ZZ Bottom
Mar 26, 10:09 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Here's to hoping they correct the obvious problems like notifications, poor photo organizational control, a corrected USB voltage, and a simple central file system (I know, not holding my breath).
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Here's to hoping they correct the obvious problems like notifications, poor photo organizational control, a corrected USB voltage, and a simple central file system (I know, not holding my breath).
0815
Apr 5, 02:47 PM
Maybe now Apple realizes that they must allow some things on their devices like themes. Or not...
What makes you think this? Because Toyota pulled it after Apple asked them friendly to do so?
What makes you think this? Because Toyota pulled it after Apple asked them friendly to do so?
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
adbe
Mar 29, 02:29 PM
Note that MS is dropping the standalone Zune hardware, and moving the Zune interface into Windows Phone 7.
The Zune was a market flop though, and MS need to focus their efforts if only tp stop the shareholders from getting antsy.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
Because there will always be cases where for whatever reason one might not want or need a phone.
The Zune was a market flop though, and MS need to focus their efforts if only tp stop the shareholders from getting antsy.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
Because there will always be cases where for whatever reason one might not want or need a phone.
bigjnyc
May 7, 10:02 AM
What they need is tier level pricing. Those who wish to only use the features of say Find My iWhatever can choose just that, storage + e-mail, e-mail, etc.
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
These are both good ideas and very feasible.
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
These are both good ideas and very feasible.
Don't panic
May 5, 07:27 AM
Farewell Wilmer, my friend.
you were sometimes a tad to excitable, and couldn't hold your ale, but i'll blame both on your folk and age.
but you were a good man and a good sword.
and rest sure, as your sacrifice made us all stronger.
you will be missed.
and you WILL be avenged.
Goblins. bah!
it was unavoidable, weak as we were, that the first encounter with a monster would end up this way.
well, at least we didn't lose our magician here.
Entertainment is important to keep our spirits high.
By the way Rosius, couldn't you, i dunno, throw a rabbit at the goblin, or sommthing?
Anyways, the villain has used up 2 of his turns (one for collecting the point, one for summoning that despicable creature). he has two in hand, meaning that at most there is one trap somewhere or another goblin.
maybe he put that overgrown toad here to protect something of value?
R3T1. Let us search this room, then we'll discuss where to go next.
you were sometimes a tad to excitable, and couldn't hold your ale, but i'll blame both on your folk and age.
but you were a good man and a good sword.
and rest sure, as your sacrifice made us all stronger.
you will be missed.
and you WILL be avenged.
Goblins. bah!
it was unavoidable, weak as we were, that the first encounter with a monster would end up this way.
well, at least we didn't lose our magician here.
Entertainment is important to keep our spirits high.
By the way Rosius, couldn't you, i dunno, throw a rabbit at the goblin, or sommthing?
Anyways, the villain has used up 2 of his turns (one for collecting the point, one for summoning that despicable creature). he has two in hand, meaning that at most there is one trap somewhere or another goblin.
maybe he put that overgrown toad here to protect something of value?
R3T1. Let us search this room, then we'll discuss where to go next.
hynke
May 6, 06:49 AM
Of course they will move to ARM, everyone will. Google is allready running their data centres on ARM based servers, Windows 8 will run on ARM as well, Apple is investing huge amount of money into their A4, A5 chips. The main problem of computers nowadays is power efficiency and not computing power, because most of the computers allready are overpowerd for what their users usually do with them.
bedifferent
Mar 31, 03:58 AM
Sure, I know. It's just plain stupid default-settings if you ask me.
I can't imagine this is a better default setting for new users.
One aspect that always bothered me since Leopard: having a silver dock with light indicators. It makes determining running apps in the dock very difficult. One of the first things I do is change my dock to black glass and add stack overlays:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ember/4xfOeej6P9j8aNcXnJUt9sTOnXbNNk8l_l.png
I can't imagine this is a better default setting for new users.
One aspect that always bothered me since Leopard: having a silver dock with light indicators. It makes determining running apps in the dock very difficult. One of the first things I do is change my dock to black glass and add stack overlays:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ember/4xfOeej6P9j8aNcXnJUt9sTOnXbNNk8l_l.png
macrumors12345
Apr 26, 02:50 PM
Of course, when iPhone becomes available on Sprint and T-Mo, then I'd expect it to have an overall sales ratio of about 2-to-1 against Android. Perhaps somewhat less if those prepaid super-cheap Android phones take off, perhaps somewhat more if Windows Phone 7 eventually starts to steal some of Android's share.
shawnce
Aug 4, 04:07 PM
You know, considering that Sony has been able to cram a DL drive in something as tiny as the TX series (not to mention the SZ series), I'm not sure why Apple couldn't do something similar with the 15" MBP.
