| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Movie Maker 2 Final Release Available Today | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Thank you Michael. "Microsoft Plus! Digital Media Edition users: Transitions and effects included in Plus! Digital Media Edition require the final version of Windows Movie Maker 2. Download the final version on January 8. " | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 354 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
3:49:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 6:54:59 PM |
|
By the way, enforcer, I would point out that Safari works exactly as I have laid out as perfectly acceptable system resource vs. app design. There are currently two new frameworks: WebCore (the Apple-modified KHTML) and JavascriptCore (the Apple-modified KJS), and these two frameworks have been open sourced.
It appears that others will be using it as a system level API. Omni (a popular Cocoa developer) is talking about using these frameworks for future development of their popular OmniWeb browser. Previously, they were building their own engine, but it has fallen behind in terms of standards and speed, whereas what is popular about the app is its feature set and design. |
| #27 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/8/2003 7:37:54 PM |
| The WebCore and JavaScriptCore usage is basically no different than how apps use the Web components that ship with IE. About the only difference is that Apple has no control over how the components are used because they had to release it due to the OSS license (I'm guessing GPL). |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 8:02:53 PM |
|
No, actually, the difference is you can eliminate Safari and preserve WebCore and JScriptCore. Another difference is that you can modify the engine.
And actually, no, you're missing how OSS and frameworks work. For one thing, WebCore and JScriptCore are maintained by Apple--of course, they have full control over how they are used. Apple needs to submit its changes to the KDE projects, but they do not have to be accepted. The same applies to Apple's frameworks--if OmniWeb uses them but modifies them--they will need to submit the changes to KDE and Apple, allowing both OS projects to incorporate the changes. Yes, you can modify your own WebCore, but why would you create incompatibilities? All you have to do is copy the framework and call it MyWebCore, or whatever... Then you can modify it to your hearts content and point to that framework if you desire. Or you can modify it, point to it, and distribute it with your own apps. There has already been quite a flurry of activity on this front in just the last day and a half. I think it has substantial benefits over the IE model. And let's be clear--despite what you think--MS does not think the exe can be removed. They also think that if it is--the underlying system components must go with it. This is what I disagree with. You've failed to answer the question, by the way. Does that mean you're reserving the right to say they are tied so that we can have this argument again at a later date? |
| #29 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 8:22:35 PM |
|
Oh, I should post this link:
http://slashdot.org/~Twirlip%20of%20the%20Mists/journal/20885 ...because my comment above contained a few errors. Because of the availability of the Frameworks through the ADC, I had presumed they were installing at the system level. They are actually still within the Safari application package. So for the time being, any app which wanted to use the frameworks would have to package them with the app. (Which further clarifies the issue of control above--the frameworks are within the application bundle so they are fully controlled by Apple... unless you want to start tinkering--but presumably with a copy.) I would presume that by the time Safari is no longer beta and the next major revision of X comes out they will be available at the system level. I also presumed that because the KDE projects are LGPLed, Apple would release their own frameworks under the LGPL and their own license--there is a fair bit in the frameworks that are not a part of KHTML--but it appears that both frameworks have been released solely under the LGPL. Good for them. |
| #30 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/8/2003 9:09:47 PM |
|
Apple is great, Jobs is God. We are all idiots for not buying Macintoshes!
Oh give me a break. |
| #31 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 9:13:49 PM |
|
Ehh, soda... as I told enforcer, we digressed. It's not my fault it took over 10 posts to prove to him that the apps aren't tied--of course, he hasn't admitted it yet so I'm not sure if he has yet.
I was trying to talk about MM2 and PT's pathetic review, but oh well. Sooo, enforcer, are the iApps tied to OS X or not? |
| #32 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/8/2003 9:28:25 PM |
|
Does that mean you're reserving the right to say they are tied so that we can have this argument again at a later date?
If you are referring to the iApps, then yes, I reserve that right. RE: Safari/WebCore/JavaScriptCore/etc. The control I was referring to was IP control. I know, the LGPL is less strict than GPL, but doesn't it also require the release of modifications? Concerning an app's ability to use the Cores/Frameworks, I still fail to see how this is different from other apps using IE/Windows' core web functionality and extending it for the needs of the application. There are even other browsers that use the IE components as a base of their functionality, but also offer new capabilities. |
| #33 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/8/2003 9:35:59 PM |
|
How can you possibly say they are tied if you think that IE wasn't tied to Windows?
