Google's Growing Love For the Mac

An anonymous reader writes "While browsing the 2007 Macworld speaker bios, I found an interesting Google+Mac piece of news. Looks like Google has appointed the famous Amit Singh in charge of their Mac Engineering (also confirmed on Singh's website). While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility they have been offering some native Mac software. We earlier heard Google CEO Eric Schmidt's joining Apple's board of directors. Then following Microsoft MacBU's lead, Google started their own Mac Blog a few weeks earlier. Google's jobs website also lists several Mac openings. If Singh's technical expertise and history of OS X wizardry any indication, we can hope for some cool Mac software from Google. Also wondering if all this is just Google's response to Apple's market growth or maybe a more serious partnership is coming? ;-)"

Comments

Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Zarniwoop_Editor]

Anytime we get wider acceptance of platforms other than Microsoft it is a good thing. It's not that I'm anti-microsoft so much as I prefer to have choices when it comes to computing platforms. Any effort made by companies to support more than just microsoft properly is a good thing in my books.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[jellomizer]

Indeed it is. But I think Google will do more to help this by making more tools Web Based then making Applicataions that run on different OS's While it is good that they are doing that. Making more Platform Independant Web Application Will do much more making all OS irelevlant and people can choose what platform and OS based on their personal needs and less of well this App only run on windows so I need windows.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

"PC-OS" and "PC-OS"? Sort of like saying *nix and Windows are the same just because they both run on the same type of PC, isn't it?

You must be the smart one in your family.. I'd hate to meet the dumb one..

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[b0s0z0ku]

Web apps are a great thing - if you have reliable, very fast, Internet access 24/7. I suspect the killer app is some hybrid of web and client apps. The data would get still stored locally. Not everyone is comfortable with losing access to data whenever the net goes down, plus the privacy implications and the fact that local storage is faster. As far as the applications themselves, they'll be in Java or some other platform-independent language, but they'll be cached locally for the most part. Again, you wouldn't want to be stuck with a brick when the your net access breaks. Perhaps updates and seldom-used features would download on demand from the net, but things like MS Office more or less do that already.

Going to all web apps would be going back to the mainframe/dumb terminal days of the 1970s. It would negate most of the advantages of owning a PC.

-b.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[hcdejong]

Web applications are useful for some situations, but I wouldn't want to run e.g. SketchUp inside a browser window. Like it or not, OSes aren't irrelevant now and won't be for years to come.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[uncadonna]

I suspect the killer app is some hybrid of web and client apps.

iTunes? Google Earth? the Flickr upload tool?

I use at least three such (mass-market) applications regularly.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[dwightk]

Any effort made by companies to support more than just microsoft properly is a good thing in my books.

Here's to hoping that Adobe catches up in this dept. soon.

(who would have thought that that would ever happen?)

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Zantetsuken]

For office purposes, it would be great if OpenOffice could be configured to regularly (every 5 or 10 minutes) send the active document to your Google account to be used with Writely and whatever else GoogleDocs has, so that when people are away from their machine wanting to open an OOo odt in a Microsoft Office only shop, they could still have their documents (without having to worry about syncing the latest with a usb-drive).

I dunno, just thought maybe some people would have a use for that...

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[MBGMorden]

iTunes is still very much like a traditional app with net access though. I'm sure iTunes wouldn't be nearly the sucess that it is if you had to stream all media from their site rather than downloading it, or (in a full web scenario), if it was just a website where you streamed stuff across.

I think the internet is a wonderful thing, and we have only begun to tap it's potention. But IMHO, the most potential still lies in local applications that access the internet for external data, not in applications that actually live completely on the net.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[ejp1082]

While I understand these complaints (sort of), they always struck me as unfounded. As far as connectivity goes - I've had hard disks fail more times in the last year than my net connection has. If we're not yet in the age of ubiquitous internet connectivity, we will be pretty shortly.

I think for the average user, web based applications are an ideal solution. Most of the "advantages" of the personal computer have been a disaster for the average joe - it puts them in the pilot's seat when the best place for him is really back in the passenger area. Here's how I see it, with Gmail as the example:

- Google uses redundant storage and backip schemes. Any email sitting locally on the average joe's computer likely isn't.
- He doesn't need to install the application, just point to a web site.
- Upgrades are automatic, there's nothing for him to maintain.
- Google removes viruses, he's not dependent on keeping his symantec/mcafee subscription up to date and making sure all the software is working as it should.
- He can't crash or break the application.

Then there's the features desktop software can't match, like universal accessibility, synchronization across PC's, collaboration and sharing abilities (not so much with email but with other applications). For enterprises, it makes a lot more sense to use a bunch of dumb terminals and keeping all the application logic and data where it can be centrally managed.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[milimetric]

I'm thoroughly impressed with Google services. That being said, Google "software" sucks. Only Google Desktop and Google Earth stand out, and Google Earth was acquired from Keyhole. Furthermore, compared to X1 or spotlight or even good old slocate, Google Desktop sucks. It took up 2 gigabytes of hard drive space to index a 40 gig drive, that's really really bad.

So I don't really care that Google would partner with any specific OS vendor, because their value is in their services which can be accessed with a browser.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[b0s0z0ku]

I think for the average user, web based applications are an ideal solution. Most of the "advantages" of the personal computer have been a disaster for the average joe - it puts them in the pilot's seat when the best place for him is really back in the passenger area. Here's how I see it, with Gmail as the example:

I'm still advocating local caching of applications and data, at least for frequently used stuff. It's grossly inefficient to keep downloading the same data over and over again. There's also stuff (like financial records) that should not be stored anywhere but under the control of the owner. I don't trust never-delete-anything Google that much with my personal data. The problem of hard drive failure can be dealt with via smaller (1.5?") drives running on a Raid 1 scheme. Yes, even on a laptop. Or perhaps automated software that does backups to flash disk...

Also, fast wireless Internet access for laptops isn't that ubiquitous just yet. In urban and suburban areas, yes, but elsewhere you often revert to a slower mode or have no access at all. Even many tunnels for trains and buses still don't have cell service.

For enterprises, it makes a lot more sense to use a bunch of dumb terminals and keeping all the application logic and data where it can be centrally managed.

Agreed for within a business, depending on how critical it is to have some ability to do work 24/7. Intranets are very reliable and fast these days. Not so the internet, IMHO. HOWEVER, with dumb terminals you're introducing a single point of failure (the network and the server room) that will render multiple machines incapable of use if it fails. Not so with apps running or at least cached locally.

-b.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Lemmy Caution]

I dislike Google Desktop - it's a resource hog - but do like Picasa, their image library software. (And Picasa was also an acquisititon.)

I really want to like Google Apps more than I do, but they just don't quite cut it.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Sqwubbsy]

You mean kind of like SharePoint?

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[drinkypoo]

Any effort made by companies to support more than just microsoft properly is a good thing in my books.

Here's to hoping that Adobe catches up in this dept. soon. (who would have thought that that would ever happen?)

Anyone paying attention to apple's hardware in the 68k era, which stretched on into unreasonableness for ages; Apple had about 1/4 to 1/2 of the price:performance ratio of the PC until the G4 came out. Then it was only stupidly expensive, not ridiculously expensive. It finally arrived almost at parity with the G5, by which time Adobe was more on the PC side than the mac side.

Lots of people started running Adobe software on the PC when it was incredibly less expensive than the mac. Of course, lots of mac users who couldn't figure out windows stuck with them even while their competition was running the same application with even more stability at twice the speed for the same money. Unfortunately I have a Dual G5 on my desk right now because the former graphic artist couldn't figure out how to use a PC. We would have sold her the G5 but we don't want to buy Adobe CS2 again, this time for PC, so the mac stays probably until CS3 comes out.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[wootest]

Sometimes it's not about "not being able to figure something out", it's about personal preference and ability to effectively collaborate with people in your own line of work. If someone runs Photoshop on a Mac instead of a PC, chances are they have a good reason for it, just like you might choose to run games in Windows instead of on Mac OS X or Linux. (That said, I wouldn't rule out that some people just can't figure Windows out, but based on what I've seen - my sister has worked in advertising for years - it's mainly not about that.)

