopefully crash less when they are running Cubase or PageMaker (once an OS X version is available for those important apps).

As far as customers are concerned, it doesn't matter that the OS is 'new' (even though Apple's been working on it for more than 5 years...) It has to compete with whatever else is already out there - excuses don't make any difference to the paying customer. They are going to put their money into the product that works now, not the one that may work next year or the year after.

Those Unix underpinnings seem really targeted at strategic shifts for Apple and its installed base. They seem to be setting their long range scopes on back-room installations. Servers and such for businesses, networking, and schools. But they don't seem to be putting enough focus on the current OS 9 user who is looking at how they might jump to X. It simply is not ready for existing users. Users expect the new system to do everything that OS 9 did and more.

Apple had this whole Public Beta thing, and easy access to early development kits for Students and others low-entry-cost developers. It seemed like they really were trying to jump-start the whole thing with a big spark. But now that the OS has shipped as 10.0, it seems they have pulled back significantly from their motivating efforts. They are appearently focusing on the Big Applications (as they must) but they can't forget the rest of the puzzle of small and medium sized use-cases that can be addressed by the small developer - if they are given the opportunity and a little bit of help.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about 10.1 and what it will be and what it won't be. Maybe the reasons 'why' are a topic for a different thread.

[bradleysmith]

tenhead wrote - "Why hasn't anyone written a Cocoa sequencer?"

Do you mean "Why hasn't someone written a sequencer that runs natively under MacOS X?". If so then it's probably because the MIDI specs only came out a short while ago. I know this doesn't help but it may answer your question.

(I hope that is what you meant because...)

However, if you really did mean "Why hasn't anyone written a Cocoa sequencer?" then what you're really asking is "Why hasn't a company written a *new* sequencing program that only runs on MacOS X?"

Why on earth would a company that already has a MacOS 9 sequencer rewrite the entire application from the ground up using the Cocoa API? They wouldn't. They'd just carbonize what they've already got. Nothing wrong with that.

Everyone seems to be getting their knickers in a twist about the lack of Cocoa applications when there's really no need. Carbon based programs can easily be just as good as those written using the Cocoa API. Anyone writing a new, MacOSX only application using carbon wants their head examined but there's a whole bunch of stuff out there that just needs tweaking (maybe a bit more than tweeking in some cases) to run perfectly fine under X.

BTW, I'm disappointed that Steinberg have made no comment about an X version of Cubase.

Brad.

[tenhead]

Originally posted by bradleysmith
tenhead wrote - "Why hasn't anyone written a Cocoa sequencer?"

Do you mean "Why hasn't someone written a sequencer that runs natively under MacOS X?". If so then it's probably because the MIDI specs only came out a short while ago. I know this doesn't help but it may answer your question.

The MidiServices were documented in the 10.0 release in March, and seed versions were available months before that. That's a good six months to port. Seems like a lot to me. I understand that companies can't necessarily put 100% of their resources on X immediately. It just seems typical problem for Apple - they develop the core technologies and then have to wait what seems like forever for developers to start using them.

However, if you really did mean "Why hasn't anyone written a Cocoa sequencer?" then what you're really asking is "Why hasn't a company written a *new* sequencing program that only runs on MacOS X?"

Why on earth would a company that already has a MacOS 9 sequencer rewrite the entire application from the ground up using the Cocoa API? They wouldn't. They'd just carbonize what they've already got. Nothing wrong with that.

I understand about the legacy code issue. But it seems that using Cocoa can accelerate development of new apps (granted Mac X only) and it seems that would be a perfect opportunity for new startups to get a head start and at least some special exposure if they were to beat the big guys out of the gate.

I'm thinking mostly of the Shareware/Freeware type of thing. I know it takes years to develop something like Performer/Cubase. But not everyone needs that kind of monster-application. There are a number of good shareware Sequencers available for OS 9, and tons of them for Win*. Similarly, a basic Wave Editor is not nearly as complicated as a sequencer and should be relatively straightforward to get going in Cocoa.

Apple has been filling in the Carbon support feverishly because they finally realized that they couldn't count on brand new Cocoa apps anytime soon (if ever - who wants to write obj-c, plus what happened to the Yellow Box for Windows?). So they are encouraging Carbon development. I'm not clear on what real advantages remain in Cocoa versus Carbon besides super cool GUI development, better memory management, better threads and messaging, better dynamic libraries, better maintanance model, better localization, better printing services... how much do they mean?