For crying out loud, enforcer, you are psychotic. I think soda would appreciate it if you'd accept they aren't tied. That way we can avoid this in the future. When it comes to standards, there is nothing to be concerned about--yes, they are happy to release their modifications, and I am sure that it will benefit them in return since they fixed quite a few portions of KHTML... So what? The Safari apps is still their's. (Only a softy--oh, brother. Haven't other softies bitched at Sun for "controlling" Java, don't I and others complain that MS controls too many standards--well, guess what, when it comes to the web--I want Apple to be very open. I want them to use standards, and if they add anything, I want them to add it back.) I wasn't suggesting that the way it can be used is different--what is different is that it can be modified. But the most important difference is the one that we have been mentioning over and over again--keeping it distinct from the app--which it isn't yet--means that it doesn't tie the app to the OS. Unlike IE. Jeez. I thought you had gotten this way back but we were just niggling out the details--do you really not understand this yet? |
| #34 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/8/2003 10:25:54 PM |
|
Many of the components IE uses are updated separately from the app. They are distinct from the app except in the case of Windows versions that do not include the app by default. In this case, the components are sometimes distributed separately from the app, but mostly are distributed with the app package.
I believe the confusion in the interpretation of my original tying claim comes from this: I am asserting that the iApps are tied to a specific version of the OS. This makes it so that Mac users wanting the iApps must purchase OS X Jaguar or a new Mac. This is not specific to the iApps, I know. Most new/current Mac apps require Jaguar. Howerver, this means Apple wants you to pay for a new OS less than 2 years after the original release, and unlike on the PC, you have little alternative. This is the result of Apple's misshandling of the original OS launch. This is basically what I said in post #22 Oh, and no, I'm not smoking crack, however Apple wants you to pay for a service pack or lose pretty much all app support. I have no special concern with this, although it would never fly in the PC world. Well, it might fly, accompanied by vocal dissatisfaction and some dissenttion. Maybe even some switching :-) This post was edited by n4cer on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 at 22:27. |
| #35 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 12:53:09 PM |
|
I was trying to talk about MM2 and PT's pathetic review, but oh well.
I would be interested in seeing your review as well as contradict any of the FACTS stated by PT in his article. |
| #36 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 12:53:59 PM |
|
enforcer, okay, so you've returned to your ridiculous definition of tying, which is tying is not having backward compatibility.
You are one strange nut. This makes no sense. If you want to assert this guy ahead, but I will have to call you out as a complete idiot. I guess Office is "tied" to OS X too? Moron. |
| #37 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 2:18:26 PM |
|
SJ,
Calling people "morons"...does that make you feel better about your self. You know the old saying...sticks and stones............ |
| #38 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 2:21:18 PM |
|
What are you trying to be my inner voice or something, Brian? Am I going to find a message from you after every post I make? Buzz off.
I asked a question of enforcer. And, yes, to think that lacking backward compatibility is moronic. I do not do it to make me feel better; I do it to make enforcer feel worse. |
| #39 By 37 (66.82.20.150) at 1/9/2003 3:02:00 PM |
|
Your inner voice? No, not at all. Just happen to enjoy enforcers credible comments, and find it very concerning that you have to call him names.
Buzz off? Last I knew this was a public forum/comment board and you made the choice to not only respond to me, but to actually join this forum and accept the eula presented by Activewin. If you don't feel that way any longer, maybe you should terminate your membership. Bob Stein is a good online friend of mine, and I am sure I can pull some strings for ya :-) Why would you want to make someone feel worse? I thought this world is about making people feel good about themselves, about life and enjoying such frills as the internet. Why would you want to make anyone feel bad? That's not very commendable. |
| #40 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/9/2003 5:09:23 PM |
| So you too, Brian, equate lacking backward compatibility with tying? Then you're an idiot too. |
| #41 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 1/9/2003 6:28:10 PM |
|
idiot
Nice. |
| #42 By 37 (24.196.75.142) at 1/10/2003 7:30:02 AM |
| ROFL ;-) |
| #43 By 2459 (24.233.39.98) at 1/12/2003 11:35:28 PM |
|
Heh, looks like I missed some action :-)
Thanks for the support guys, but Sodajerk's insults don't bother me. It's kind of like a membership badge. Before he first insulted me about 2 months ago, I was wondering why I was probably the only non-troll on this site he somewhat, supposedly, possibly had a minute amount of respect for. Ok, there's sometimes Bob Smith and TL, too. :-) SJ, Steve Wozniak thinks that Apple is just coming up with artificial reasons to upgrade. He also thinks it's a somewhat hypocritical stance from what Apple has taken previously. http://news.com.com/2014-1089-0.html?tag=vid# My point, as stated in a previous post, is that Apple botched the original OS X launch. There were missing features from the OS, not added fluff features, but core functionality. With Jaguar, OS X is more complete, but Apple chose to charge full price for the update. Now, they are trying to speed adoption of Jaguar by tying their apps (and third party app updates) to Jaguar. This leaves original OS X users with little/no app support after less than 2 years. As I said previously, if this happened in the PC space, there would be an uproar. Heck, people were upset over Office 11 dropping 9x support. But even these users will enjoy a longer support term than the OS X users. And, they'll still have other app support and OS support for a few more years. Insult me as you please, I like making people happy. But, it only detracts from your argument. BTW, I hope you didn't actually believe Steve when he said the 12" Powerbook was the smallest, full-featured notebook in the world. My last post for this thread. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 354 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
3:49:41 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