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Jerry Smith]

Unfortunately I have a Dual G5 on my desk right now Spoilt brat!!!! Now I'm going to read the rest of your comment...

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The G5 is a way better machine than any piece of shit accumulator-based Pentium space heater you can buy.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[IAmTheDave]

Releasing Picasa for OSX would be the sweetness!!

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[MayorDefacto]

Releasing Picasa for OSX would be the sweetness!!
Meh. OS X already ships with the very excellent iPhoto. What would Picasa bring to the table?
Don't get me wrong, I love Picasa... on the PC. It's as close as iPhoto as you can get on that platform. On my Macbook, however, I just can't justify filling my limited hard drive space up with redundant apps.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Ltar]

"Anytime we get wider acceptance of platforms other than Microsoft it is a good thing." I would say that is not nessicarily true. Anytime we can get a standard operating system on all computers, it's a lot easier to produce software for a larger number of people. If microsoft and mac users were equal, thousands of work hours would be wasted reprogramming everything to run in either operating system. Of course, whatever super OS would have to WORK, or you would never get everyone on it. Then, there's also the matter of monopolies and all associated evils. Just musing, now, what if the government controlled OS's, like utilities? OS's would still be made by a non-governemtn entity, but prices for THE OS would be regulated by the government in a way that is fair to the company's employees without gouging the users. but yeah, Google+Mac=win.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[Saint Fnordius]

Reliability isn't the issue as much as exposure: after all, bank vaults offer better security, but some documents you'd rather entrust to your private safe instead of having to contact the bank every time, no matter how secure.

I think the biggest problem/complaint people have against net storage versus local storage is the ability of others to access the data. There are some things you trust to store outside of your home like money, since the bank guarantees better security with tight access controls. They have a history of less risk than a more personal solution. It makes sense to trust them rather than your mattress.

Online info storage, though, more resembles a train station locker. Sure, you may be the only one with the safe combination, but it's stored in a public place and you really don't know how easy it is to pick the lock. And since the location experiences a lot of traffic passing through, you don't know who could be eavesdropping/reading over your shoulder.

I think that web-based tools will migrate more to personal/intranet versions for this reason. I can run my LAMP tools on my PowerBook and access them locally, and in fact I already do this. Companies would love to use (for example) Google's office tools on their own servers, and not have to trust Google all the time. It's all about controlling who has a copy of the data, about maintaining privacy/secrecy.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me.

[IAmTheDave]

For me, a single redundant app is better than iPhoto's incessant copying of my photos into it's own directory structure. Talk about redundancy.

Come on, what about Linux

[advocate_one]

I would like to see two things from Google... firstly, some gee whizz apps appearing first for Linux, and secondly, them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux...

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[jellomizer]

Linux is so Early Decade come on it is the End of the Decade get with the times OS X is the new champion.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[falcon5768]

Your munch more likely to see something for OS X before Linux. Regardless of superiority its simple economics... there are more OS X users than Linux users out there regardless of how many machines run Linux.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Afecks]

Champion of what? Apple stock?

Let's all switch from an OS that locks you into software, to an OS that locks you into hardware...

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[SilentChris]

"Partnering" with Linux (is that even possible?) would not be as smart a business decision. Apple has handheld devices in millions of consumers' hands, a growing number of computers on peoples' desks and partnerships within the entertainment industry -- all things Google wants. Their pockets also just happen to be lined deep with cash. If you haven't noticed, Google has been making huge inroads into video and community collaboration -- why not partner with the company that has already done much of the dirty work forming the relationships?

A Linux "partnership" (with RedHat? Mandrake?) would buy them what, exactly? An OS still primarily used by server admins and tech elite. A hodgepodge of competing standards.

I wouldn't be surprised if the geeks at Google (and I'm sure there's still a ton of them) are pushing their own Linux projects. But the company as a whole is designed to make money, and Apple makes more sense than anything right now, given the direction they're heading.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[LWATCDR]

"Firstly, some gee whizz apps appearing first for Linux," Why? More people use Windows than Linux. I would be happy if they came out at the same time.

"and secondly, them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux..."
Why? Really why would Google do that?
Google isn't a charity it is a business. How would this help Google make one cent of income?
I could see IBM doing this. IBM does make a lot of money from Linux and let's face it they have a large enough patent portfolio that Microsoft would never have the guts to sue them directly. See SCO vs IBM to see why.

I have to wonder if the Microsoft/Novell deal isn't a way for Microsoft to make nice with IBM. If Microsoft really did shall we say encourage SCO to go after IBM they may be a little worried that IBM may bring out it's portfolio to go after them. Not only that but Microsoft is depending on IBM for the XBox360's CPU. IBM and Suse/Novell have a long history and this might be a way for Microsoft to bury the hatchet.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Weedlekin]

There are more OS X desktop users than Linux desktop users, not more OS X users overall.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Google isn't a charity it is a business. How would this help Google make one cent of income?

Companies regularly make strategic moves that make them money in the long term, via an indirect route. Google throwing their support and development behind a desktop Linux distro could do a number of things. It could provide a stable target for other developers. It could promote a commoditization of the OS, and thus remove MS's largest weapon against them. It could save Google money internally by providing a cheaper platform for their employees internally.

I'm not saying it is a good idea, or the best option available to them, but there are lots of reasons it might be.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[LWATCDR]

"It could provide a stable target for other developers. " How? Linux is the least stable target by nature. Anyone can change or modify anything. That is why OS/X is so easy. It is the lease open so it is the most stable target.
"It could save Google money internally by providing a cheaper platform for their employees internally."
Ubuntu, Open Suse, and even Gentoo are all good enough for for Google to deploy internally. This is Google we are talking about."
Frankly I am having less hope for a Desktop Linux by the minute. The new GPL 3 is a disaster. The lack of a stable binary driver interface is also a disaster. Even if you where going to require the drivers to have the source available making it easy to install shrink wrap drivers is vital to Linux on the desktop.
Until a device maker can stick a CD in the box with a driver they know that the end user can install supporting Linux just isn't worth the trouble.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How? Linux is the least stable target by nature.

Well if Google picked or made one distro, that would make for a stable target for them and anyone else who wanted to contribute. We're talking about the benefits to Google of Google sponsoring a distro.

Ubuntu, Open Suse, and even Gentoo are all good enough for for Google to deploy internally.

Sure, but it is a lot easier to standardize on one distro than many.

Frankly I am having less hope for a Desktop Linux by the minute...

You go on to list symptoms. Linux on the desktop will only really take off if a major company or group of companies takes the money they would be spending on Windows and OS X and dumps it into making Linux right for them. I have hope for Linux on the desktop, but it needs real support, and that support is vanishing from some sources. I know a lot of people who have abandoned Linux on the desktop and work from OS X, while contributing to Linux on the server. If Linux on the desktop is to survive, it should be looking at OS X and copying the real underlying innovations. Linux distro developers who want a desktop instead of a server should be going out of their way to be compatible with OS X to allow cross platform improvements. I doubt this will happen because of the biases within the remaining community, however.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Mister Whirly]

Champion of 4% of the marekt share...

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[delire]

I wouldn't be so sure. Google are mid-development of their in-house developer desktop OS Goobuntu, an Ubuntu derivative made by Google for the task. Furthermore don't forget that Google's next biggest 'market' is in Asia, where Linux desktop growth is formidable to say the least, far surpassing desktop Linux growth we've seen elsewhere in the West. Don't forget also OS X isn't a migration target for whole governments and their administrations either - comprising a large chunk of the so-called enterprise market.