Why not compare the sizes?
If you look both MBP are 1" tall with the lid closed while the Sony TX series is 1.12" tall and the SZ is 1.5" tall (at the thickest... which is up near the drive area).
Why not compare the sizes?
If you look both MBP are 1" tall with the lid closed while the Sony TX series is 1.12" tall and the SZ is 1.5" tall (at the thickest... which is up near the drive area).
StickNutzman
Mar 28, 09:45 AM
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
Sure you will. :rolleyes:
Sure you will. :rolleyes:
DCBass
Nov 26, 02:53 PM
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/21286fujitsustylisticmodded.jpg
This is absolutely how it should look.
The only thing missing is the name emblazoned on the bottom edge.
I dub thee ... (drumroll please....)
"iSlab"
I called it first. :D
This is absolutely how it should look.
The only thing missing is the name emblazoned on the bottom edge.
I dub thee ... (drumroll please....)
"iSlab"
I called it first. :D
slombacker
Dec 3, 12:25 PM
I have the 'air jacket' case on my iphone 3gs and it fits in the Tom Tom car kit just fine.
The sound quality when using handsfree isn't the best... but its not has bad as some bluetooth headsets I've had. Forget it if its raining out and your windshield wipers are on.
I don't find the kit inflexible at all... I was able to mount it and reposition it exactly how I wanted.
Overall I'm pretty happy with it.
The sound quality when using handsfree isn't the best... but its not has bad as some bluetooth headsets I've had. Forget it if its raining out and your windshield wipers are on.
I don't find the kit inflexible at all... I was able to mount it and reposition it exactly how I wanted.
Overall I'm pretty happy with it.
mrelwood
Mar 29, 03:37 PM
Nanobots in the bloodstream!
Ooh... iBot Nano! I want to line up for one of THOSE!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip?
Nah, Jobs has been working on WiFi sync for atleast a year now. It'll be ready by then. In WHITE!
Ooh... iBot Nano! I want to line up for one of THOSE!
I suppose we'll have to sync via IV drip?
Nah, Jobs has been working on WiFi sync for atleast a year now. It'll be ready by then. In WHITE!
ergle2
Sep 17, 01:42 AM
I meant Geforce GO7800, a mistake on my part.
I did some more poking around, and apparently, a Go 7900 model (90nm) that has a TDP rated at around 10% more than the rated TDP of the X1600.
That might be possible. Based on that the Go 7700 80nm should easily consume less power than the current X1600, and given the base 7600 was faster than the X1600, the 7700 (based on the 7600GS) should offer significant speedup for 3D.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple favors Intel with the AMD-ATI merger/buyout, too.
Finally, there's always the (rather unlikely, admittedly) possibility that the MBPs (perhaps just the 17"?) would offer MXM slots; currently, MXM means nVidia.
I did some more poking around, and apparently, a Go 7900 model (90nm) that has a TDP rated at around 10% more than the rated TDP of the X1600.
That might be possible. Based on that the Go 7700 80nm should easily consume less power than the current X1600, and given the base 7600 was faster than the X1600, the 7700 (based on the 7600GS) should offer significant speedup for 3D.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple favors Intel with the AMD-ATI merger/buyout, too.
Finally, there's always the (rather unlikely, admittedly) possibility that the MBPs (perhaps just the 17"?) would offer MXM slots; currently, MXM means nVidia.
Buschmaster
May 7, 10:25 AM
I've always thought MobileMe should be a free service that comes as a benefit of owning a Mac. The usefulness of MobileMe just doesn't justify the $99 pricetag -- especially when other services offer something similar for free.
P-Worm
While I agree, MobileMe is still in my eyes the best of the bunch. That's how they get away with charging $99/year. However, if it became free, they could really talk up how great owning a Mac is because of MobileMe.
P-Worm
While I agree, MobileMe is still in my eyes the best of the bunch. That's how they get away with charging $99/year. However, if it became free, they could really talk up how great owning a Mac is because of MobileMe.
Mac Fly (film)
Jul 30, 10:19 AM
iChat + Address Book for Windows (one app). Firstly I think the phone itself will be called "iPod Phone" as the trademark for iPhone is already taken, Apple would want to make it clear that it has iPod functionality, it's the next obvious choice for its name, and it's a very Apple thing to do. Right that's settled.
