|
news of 2005-05-23
(Almost) Thanks, Matt!
Okay. Spotlight has simple find-by-name search. Just add quotes to the searchterm. Apple: Shoot the people who're in charge of explaining how to work Spotlight, please. After torturing them. M'kay?
Update: Nah, putting words in quotes doesn't really do what I want. It only finds files by name if you put in a whole word. "uff" won't find folders called "Stuff", for example. Too bad, too bad. So my wishlist is still where it was. Look at the article below...
Some people state that Apple is in fact advertising how Spotlight's supposed to work here. But if you look for simple find-by-name: Nada... "If you are working on a project and are trying to find that Photoshop image with a text layer but forgot the filename, just search on the text layer and Spotlight will find it for you." - Apple: I did _not_ forget the filename and there's no text in my Photoshop picture. Now what?
[ written by fryke™ on 2005-05-23 at 18:56 CET ]
[ contact (e-mail) ] - [ story link ] - [ back to top ]
Wishlist for 10.4.2
- Bring back simple "find by name" in the Finder.
- Make Spotlight a user's choice, so he/she can enable/disable it for Mail.app/Finder etc.
- Enable Quartz 2D Extreme by default. It's running fine, it seems.
- Bring back simple "find by name" in the Finder.
- Take the hack for synching a Nokia 9500/9300 and enable support in iSync yourself. Hate to do it over and over again whenever Apple does update iSync but leave that important bit (well, for me at least) out - like it happened with 10.4.1.
- Bring back simple "find by name" in the Finder.
- Fix overall system performance and compatibility issues. (That's the wording for every update to Mac OS X, right?)
- Oh, and yeah: Bring back simple "find by name" in the Finder. It's important.
[ written by fryke™ on 2005-05-23 at 13:06 CET ]
[ contact (e-mail) ] - [ story link ] - [ back to top ]
Renewed Apple-intel talks?
The Wall Street Journal talks about yet another rumour (or is it more?) of Apple being in talks with intel about the use of intel's chips in future Macs. While not completely impossible (Rhapsody DR1 and DR2 were running fine on intel/AMD processors at the time, and so does at least Darwin in current versions), a move to using intel processors would involve yet another transition. Cocoa applications would need a recompile (and then be either "P" for PowerPC code, "I" for intel code or "PI" for "fat" applications that run on both 'sides', just like Apple did with Rhapsody back then), but porting Carbon over could be a harder task. Still: Not completely unbelievable.
While the WSJ article doesn't expect Mac OS X to run on _any_ hardware with intel chips (only on Macs, just like before, even though they'd use PC CPUs), I'm sure there'd be the danger of people actually finding ways of doing it all the same.
I personally hope that IBM will put an end to such diva-like behaviour on Apple's side and deliver more and better PowerPC chips to Apple soon enough. We need the 64 bit PowerBook, the dual processor dual core PowerMac as well as a subnotebook with a G4-replacement processor that runs both quicker and cooler. But if IBM nor FreeScale can do that, does it really matter, should a PowerBook in 2007 contain some intel processor - if it delivers the performance users crave with decent battery life and software compatibility? Apple needs options. The cheapest one is probably to stick with IBM and FreeScale for the time being. But if intel really has the better plan for the future (and really: Neither you nor I know that for sure), maybe it is time for another big transition. (And those usually take about five years at Apple.)
[ written by fryke™ on 2005-05-23 at 12:46 CET ]
[ contact (e-mail) ] - [ story link ] - [ back to top ]
|