OS X growth is still very much confined to the (comparably small) western world domestic market by and large.. Vendor lock-in (of which Apple offers the most extreme given the marriage of hardware and software) is increasingly unfashionable large desktop deployments. Linux is the 'people's OS' - free for the public - fast moving and enjoying rapid growth on the Desktop. Google appears very aware of that with their recent and growing support for the Linux desktop (Picassa, Google Earth, upcoming Google Desktop for Linux).

Finally I'd be very surprised if there are in fact more OS X users than Linux desktop users. If that is the case, it certainly may not be that way for long given the growth we've been seeing - albeit of the radar of retail-market quantified 'market share'.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[LWATCDR]

Frankly the problem is the open source faithful.
People WANT TO BUY Photoshop. They do not want to learn GIMP. They want the FREEDOM to buy software.
People want to buy nvidia and ATI video cards. They do not care about binary blobs. And they do not want to be educated about how evil closed source is. Want to know why? They will never look at the source. If they did they would never understand it.
OS/X gives people the choice to buy the stuff they want instead of hoping that someone will write it.

I love FOSS as much as the next guy. The problem I have is when the religion of FOSS gets in the way of people using it.
Just what percentage of people compile FireFox for Windows? What is the ratio of source to binary downloads?

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[WhiteWolf666]

Google is a Linux company.

They build their own, internal linux distribution. They run all their heavy metal on Linux.

They'll never, ever switch to OS X, at least internally.

What does make sense is for them to better support OS X client apps. But at it's core, Google is a Linux company.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[IflyRC]

Linux is the 'people's OS'

I'll consider calling it that when Linux is simple enough for the majority of the "people" can understand it. Right now, that just isn't the case.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[drinkypoo]

I'll consider calling it that when Linux is simple enough for the majority of the "people" can understand it. Right now, that just isn't the case.

When OSX breaks it's just as hard to get it back going as Linux. Actually, it's a lot harder! Just getting OSX to single user mode takes half a dozen commands (on 10.3 anyway; it's only like three or four on 10.4.) On linux it takes no commands; once you're in as root, you're in and you can reset your password. Unless it fails to mount root or something, but that can happen with OSX as well.

If we use Ubuntu as the example, Linux is actually easier to install than OSX; it takes less time to install, and comes with more software, not to mention it's installed from a LiveCD and you can install pretty much by clicking next a bunch of times.

It's also easier to use in a lot of ways. In particular the mac is light on context menus. The Mac is highly inconsistent about the way GUI elements behave between applications, even ones that all come from Apple. For instance every Mac app but the finder brings all its windows to the front when you click on it, but the finder doesn't do this. The key combination to hide an application differs from app to app; in fact out of two adobe applications and an apple one, I've got three different key combinations. In general the mac is a hodgepodge and it's not nearly as slick or as finished as people seem to think it is. In particular I'd like to know why icons are so slow to update (especially on the desktop - I have to click away from it and click it on it again to get new PDFs to show up) and why icons appear under the goddamn dock.

No, I'd say that Linux makes more sense. At least Unix window managers tend to open new windows in an unused region of the screen instead of right over the top of whatever you were working with last...

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[delire]

These days distributions like Xandros and Ubuntu require no CLI intervention on the part of the user for daily desktop tasks. This was certainly not the case a few years ago. The odd install may require CLI interaction however, hence the need for more like System76 and big vendors like HP and Dell to push pre-installs.

It seems your sig is stuck in the 90's.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[SilentChris]

And your point is what exactly? We're talking about two completely different things here.

Everyone knows Google runs Linux -- for their systems. Most companies I know have at least some services on Linux. I know very few that are seriously running Mac OS X Server.

That has nothing to with business relationships, strategic partnerships, or what will ultimately bring them in gobs of cash.

It's like a company running Verizon for their landline service, then setting up a strategic partnership with Cingular. The only reason they might choose Verizon for the partnership is if they can get some kind of deal. Otherwise, you go with what makes the most business sense.

Since there is no underlying company that drives all things Linux (last I read, Google uses a modified kernel and their own file system), there's no special "deal" to be formed with a strategic partnership with the OS.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

How? Linux is the least stable target by nature.

I don't see how.

Anyone can change or modify anything.

That's an advantage, I've also not seen such dramatic changes that broke a tonne of applications yet.

That is why OS/X is so easy.

Uhuh.. Go run your Mac classic applications on your new Macintel.

It is the lease open so it is the most stable target.

I'm able to run applications from the early 90s on my Linux installation. Hell, right now I'm running a old unix port of a Z-code interpreter (compiled quite a few years ago) to play some old text adventure games. By the way, my Linux installation has pretty much the latest stable versions of software on it too.

The new GPL 3 is a disaster.

The Linux kernel will not be licensed under the new GPL.

The lack of a stable binary driver interface is also a disaster.

Binary blob drivers are working fine for me.

Even if you where going to require the drivers to have the source available making it easy to install shrink wrap drivers is vital to Linux on the desktop.

Like what? The drivers comming preinstalled on linux systems... Well.. They are. Or ease of installation? Well, if you consider opening your package manager and typing in the search box "ati" or "nvidia" into it (since you're not using a preinstalled linux installation in this case), and click install, must be really tough for the user (not all distros are like this -- But why would you give a complex distro to a novice?).

Until a device maker can stick a CD in the box with a driver they know that the end user can install supporting Linux just isn't worth the trouble.

Like what? Windows? Where you get a stupid driver CD that says, "Designed for windows xp", then you put it into your windows xp sp2 system, and the driver causes bluescreens on every boot and the hardware doesn't work at all? The kind where most novice users will just reinstall windows from scratch, and then some how find out that they need to download the drivers from the manufactorer's website because for reason X it doesn't work with latest service pack? That kind?

Or maybe, we could say for example... wireless devices like wi-fi cards or bluetooth, not bother with the driver CD. Just expect the OS to work with it when you plug it in? Because I prefer that, and that's how my Linux installations pretty much work.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

People WANT TO BUY Photoshop.

And they're free to, although they may need Crossover if they can't get it running under Vanilla wine (heard it runs Photoshop 7, MS Office pretty well).

They do not want to learn GIMP.

Would they prefer Kirta (snapshot) since it's closer in looks and feel to Photoshop?

People want to buy nvidia and ATI video cards.

All my Linux installations have Nvidia/ATi cards.

They do not care about binary blobs.

Neither do I. But the machines that need them, have them. Not like a few mouse clicks made it hard to install.

And they do not want to be educated about how evil closed source is.

Personally I use Linux because I find it the better platform, the fact it's open source had nothing todo with my decision to use the platform.
There is none of this freezing up non-sense when I browse network shares (like under windows).
There is none of this primitive file manager non-sense that I get under Mac OS X, where I can't even continue copying files across somewhere, just because the connection to the file-share broke.
Theres none of this non-sense where I have to edit XML files under MacOSX to edit certain settings (got them all graphically under my Linux installation) and then reboot to see the changes (again, I don't have this under Linux) or even rebooting for stupid codec installations.

Plus, what the hell is it with that stupid terminal command to view/hide hidden files when I want to? Compared to what I use on Linux 'View -> Show hidden files', it's insane.

They will never look at the source. If they did they would never understand it.

Believe it or not, programmers are "people" too.

OS/X gives people the choice to buy the stuff they want instead of hoping that someone will write it.

Linux distributions aren't maintained only by hobbyists, there is a lot of commercial investment into desktop applications on the platform.

Just what percentage of people compile FireFox for Windows?

What percentage of users compile Firefox on Linux? I actually can't even recall a single person doing that -- and I am on quite a few Linux-related channels too.