Now how will it integrate with Mac's and PC's? Simple, iChat 4.0 will have the Address Book built-in, maybe a calander/scheduler apps functionality too and it will go Windows, as iTunes did. Mac users will get their photos from iPhoto, and Windows user from the Windows *equivalent. Contacts from iChat4, schedules form iChat4, music from iTunes, photos from photo apps. Job done that's iChat and the iPod Phone covered.
Please note: the above is wild speculation ;)
*may not be equivalent:D
Now how will it integrate with Mac's and PC's? Simple, iChat 4.0 will have the Address Book built-in, maybe a calander/scheduler apps functionality too and it will go Windows, as iTunes did. Mac users will get their photos from iPhoto, and Windows user from the Windows *equivalent. Contacts from iChat4, schedules form iChat4, music from iTunes, photos from photo apps. Job done that's iChat and the iPod Phone covered.
Please note: the above is wild speculation ;)
*may not be equivalent:D
whatever
Aug 7, 04:12 PM
All I can say is Apple better be coming out with a mid-range tower. Upping the baseline of the MacPro to $2500, what is that. Sure it looks like a sweet computer, but what about small businesses or starving artists who cant afford that. Now we're stuck with the all-in-ones.
A small business that can't afford the low end MacPro at $2,124.00 should really take a good look at there business plan (it sounds more like a hobby than a business). A starving artist should invest their money on developing some new skills, so that they're not starving (I guess art just isn't it for them).
These a PRO machines! If you can't afford them, then you should be looking at the iMac, a Mac Mini or shopping on eBay for a used computer.
The price points are perfect.
And for those people still whining about a mini-tower I have a suggestion for you. Try holding your breath until the announcement. That way we won't have to hear from you any more.
I'm just wondering why adding an Airport or a different video card changes the estimate ship time from 3 to 5 business days to 3 to 5 weeks. Does it really take that long to open a box?
A small business that can't afford the low end MacPro at $2,124.00 should really take a good look at there business plan (it sounds more like a hobby than a business). A starving artist should invest their money on developing some new skills, so that they're not starving (I guess art just isn't it for them).
These a PRO machines! If you can't afford them, then you should be looking at the iMac, a Mac Mini or shopping on eBay for a used computer.
The price points are perfect.
And for those people still whining about a mini-tower I have a suggestion for you. Try holding your breath until the announcement. That way we won't have to hear from you any more.
I'm just wondering why adding an Airport or a different video card changes the estimate ship time from 3 to 5 business days to 3 to 5 weeks. Does it really take that long to open a box?
Zaim2
Mar 26, 11:34 PM
I could believe this is you think back to the story last month about Apple being in the process of acquiring a company to revamp the notification system.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/apple-acquiring-ios-developer-to-revamp-notification-system/
4 months would be too steep to create/test a major change like that from scratch, so if the notification story is true (and the "no comment" from Boxcar in the original source makes me believe it is) it would strengthen the case for a Fall release.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/11/apple-acquiring-ios-developer-to-revamp-notification-system/
4 months would be too steep to create/test a major change like that from scratch, so if the notification story is true (and the "no comment" from Boxcar in the original source makes me believe it is) it would strengthen the case for a Fall release.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
BC2009
Apr 26, 04:14 PM
Boy, you are sniffing a serious amount of glue.:rolleyes: His motivation is to make brainwashed fanboys BELIEVE Apple is making the best darn tech gadgets in the world, such that Apple can make the most darn profits and he can get the biggest darn bonus. And with THAT, he is a genious.
Tony
Tony had better check the fumes in his own house. The "brainwashed fanboy" argument just keeps sounding more and more like self-deluding denial and some kind of insecurity or envy. How he could read my entire post and somehow have that sentence be the one that strikes a chord makes me think that Tony might in fact be insecure about some decision he has made. Maybe Tony is afraid that others have a different opinion than him and that somehow might diminish his opinion. Better lash out now before more people disagree -- try your best to belittle them and maybe they might agree with you instead, right? I know... accuse them of sniffing glue and being brainwashed -- that just might work..... :rolleyes:
I am truly amazed that the wider the audience becomes for Apple products the bigger the argument for "brainwashed fanboys" gets . It's really hard to have over 200 million "fanboys" and even harder to brainwash them. If Steve Jobs could in fact accomplish that then he could rule the world. I don't think he is that good of a marketer.
