Robert McNally's Profile

Apple should just follow their own advice: You can use a brushed metal window if your application: • Is a single-window application that provides a source list to navigate information—for example, iTunes or the Finder * Strives to re-create a familiar physical device—Calculator or DVD Player, for example * Provides an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals—iPhoto or iSync, for example You should not use a brushed metal window if your application: • Is a multi-window application—for example, Interface Builder • Is a document-based application—for example, TextEdit Use brushed metal window look for the primary application window and other windows that meet the above criteria—for example, the Equalizer window in iTunes. Don’t use it for supporting windows, such as preferences and other dialogs. It is acceptable to have a mix of standard Aqua windows and brushed metal windows within an application, as the Finder does.

For years I have had my e-mail addresseses published prominently on my web sites. In the past two weeks I have gotten an average of 320 spams per day. Fortunately the number of spams that make it to my inbox approaches zero because I run my own mail server and use an open source challenge-response system called TMDA. I strongly recommend it. Write to me at [email protected] (See, I don't even mind putting my unprotected e-mail address on a public forum!) to see the sort of challenge spammers get back. Of course, 99.9% of them never see it because they use fake From addressess. ;)

I've followed this story carefully, and one important point I think everyone is overlooking is this: the story Apple is currently telling is that they are dropping the PowerPC. In reality they are simply picking a specific time to exercise an option they've had in their back pocket for 5 years-- a processor-independent architecture. Right now they want to be buddies with Intel-- fine. In a few years they can be buddies with AMD. It makes perfect sense to go with the big name first, and then consider the AMD later. They can also keep coming out with PowerPC machines, should that line of processors be able to do something better than the Intel chips of the day. There's nothing wrong with flexibility. I am a Mac software developer-- in my case the effort to convert my apps to universal binaries will be trivial. While I realize that this will not be the case for all developers, I do think that once the Mac development community hits its stride developing universal binaries as a matter of course, then it won't be much additional effort to produce them from then on. As a guy who has programmed assembly language on every Apple processor from the 6502 forward, I can say with complete confidence that the processor is only one of many things that make a computer great. So, to summarize: 1) The user experience will be the same or better. Even most old software will continue to run thanks to Rosetta. 2) Apple has more degrees of freedom when it comes to picking processors for various products. 3) Inconvenience is minimal for most developers. 4) Apple will continue to control the hardware and the OS that runs on it-- a chief competitive advantage. And this is bad... how?