What is the ratio of source to binary downloads?

Most distros are 'binary distros', in the top ten distros on distrowatch. There is only one source based, and it's number eight on that list.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[eh2o]

Linux wins on installation flexibility, hardware flexibility, and esoteric kernel tweaks. And for stability and ongoing maintenance of long-uptime server systems, it absolutely rocks. But for a desktop system, no thanks. Better than windows but there is no way I'd give up OSX (and I used a linux on the desktop full time for about 8 years (mostly Debian/Gnome but also KDE in the early days) before I "switched").

Not to say that OSX is perfectly consistent. I've found problems before -- for example as a dvorak typist I found several places where the "qwerty assumption" caused the keyboard layout to be violated. I filed bug reports on them, and on the next release found them to be fixed. Some people may not realize this but Apple actually drives a significant portion of their maintenance effort on the basis of bug reports. In fact some of their engineers are not allowed to work on things that don't close reports. So if you care about it and it affects your work, don't just sit around and gripe, file a report.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[kchrist]

No, I'd say that Linux makes more sense. At least Unix window managers tend to open new windows in an unused region of the screen instead of right over the top of whatever you were working with last...

Wow, thanks for mentioning my single biggest annoyance with using Linux desktops: Applications that open in random places around my desktop instead of the position they were in last.

I have a good-sized monitor, this does not mean I want the new Firefox window I just opened to appear crammed up into the top left corner of the screen. How about putting it in a cascading position the way it does on OS X and Windows? How about Evolution staying put where I always keep it instead of requiring me to reposition it every single time I open it?

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[LWATCDR]

"Believe it or not, programmers are "people" too."
Yes and I am one of them. Just about the only source I look at under Linux is example code. While having the source is nice it is a rare programmer that will dig into the kernel source.
Programmers are a very small part of the user base of computers today. Sad as that maybe. I was looking at cars and the salesperson made some comment about the on-board computer. It was something like computers run everything these days and no body understands them. It was funny to think well no I do.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Durandal64]

If a video codec installer told you to reboot, contact the developer immediately and tell him to take that out of the installer. You do not need to reboot to use newly-installed QuickTime codecs. You just need to relaunch any running QuickTime applications.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[rm69990]

Your point is? If I owned a computer store should I start only pre-installing Linux because that's what runs on the store router? Just so we're clear, you were attempting to make some kind of point, weren't you?

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

If a video codec installer told you to reboot, contact the developer immediately and tell him to take that out of the installer.

I tried to use them without restarting, it didn't work. So I'd say it's required.

You do not need to reboot to use newly-installed QuickTime codecs.

Oh really? For example, the vp3 codec and 3ivx codec wouldn't work without a restart (I had the same issue with all codecs). Even though I had made sure all QuickTime processes were killed before trying.

You just need to relaunch any running QuickTime applications.

Only had QuickTime and Camino open, I closed Camino in the end to try to avoid a restart -- nope.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

While having the source is nice it is a rare programmer that will dig into the kernel source.

I've looked at existing implementations of software (like Wine, kdeadmin, kio_http) to learn new tricks -- so pretty much like example code to you.

While having the source is nice it is a rare programmer that will dig into the kernel source.

I agree. Although I'll have to say it would be more common for a programmer to look at a application's sourcecode more than the kernel's. After all, programmers tend to 'write new'/'add to' applications more-so than new kernels.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

And these statistics came from where exactly?

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Durandal64]

Then something is seriously wrong with your install. Hell, Perian is a drag-n-drop install, and it worked just fine for me. So did the AC3 decoder component. I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codec, and the last time an installer told me to, I force-quitted it and went about my merry way.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

Then something is seriously wrong with your install.

This is on fresh Mac OS X installs (generally the time when I do install a bunch of codecs) -- I can clearly replicate this issue infront of others.

I doubt something was wrong with my fresh OS X installs from the original discs.

It is possible I was installing them wrong, but then again, how do you go wrong with copying files to /Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/Components and /Library/QuickTime or opening their installers?I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codecI am utterly amazed you got it working (assuming you're not playing on words there and assuming you didn't do some additional trick) without a reboot, I couldn't.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

Correction (blockquote broke):

I've never had to reboot to install a QuickTime codec

I am utterly amazed you got it working (assuming you're not playing on words there and assuming you didn't do some additional trick) without a reboot, I couldn't.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Weedlekin]

People who ask for statistics tend to forget the fact that unlike OS X, Linux runs on rather more than just personal computers and servers. There is a large and growing market for embedded Linux that includes:

3 million Tivo subscribers in the US, plus another million in the UK (Sky+).

These mobile phones use Linux as their OS: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9423084269. html

According to this article (http://www.internetnews.com/wireless/article.php/ 3584431), Linux had a 23% share of the mobile phone market in 2005, which is nearly twice as much as Microsoft's 12.5% during the same period.

In this article (http://www.gartner.com/press_releases/asset_13247 3_11.html), Gartner say that there were 778.75 million mobile phones sold in 2005, so Linux's 23% of that equates to something in excess of 179 million units, which is a hell of a lot more than the 4 million or so Macs that were sold in the same year.

Note also that embedded Linux is used on a lot more than mobile phones, e.g:

A bunch of VOIP phones: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT9615003856. html
Linux-based routers, switches, and similar devices: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2005548492.html
Tablets and webpads with Linux: http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8349493265.html
A high-end music synthesizer: http://digitalmedia.oreilly.com/2005/11/09/inside- the-korg-oasys.html

I could probably Google around and find all manner of other embedded systems running Linux, but cannot be bothered.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Durandal64]

All QuickTime components go into /Library/QuickTime. Simply quitting and relaunching apps which link against the QuickTime framework will automatically load new components. I just installed DivX on my laptop, and it did not ask for a restart. And I was able to open a DivX movie immediately. (I had not had DivX previously installed on this machine.) The Perian QuickTime component is a drag-n-drop install.

Sorry man, you've got to be doing something wrong.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Ash-Fox]

Sorry man, you've got to be doing something wrong.

Then how do you explain it working after a reboot?

If I'm installing it wrong, most certainly it wouldn't be working after a reboot.

Re:Come on, what about Linux

[Durandal64]

Couldn't tell you; I'm not on your system. But if it's reproducible, file a bug with Apple. That's not what should be happening.

Big companies!

[NineNine]

One massive multinational corporation working with another. Why should I be excited about this? Is this news? Is this a good thing?

Re:Big companies!

[Kyokugenryu]

1. You shouldn't.
2. No.
3. No.

Re:Big companies!

[foobsr]

One massive multinational corporation working with another. Why should I be excited about this? Is this news? Is this a good thing?

You should be afraid.

CC.

Re:Big companies!

[Anonymous Coward]

sheeeesh! another "is this news?" whiner.....

Re:Big companies!

[ubrgeek]

Seeing as: 1)Both are obviously highly important tech companies 2)The products of tech companies are generally of interest to nerds, and 3) /. is about "news for nerds" If you don't think this is "news" based on the above three, you should: 1) Visit other sites, or 2) Shut the hell up. You guys bitch when there's a dupe, you bitch when their isn't. You're the reason for some of the categories available to mods.

Re:Big companies!

[Reaperducer]

Yeah -- multinational corporations all suck. Just like the one that your .sig links to. Hypocrite.

Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a Mac version.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[wootest]

Top right corner.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotlight != Google Desktop

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[saha]

That would seem really redundant. One could argue Apple's Spotlight is better than Google Desktop because it is more extensible to multiple file formats (allows developers to write plug-ins). Spotlight was indexing more file formats before Google Desktop first version. Spotlight will index a document up to 10MB, Google indexes only the first 5,000 words in a file, while MSN indexes one megabyte. Also Dominic Giampaolo who created BFS for BeOS, shortly worked in Google and now Apple developing Spotlight to work on top of HFS+. I like Picasa on Windows, because it is light weight and fast, but Google probably realizes that iPhoto does a decent job. There are features on both sides that I like, but iPhoto on the Mac is good enough and probably why Google won't have Picasa until iPhoto becomes a slow and lumber behemoth program.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[mjjw]

Not the same, but QuickSilver is an awesome search and run utility. Although I have started to think of it as Start -> Run on steroids rather than a search tool.

http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[zootm]

They are sufficiently similar (especially with Dashboard Widgets making up the slack) that it wouldn't make a lot of sense to provide Google Desktop for the Mac, though.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[fritzk3]

The one glaring sin that I have found in Picasa is that when you import pictures from a camera/media card, Picasa ERADICATES the time/date stored in the EXIF information with the time and date that the picture was imported into Picasa! This, to me, is unforgivable... and the main reason why I will not use Picasa.

(My personal favorite photo browser/editor is FastStone Image Viewer. No, I don't work for them. Just a satisfied user.)

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Google Desktop has indexing plugins. fyi.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

google desktop also allows users to write plug ins for other file formats.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Spotlight support searching multiple computers across the internet?

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[MaWeiTao]

I've used Quicksilver for a while and I do like it. However, since having discovered Spotlight I don't see much of a need for it and this way I don't need yet another application running in the background.

I do like how I can customize Quicksilver's interface and how I can put it anywhere on the screen.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[james72]

I wish that they would bring Picasa to the Mac. Picassa is so smooth and effortless with my 50000 image collection under Bootcamp on my 24" iMac. I bought iViewMediaPro, have tried Adobe Lightroom Beta 4.1, and iPhoto, and none of them suit my needs of a quick, intuitive, non-invasive photo viewer / archive manager. Plus, they are all downright SLOW in comparison to Picasa. I would try Aperture, but won't until I can try before I buy.

I wonder if Apple don't want Picasa on the Mac, since it performs so much better, and makes something of a mockery of iPhoto? Anyone disagree with what I'm saying? Am I being unfair on the Apple platform products?

-James.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[wootest]

Not for another 5 months or so, no.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop?

[Sandcastle]

I would try Aperture, but won't until I can try before I buy.

Ask and ye shall receive...
Aperture Trial

Google Loves Apple

[as400tek]

While I do not know anyone who works for Google I have been a fan of Google and where they are going in the market for my own personal financial reasons....STOCK. I notice every time they take a camera inside Google or have photos of Google people they are using Macs. I am a Mac user and I understand that the majority of desktops are Windows, but I always wondered why Google we not publicly more PRO-Mac since they subscribe to that philosophy internally. I know I read somewhere about 3 years ago they employees were encouraged to choose a mac Desktop due to the ease of use and security of the platform. I would like to see more Pr-Mac companies out there or at least offer your employees the options to pick what they run....Windows, Linux or Mac?

Re:Google Loves Apple

[0racle]

Have you thought that they always show Macs when they take cameras in because the Macs look better and the 'image' of the Mac fits closer to the image they would like to project of the work environment?

Re:Google Loves Apple

[0100010001010011]

On TV shows and ads I can see how that would be a valid reasion. But I highly doubt that anytime Google is giving a presentation or a tour they're going to make everyone stop working. Swap out their desktops and swap in Macs for a day or so. Then make them swap back. It just doesn't make sense.

Re:Google Loves Apple

[0racle]

They don't have to make everyone stop working, they control where cameras and tours are going to go. All they have to have is a policy that if you work in a highly visible area, you're going to use a Mac.

Re:Google Loves Apple

[IamTheRealMike]

Google isn't "pro" anything, in terms of platform choice. Hate to break it to you but whilst a lot of laptops are Macs virtually all desktops are either Linux or Windows.

Re:Google Loves Apple

[kchrist]

When my SO started work there she was told that they'd be ordering her a Powerbook, followed by "unless you want to use Windows".

So yes, at least some parts of the company not only prefer Macs but use them by default.

You want them to buy Suse?

[Courageous]

them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux...

You mean you think Google should buy Suse?

ba-da-ding
ba-da-boom
cha-cha-cha

C//

All for it.

[ReiDragon]

I've just recently switched back over to mac from working with a PC for a while after selling a mac mini. The one thing i've had a problem with both then and now is finding software that i used on the PC and finding a worthwhile replacement on the mac.

With google joining the team with mac development it seems that other companies may join them and start to develop programs for the mac platform, or would that be too far fetched to see? I guess it may turn into a version of "monkey see, monkey do" for some companies now that google shows that there is a large market for a different system other than windows.

Re:All for it.

[0100010001010011]

If you don't mind my asking, what software did you have a problem finding?

I'm not saying that there is a replacement, but in 15 years of owning a mac, I've never had this problem other than in the Engineering realm. AutoCAD, Matlab (yes it exists, but it sucks), etc...

Re:All for it.

[ReiDragon]

At the moment it's my school software that's causing a problem for me. But that's easily fixed using an emulator for a windows OS. One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partions on my mac (i only have one drive so i don't know if there's anything possible for that. Overall i agree there's a lot of programs for the mac that replace PC apps, but there's some that are released just for PC when it's not assumed that people would use otherwise (my school lab software for example).

Re:All for it.

[Oliver Defacszio]

For me, as a fairly recent Mac convert (about four or five months), these are the applications I've not been able to recreate well on the Mac:

1. FrameMaker
2. PIC programming software
3. Winamp (yes, I know that there are countless a/v players for Mac, but none seem to be as simple and intuitive to me)

Other than those, I've often found it easier to find tools to "do things" for OS X than it was for Windows.

Re:All for it.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partions on my mac...

Have you tried Applications: Utilities: Disk Utility.app? I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but the disk utility can manage partitions on your mac and if you have an Intel machine, can nondestructively partition them.

Re:All for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partitions"

I assume you mean resizing partitions on the fly? OSX has a partition utility that's very easy. But only for reformatting, IIRC. A Google search finds this: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20041 130014827278 Maybe it's what you are looking for.

Re:All for it.

[WhiteWolf666]

AFAIK the GUI can only destructive repartition. You have to use the command line version to nondestructively repartition.

That being said, there are many excellent Linux live cd's that can be used to repartition drives. Take a Look

These will boot just fine on an intel mac, and I'm sure you could piece together a PPC version.

Re:All for it.

[Baricom]

Anything in particular you're looking for as far as a music player goes? I was a die-hard Winamp user since right before we were grumbling about version 3 ;).

I'm using iTunes combined with QuickSilver as a music player right now. I find the combination works well. You can play most common combinations of music (album, artist, genre, etc.) with a few keystrokes, and you can also run playlists if you've set them up beforehand.

For ripping, I use Max. It can simultaneously rip to FLAC, OGG, MP3, and others I'm sure I'm missing. The metadata comes from MusicBrainz. You can also pull metadata from the iTunes Store (for free) with a little AppleScript. I've almost got my particularly picky ripping process completely automated - insert CD, and 10 minutes later, the FLAC files are on my home server and backup drive, and the MP3s are imported into iTunes.

Re:All for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing more pathetic than a PC user is a PC user trying to be a Mac user. We have a name for you people: switcheurs.

There's a good reason for your vexation at the Mac's application ecosystem: You don't speak its language. Remember that the Mac was designed by artists, for artists, be they poets, musicians, or avant-garde mathematicians. A shiny new Mac can introduce your frathouse hovel to a modicum of good taste, but it can't make Mac users out of dweebs and squares like you.

So don't force what doesn't come naturally. You'll be much happier if you stick to an OS that matches your personality. And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige to you.

Re:All for it.