Apple's target audience is not the fans, fanatics, and fanboys who post on this and other websites -- its the everyday folks who just want their tech gadgets to work without them having to think about it. It just so happens that many of the tech-savvy professionals who do real work with their computers and tech devices also like the technology to just get out of the way.
When 200 million or more people feel that your expensive tech products are the ones they want to spend their money on, then you must be doing something right -- and I don't think it is some kind of Jedi mind trick.
Clearly, Jobs wants the world to think his products are the best, but I don't think it has anything to do with money -- I think he would be done by now if it was all about money -- unless he saving up to buy something really big :D. There is something more personal about it to the guy -- he is way to invested in being CEO of Apple -- its seems more than a job to him, he takes things way too personally.
Personally, I think that Apple products can be beat on specific features, but when comparing the whole product (hardware, OS, software availability, ecosystem, support, ease-of-use, and integration across product-line), they get my tech-allowance money almost every time. When somebody rises up and offers me a suite of components that work better than Apple's do together then they will likely start getting my money instead -- it wouldn't be the first time I switched platforms, but currently Apple is my platform of choice.
Tony
Tony had better check the fumes in his own house. The "brainwashed fanboy" argument just keeps sounding more and more like self-deluding denial and some kind of insecurity or envy. How he could read my entire post and somehow have that sentence be the one that strikes a chord makes me think that Tony might in fact be insecure about some decision he has made. Maybe Tony is afraid that others have a different opinion than him and that somehow might diminish his opinion. Better lash out now before more people disagree -- try your best to belittle them and maybe they might agree with you instead, right? I know... accuse them of sniffing glue and being brainwashed -- that just might work..... :rolleyes:
I am truly amazed that the wider the audience becomes for Apple products the bigger the argument for "brainwashed fanboys" gets . It's really hard to have over 200 million "fanboys" and even harder to brainwash them. If Steve Jobs could in fact accomplish that then he could rule the world. I don't think he is that good of a marketer.
Apple's target audience is not the fans, fanatics, and fanboys who post on this and other websites -- its the everyday folks who just want their tech gadgets to work without them having to think about it. It just so happens that many of the tech-savvy professionals who do real work with their computers and tech devices also like the technology to just get out of the way.
When 200 million or more people feel that your expensive tech products are the ones they want to spend their money on, then you must be doing something right -- and I don't think it is some kind of Jedi mind trick.
Clearly, Jobs wants the world to think his products are the best, but I don't think it has anything to do with money -- I think he would be done by now if it was all about money -- unless he saving up to buy something really big :D. There is something more personal about it to the guy -- he is way to invested in being CEO of Apple -- its seems more than a job to him, he takes things way too personally.
Personally, I think that Apple products can be beat on specific features, but when comparing the whole product (hardware, OS, software availability, ecosystem, support, ease-of-use, and integration across product-line), they get my tech-allowance money almost every time. When somebody rises up and offers me a suite of components that work better than Apple's do together then they will likely start getting my money instead -- it wouldn't be the first time I switched platforms, but currently Apple is my platform of choice.
*LTD*
Apr 25, 09:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Interesting how the guy is a total dick when writing to Steve. Nice to see SJ keeps his cool when these idiots with a massive sense of entitlement choose to hit the send button.
Interesting how the guy is a total dick when writing to Steve. Nice to see SJ keeps his cool when these idiots with a massive sense of entitlement choose to hit the send button.
MikeDTyke
Sep 11, 09:02 AM
how about this for a scenario
quiet release of C2D MB/MBP at the start of the expo - similar to the imac/mac mini
then his steveness can deliver the full its showtime reel at the special event.
announce movie store, with ipod updates, and full ipod video as 'one more thing'
I think its fair to assume at this stage no macbook/pro updates will be shown tomorrow. All they do is distract from the media/ipod announcements. best you can hope for is a quiet refresh towards the end of this week.
M.
quiet release of C2D MB/MBP at the start of the expo - similar to the imac/mac mini
then his steveness can deliver the full its showtime reel at the special event.
announce movie store, with ipod updates, and full ipod video as 'one more thing'
I think its fair to assume at this stage no macbook/pro updates will be shown tomorrow. All they do is distract from the media/ipod announcements. best you can hope for is a quiet refresh towards the end of this week.
M.
ohbrilliance
Apr 7, 04:58 PM
As a consumer I'm hoping that the Playbook (and others) are a success, so I have a choice between viable products.
Being glad that RIM can't get into the market is like hoping your team wins because the other didn't turn up to the match.
Being glad that RIM can't get into the market is like hoping your team wins because the other didn't turn up to the match.
No comments:
Post a Comment