But yeah, at least Carbonize the dang things already!

[as I said in my last post, this stuff is getting way off topic for this thread and should probably be moved to a new thread - Where are the OS X Apps?]

[bradleysmith]

I agree tenHead. We're off topic now.
I'll start a (nother) carbon and (as opposed to Vs) cocoa thread in an appropriate forum.

Brad

[stizz]

Now back to ruining the suprise of 10.1
to summarize:
Speach funtions werk very very well.
Gui is noticably faster. Although, I have managed to crash the system preferences app on more than 1 occasion.
Dock has undergone a few changes. Certian docklings no longer work. And you now have the option of choosing where you want your dock to be.
Apple has taken away the ability to put the trashcan on the desktop. (as far as i can tell)
The volume keys and monitor brightness keys on my powerbook work now. They display a little tranparent window on your screen. there is also a volume and network setting pull down menu in the menu bar.
Remote login werks well. Locked folders remained secure.
Web sharing werks well too. I configuered apache to host a test page off my powerbook.
No problems with ftp either. Fire runs nicely. The IE included seems sleeker, but is still crap.
Once I upgraded to 9.2, most classic apps ran very well. Including photoshop and golive cyber studio. i will try other apps soon, including sims and flash 5.
Offixe x preview left alot to be desired. Think office 2001, only 10 times buggier. Word crashed on its first run as soon as it opened. Then it worked decent. Excell has major screen refresh issues simialr to the ones present in IE that came with the Public Beta last year. The screen refresh bug is also apparent in this version of IE i'm using now. Other wise Office X looks just like 2001. Same layout , Icons,..everything.
Toast Titanium would not even install on my system. I believe this is because I installed this build on a unix formated drive. I'm not sure tho. regardless, I have yet been able to burn anything. The required drivers are not present for my burners.
I did find an update regarding reason. Propellerheads are (working) on it. We'll see.
till next time

[jock]

I've just read all 5 pages and finally a post relating to the topic... Thank you Stizz.
Regarding the developers that use seeds, please check out macnn.com and go to the forums on OSX, there you will see non other than Andrew Welsh of Ambrosia software who posts on the 10.1 forums.
Stizz could you check out the samba implementation in 10.1 as its supposed to be seemless. Also I think were missing something because all my correspondence with "People in the know" smile when I talk about 10.1, its like there will be a big surprise come September 24th. We all know its fast, has more printer, CD drivers has native windows connectivity through samba, and supposedly has DVD burn/playback, but there is something else!

[martijnvandijk]

sure there is something missing: iSub support! any info on that?

[apb3]

Wow. Spend a few days filing patents and negotiating deals in Iceland for DNA stuff and look at this...


I have neither the time nor the inclination to read every post above. However, one comment:

I actually remember a debate we had in law school re: piracy and its effects on any industry but, specifically the software industry. Turns out there is some data that shows piracy in some limited ways and in some limited circumstances helps the industry. I saw part of a post above saying they just try it out and buy the real version when it comes out. That's not really piracy... That's playing.

Take the computer industry as a whole (especially in Apple's case - software is tightly bound to hardware). There are many individuals that for whatever reason cannot afford the latest greatest software to run their businesses. Maybe they buy a pirated version. Turns out this happens in the places where piracy is most rampant for obvious reasons... But they DO put money in the hardware... Their business (hopefully) becomes more profitable and the need for buying pirated versions and all the headaches that come with them go away. They are now 'legal.'

We all know the world's not fair and there are haves and have-nots. I, and I think, most of you, are lucky enough to be a have. The have-nots need to trim corners where ever possible and remain profitable. The data shows that once these have-not companies get there shite together and start turning a real profit (if they ever do) they almost to a one become 'legal' in their licensing, etc..

These "success stories" would not be buying ANY software, hardware, Marlboros, Bonsai Kitties, whatever... if they had not, at the beginning, cut corners (in some cases this means piracy).

I hope I can dig up the handouts from that class. There were some cool studies in the packets. Most were actually from the companies themselves stating, in one degree or another, what I just said.

The debate was great too. Maybe we can get one going here as well....