[macs4all]

No, there's absolutely NO support for PIC programming in OS X:

http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.20/20. 02/PICMicrocontroller/index.html

http://polarfront.org/archives/000537.html

http://blog.paddlefish.net/archives/2004/12/usb_pi ckit_tool.html

http://robrohan.com/projects/PIConOSX/

http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/22/011123 8

http://www.teammojo.org/PICkit/pickit1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPUTILS

http://lawlor.cs.uaf.edu/~olawlor/projects/2003/mi crochip/

http://www.gnupic.org/

Re:All for it.

[generica1]

VolumeWorks, although it is not free or open source, has worked *extremely* well for me. Mind you, I have only used it to resize and move HFS partitions on a Mac-formatted partition table. I haven't created PC Partitions with it, resized ext2/3, or anything weird like that. I have also had luck using the PPC port of Ubuntu's LiveCD, to partition a PC-style partition table on a Mac that was going to be set up as a file server running Linux.

YMMV. Best of luck! Not an employee of SubRosaSoft (makers of VolumeWorks), just a happy customer.

Re:All for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

How old were you when you realized you were a faggot?

Re:All for it.

[calciphus]

I hate to break it to all the Apple fans, but despite what the article may imply, there is not, in fact, a significant increase in Apple's sales. Apple's market share has grown by a half of a percent since January (% of total computers online running some variant of Apple's OS, source: w3cschools.com). By contrast, Windows XP has grown by 4% in that time. In fact, every part of the Windows family has grown except Windows 98/2000. So it seems that what's really happening is that the bottom-end users are switching to Macs. The people who were running Windows 98, 8 years after it came out, have finally switched to Mac.

And I'm sure they're a market force to be reckoned with. Be afraid! The users who replace their computers once every 8 years are the BEST indicators of a company's health.

What about the fact that the iPod family is the only sector of Apple still in the black? Every other part of that company is losing money (source: 2005 Apple Annual Report). Their computers are a marketing move, not an actual product. They are an image, nothing more.

And the Safari browser amounts to less than a tenth of a percent of the browsers online. Spending excessive hours making something "safari compatible" (since it isn't particularly standards compliant in my experience as a web developer) is a waste of a programmer's time and a company's money. Do you worry about what your web site looks like to the color blind (~5% of online population)? That's a much better place to spend your time than on Safari compatibility.

And god forbid they actually make something "safari native" or "safari exclusive" unless it's a plugin that shows you what every page would look like if you were running Firefox.

is this substantive?

[macurmudgeon]

Does this hint at an alliance of the "enemy of my enemy is my ally" type or it just the currently cool kids getting together to be, well, cool?

Re:is this substantive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supporting Mac for Google projects is NOT an anti-Microsoft intiative. It's simply about supporting Mac users as well as Windows users. This does not mean Google is going to abandon the Windows platform. It does not mean Google is going to "break" their site for IE and force viewing on conforming-only browsers. It does not mean Google is going to release a Linux/Apple Google-branded PC and try to break Microsoft's stranglehold monopoly on the home/business-user OS market. Where on earth do you people get these ideas?

It means the cool little Google applets will be better supported under Mac.

makes sense

[not already in use]

Mac's don't enjoy a huge portion of the market share when looking at the overall picture, but when you look at some key professional markets -- music, video, and web design and programming, Mac's are actually pretty popular. Only makes sense that Google, who has catered unconditionally to developers would do such a thing. Not to mention, it just makes sense to support a platform that is in direct competition with Google's own competition, that being Microsoft.

Re:makes sense

[Junks Jerzey]

Mac's don't enjoy a huge portion of the market share when looking at the overall picture, but when you look at some key professional markets -- music, video, and web design and programming, Mac's are actually pretty popular.

And also note that the the Mac marketshare is on the rise. For notebooks, especially, it's becoming significant. Any time I'm in a local coffeeshop or other place where there are people using notebook computers, 30-50% of them are Macs (typically iBooks and non-pro MacBooks). Five years ago this was unheard of.

Re:makes sense

[williamstome]

What market growth? from 3% to 4%?

anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.

Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer

I'm not dissing macs, I'm just correcting people who think that Macs are better for video editingm programming, etc.

Macs have superiority when it comes to basic media jobs.

If you want anything serious, professional, or want to play any games, you want a PC

Re:makes sense

[pivo]

anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.

Hey, that's the stupidest comment I've seen in days. Congratulations!

Re:makes sense

[alphaseven]

Any time I'm in a local coffeeshop or other place where there are people using notebook computers, 30-50% of them are Macs (typically iBooks and non-pro MacBooks). Five years ago this was unheard of.

I've been assuming Apple was just paying people to hang out in trendy coffee shops with Macbooks.

Re:makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know whereabouts you come from, but in all the recording studios I've been to you'll be hard pushed to find a Windows machine outside the admin office.

For studio work, the Mac is the only choice - you'll get grown sound engineers laugh at you if you suggest using Windows for serious work.

Re:makes sense

[Durandal64]

What market growth? from 3% to 4%?

Do you think a full percent of marketshare growth is something trivial? Here's the interesting thing about marketshare numbers: they include corporate workstations. So when a business buys an ass-load of workstations from Dell for dirt-cheap, that's factored into marketshare calculations. Since Apple has virtually no presence in the dirt-cheap, bargain-basement corporate workstation arena, their numbers suffer as a result. If you looked at just what home users were buying, Apple's numbers would probably be higher. Hell, in the retail space, Apple's laptop marketshare is 12%. That's nothing to sneeze at.

anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.

What are you, fucking retarded? C# isn't "written in" anything. It's a programming language, and OS X users can use Mono if they really want to work with it.

Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer

Oh yeah, Final Cut Pro is just a niche product. As is Logic. Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Here's something serious for you that a Windows PC can't do: run Windows, Linux and Mac OS X without resorting to kernel hacking. My old help desk started moving to Intel Macs because the analysts could troubleshoot Windows and Mac OS X issues from the same machine using Parallels. Giving tech support jockies an all-in-one in both the hardware and software sense is very appealing if you're a help desk that supports Macs, like most universities.

I'm not dissing macs, I'm just correcting people who think that Macs are better for video editingm programming, etc.

Oh yeah, Windows machines are way better for programming. I forgot, Mac OS X isn't Turing Complete. It can't do "for" loops.

Dude, have you ever actually used a Mac, much less coded on one? You sound like a first-year CS student whose school is pushing .Net on students as The One True Way, so now you're concluding that since Macs can't compile .Net applications (they can), they must therefore be "worse at programming".

Re:makes sense

[Trumpet of Doom]

Oh man, that would be one of the world's coolest jobs... also make for some interesting stories when filling out one's forms for the IRS. Occupation: "Uhm..."

Or wait, even better: "So, what do you do for a living?"
"Oh, I hang out at Starbucks with a computer that I'm not really sure how to use."

Yeah, awkward... I get it.

Re:makes sense

[Douglas Goodall]

I agree. The Mac is a fine development workstation. And BBEdit is an asset to a programmer's kit. I started using it for Python programming and my productivity shot right up. Wow! Beyond that, if the GNU compler collection doesn't have what you need, write it... :-)

Say wah?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Then following Microsoft MacBU's lead, Google started their own Mac Blog a few weeks earlier."

Me confused. Time travel available now?

Amit Singh at Google?

[camt]

Only good things can possibly come from that.

That must be the coolest job in the world: working on Macs for Google.

$$Money$$

[pkcs11]

All business endeavors are about money. Google is getting edged off the windows desktop, so they partner up with Apple to reduce the exposure to risk.
A cool possible side-effect: Google helps boost Mac onto more desktops.

Re:$$Money$$

[rm69990]

How exactly is Google getting "edged" of the Windows desktop? Last I checked, their market share was going up....

Re:$$Money$$

[TheMacThinker]

I think google is planning something big with Apple in the enxt few year... --------- Wanna get the most out of your mac? Visit: www.mostofmymac.com

Re:$$Money$$

[pkcs11]

Pretty sure Netscape could explain how easy it is to get edged out of a market place by using exclusionary tactics.

just curious

[General Lee's Peking]

Also wondering if all this is just Google's response to Apple's market growth or maybe a more serious partnership is coming?

When you're talking about Apple's market growth are you just talking about Apple's stock prices going up? Unless Apple actually gets a larger chunk of the desktop, I don't see what benefit this would be to Google. Is Apple actually getting a larger chunk of the desktop? As a fan of both BSD flavored Unix and the Mac GUI, I had always been hoping that companies would develop for the Mac just because it's so cool. I've just had to accept that things just don't work that way. Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

Re:just curious

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Is Apple actually getting a larger chunk of the desktop?

From the numbers I've seen, yes, kinda. They are gaining ground in the US and Europe (from 4% to about 6%) in sales at least. They are slightly losing ground worldwide as they can't keep up with the growth rate in computer use around the world.

Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

This is changing as well, from what I've seen. In the last few years a lot of the UNIX/Linux crowd has moved to OS X laptops and I think the move to intel will bring even more. Hardcore developers are still contributing to Linux/UNIX, but focused more on the server. I've seen a lot of CLI utilities starting to get support for new features first on OS X, and then on Linux. I've seen a fair number of projects start up that are Mac only, since the users are on that platforms and coding multiple GUIs is time consuming. I find this somewhat discouraging since I'd rather have portable applications, but realistically I'm one of those OS X on the desktop people, so it does benefit me.

I anticipate some serious brain drain in the Linux on the desktop community unless there is better support for portable applications or some heavyweights really pour effort into making Linux desktops (probably for enterprise use).

Not the first big news in Apple-Google partnership

[jbx]

You do remember that Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, recently joined Apple's board, right?

And you do remember Google's place in Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford? And I quote:

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Sensible

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The largest threat to Google's online services business is Microsoft. Microsoft can and does illegally leverage their monopoly on desktop OS's to defeat superior offerings from competitors. Microsoft is putting a lot of resources into defeating Google, not only by making comparable services, but by tying those services to Windows and tying the Web in general to Windows by their use of proprietary technologies and their intentional refusal to fully implement standards in IE. Microsoft's plan is obviously to keep Web technologies weak by keeping capabilities on a default Windows install weak until they have a solution that locks people in.

If MS is using their OS monopoly to leverage an attack on Web services, it only makes sense for Google to make an effort to return fire and do what they can to mitigate that threat. The most widely adopted alternative (by most accounts) is Mac OS X. The small amount of cash needed to support it as well as Windows can potentially provide a great deal of benefit. Additionally, it provides a test as to whether or not they are keeping their services portable, something that promotes good coding in general and fits with their long term goals.

Now is that their motivation? I'd say, that is some justification, but probably not their main motivation. The truth is, a lot of people at Google use macs (or so I've been told, I know two people there and one uses a Mac) and they want services to work because of that. Google has been very practical about this. Mac compatibility is not a requirement, especially for Beta software they have acquired, but everything works on the Mac eventually that makes sense on that platform. Keep up the good work guys.

Re:Sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

"The largest threat to Google's online services business is Microsoft. Microsoft can and does illegally leverage their monopoly on desktop OS's to defeat superior offerings from competitors. Microsoft is putting a lot of resources into defeating Google, not only by making comparable services, but by tying those services to Windows and tying the Web in general to Windows by their use of proprietary technologies and their intentional refusal to fully implement standards in IE. Microsoft's plan is obviously to keep Web technologies weak by keeping capabilities on a default Windows install weak until they have a solution that locks people in."

Do you mind elaborating how exactly Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly to defeat Google? The only concrete example I see here is that they do not implement standards in IE - but pray, I ask you, does Firefox fully implement all the standards? Last time I checked, Firefox 2 did not pass the ACID2 test (if that's any measure of standards). IE7 is a great improvement over IE6 and an indication that Microsoft is listening, and doing something to change themselves. Perhaps they do deserve some credit for it. My point is that with so many eyes watching Microsoft at any given moment and at their every move (DOJ, EU, *every* software company affected by Microsoft), this monopoly thing is getting old. Perhaps when making this statement, you should provide concrete examples on how exactly that is happening.

Re:Sensible

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Do you mind elaborating how exactly Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly to defeat Google?

Bundling IE is the major method, and then what they include and do not include in IE.

The only concrete example I see here is that they do not implement standards in IE - but pray, I ask you, does Firefox fully implement all the standards?

Well, Firefox does implement standards in general. Every time I've followed the W3C spec it has worked in Firefox (and Safari and Opera, etc.) but it has not worked in IE. IE implements about 50% of the standards while other browsers are close to 90% I'd guess. No one is perfect, but IE versus the industry shows a huge difference.

All of this, however, is academic. Firefox is not bundled with a monopoly and what works and what is included and what is broken does not help the Firefox team take over some other market. Unless you have a monopoly, you can't use that monopoly as leverage. If Firefox does not implement some feature, it is just as easy to use Opera. If IE fails to implement something, because it is bundled in Windows, most people will not switch because everything else is harder. It requires education, knowledge, and technical expertise to download, install, and run any browser but IE.

Last time I checked, Firefox 2 did not pass the ACID2 test (if that's any measure of standards).

The ACID2 test is edge cases for the most part, not a test of how comprehensively a given browser adheres to standards. It is like shining a laser on a mirror to see how reflective it is. Firefox and Opera and Safari are all consumer grade mirrors and the ACID2 test is useful for determining which is best. IE is like a piece of aluminum and using the ACID2 test on it is a waste of time.

IE7 is a great improvement over IE6 and an indication that Microsoft is listening, and doing something to change themselves.

I auto-generate some pages. I wrote the code based upon the spec. When I wrote it, I tested it. It worked fine in every single browser I could find, except IE, which completely failed because they did not implement most of CSS2 and any of XHTML that was not coincidentally HTML. When IE7 came out I tested it too. It completely failed to render as well, and added an additional random bug. From reading the IE dev teams comments it seems they're up to implementing about 50% of CSS2 and still haven't implemented any XHTML. They fixed some bugs, but are nowhere near implementing the standards the rest of the industry has had for many, many years.

My point is that with so many eyes watching Microsoft at any given moment and at their every move (DOJ, EU, *every* software company affected by Microsoft), this monopoly thing is getting old.

I agree, MS should stop abusing their monopoly or the courts should actually take meaningful action against them. MS won't stop though, because they're making a fortune breaking the law. The courts won't act though, because MS is one of the largest contributors to both the Republican and Democratic parties and our government is absurdly corrupt.

Perhaps when making this statement, you should provide concrete examples on how exactly that is happening.

I did and I've elaborated upon them, but I find explaining antitrust abuse tedious. I've explained it on Slashdot a hundred times by now, but the vast majority of the people who respond have no understanding of the law or the purpose of the law. Somehow they missed that chapter in Econ 101. It isn't really all that complex, but I'm sick of explaining it over and over again. Five minutes with wikipedia and a reasonably intelligent person can see the obvious abuses from Microsoft and why they are detrimental/illegal. And yet, every time I post about MS's monopoly abuse someone has to respond with an analogy and those analogies always (and I do mean always) reference the actions of a company that is not a monopoly. Maybe these people are astroturfers, but I only have so much time.

Even your post, you compare IE to Firefox, but IE is bundled with Windows, which is a monopoly, while the Firefox team has no monopoly on anything. Why people can't understand how this changes things is beyond my understanding.

Re:Sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's talk about bundling IE with the OS. As a result of the ruling in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, Microsoft was forced to de-couple the browser from the OS so that it could be easily removed/replaced. Microsoft did that. Now, you probably argue that Microsoft should basically *not* ship IE with Windows at all because that would be leveraging its monopoly. I argue that users should have a way to get online (out of the box), find the best browser out there and have the ability of uninstalling the current one and using the one they lile. All of this is possible today. Even OEMs like Dell/HP/Gateway etc. have the ability of modifying the pre-install image of Windows to *remove* IE, add Firefox and ship their systems like that. The options are all out there. The verdict was read, and Microsoft complied. So, is there a problem still? With your understanding, once a particular OS company reaches a particular market share, they can only ship a barebones OS because everything else would be leveraging their monopoly. That is absurd.

I agree that IE7 is still not there yet. But the point is that they are making efforts. They have realized that by isolating their users and themselves, they are only going to be making enemies. The work is not done yet (is it ever?), but they are making headway and by the sounds of it, they are headed in the right direction. In the meanwhile, feel free to convince Dell/HP/etc to bundle Firefox with their systems since it doesn't break your tests.

Not everything is Microsoft's fault. Yes, they are the bigger player out there, but there are many others who are making profit out of the business while Microsoft takes all the blame.

Re:Sensible

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Now, you probably argue that Microsoft should basically *not* ship IE with Windows at all because that would be leveraging its monopoly. I argue that users should have a way to get online (out of the box), find the best browser out there and have the ability of uninstalling the current one and using the one they lile.

You're making a few false assumptions. Microsoft not bundling IE with Windows does not mean the computer people buy does not have a browser bundled with it. There is no need to make a bowser easily removable, simply for MS to be forbidden from bundling so that OEMs like Dell can and must choose one or more browsers to install.

Even OEMs like Dell/HP/Gateway etc. have the ability of modifying the pre-install image of Windows to *remove* IE, add Firefox and ship their systems like that.

So here's the problem, doing that is hard and breaks things in Windows. Because the abuse has gone on as long as it has, the Web itself has been altered to cater to IE. As a result, OEMs have incentive to choose IE, even if it is not the best product, simply because of the damaged state of the industry.

With your understanding, once a particular OS company reaches a particular market share, they can only ship a barebones OS because everything else would be leveraging their monopoly. That is absurd.

Why is that absurd? Why shouldn't IE have to compete with Firefox when OEMs decide what to bundle? Why shouldn't iTunes compete evenly with WMP when OEMs decide what to ship? Why should MS be given control of a market simply because they have control of a different one?

I agree that IE7 is still not there yet. But the point is that they are making efforts.

No, they're not. Every other browser on the market has managed to implement the standards well enough that a random standards compliant set of pages I make works in them. They managed this years ago. Microsoft has a thousand times the resources of most of these companies/projects but they haven't? Either they are incompetent beyond reason or they are intentionally holding back the standards until they can lock people in.

They have realized that by isolating their users and themselves, they are only going to be making enemies.

Umm, no they're also making billions of dollars and stopping the industry from making their current monopoly less valuable. Monopoly abuse, if not stopped, is profitable. If the courts don't act, MS will not stop, ever.

In the meanwhile, feel free to convince Dell/HP/etc to bundle Firefox with their systems since it doesn't break your tests.

They won't and even if some of them do, that does not fix the market. The problem is not just that Firefox isn't bundled, it is that IE is bundled.

Not everything is Microsoft's fault. Yes, they are the bigger player out there, but there are many others who are making profit out of the business while Microsoft takes all the blame.

No, not everything is Microsoft's fault, but this is. They knowingly broke the law for profit, then bribed politicians to avoid being punished. They are still doing it and consumers, competitors, and the industry as a whole is suffering as a result. They are criminals breaking the law and should be stopped and punished.

Re:Sensible

[Anonymous Coward]

So here's the problem, doing that is hard and breaks things in Windows

No, it's not and it does not. Go search for OPK/WAIK on MSDN.

Because the abuse has gone on as long as it has, the Web itself has been altered to cater to IE. As a result, OEMs have incentive to choose IE, even if it is not the best product, simply because of the damaged state of the industry.

So there were errors made in the past. Nobody is denying that. But it's time to move on and do the right thing moving forward. Microsoft is not stopping anyone from doing that. They are actually spending resources to make that possible.

Why is that absurd? Why shouldn't IE have to compete with Firefox when OEMs decide what to bundle? Why shouldn't iTunes compete evenly with WMP when OEMs decide what to ship? Why should MS be given control of a market simply because they have control of a different one?

No one is stopping the OEMs from pre-installing iTunes/Firefox/etc. on their systems. Seriously, if you have ever worked on a Windows image, you will realize that it takes *one* command to remove an optional component such as IE/WMP. Dell/HP/etc. spend *hours* tweaking their images, so it really doesn't take much on their part to replace the inbox browser. It's time for *them* to make a decision, Microsoft's not going to go out of their way to convince them. Like you said, it does not make business sense.

Microsoft has a thousand times the resources of most of these companies/projects but they haven't? Either they are incompetent beyond reason or they are intentionally holding back the standards until they can lock people in.

When you are as large a business as Microsoft with so many customers, you actually pay for every decision you make ten years hence. Making a complete 180 turn in one release breaks a lot of things. Have you ever heard of the term "backwards compatibility"? Yes, it is evil and everyone wishes that it didn't exist. But guess what, it reality, it does. So if Microsoft takes one IE release and changes things completely around, a lot of customers get pissed. It's an eco-system and it takes time for it to change. At least it has started to happen.

They knowingly broke the law for profit, then bribed politicians to avoid being punished.

Aah, bribing politicians. Are we really going to go there? What proof do you have? As for being punished, I believe they have already been punished. There are a set of compliance guidelines that were produced as a result of the anti-trust verdict and Microsoft does openly admit that it follows those religiously. If it doesn't, there are hundreds of hounds out there to take a pound of flesh away from Microsoft. It's in the best interest (business/ethics) of Microsoft to follow these.

Re:Sensible

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No, it's not and it does not. Go search for OPK/WAIK on MSDN.

What does that have to do with it? Because many things are built upon the presumption that IE will be there, things from lots of places break when you try to install them without it.

So there were errors made in the past. Nobody is denying that. But it's time to move on and do the right thing moving forward.

Lets apply this logic to other criminal acts. So he stole a million dollars and used it to buy a house and a car and get his cousin elected mayor. That is in the past. There is no need to take the house and car away or repeal the laws passed to favor him. We need to move forward.

Doesn't that seem a little counterproductive to you?

No one is stopping the OEMs from pre-installing iTunes/Firefox/etc. on their systems.

That isn't good enough. It needs to be a level playing field.

Dell/HP/etc. spend *hours* tweaking their images, so it really doesn't take much on their part to replace the inbox browser. It's time for *them* to make a decision, Microsoft's not going to go out of their way to convince them.

What makes you think this? Their licensing agreements are "trade secrets" but we do know that in the past they charged much higher prices if companies would not agree to pay for a Windows license for all machines sold, in some cases even macs that could not run Windows. What makes you think they aren't applying that pressure now?

ah, bribing politicians. Are we really going to go there? What proof do you have?

The money MS legally donated to both parties is a matter of public record. Just because it is legal does not make it right. You do know all the Justice dept. officials were replaced right after the election, right? And MS was not punished at all and given no consequences after having been found guilty.

There are a set of compliance guidelines that were produced as a result of the anti-trust verdict and Microsoft does openly admit that it follows those religiously.

Actually, they failed to comply with those guidelines, as in regard to providing documentation, but the punishment for that is the government will observe them not comply longer. It is a fiasco, and if you followed the industry news you probably heard about it. They were given basically no punishment at all and it hasn't stopped them from introducing numerous other antitrust violations, like Windows Media player.

Re:Sensible

[funvin]

"Bundling IE is the major method"
So what do you expect? Windows should be shipped without a browser? Oh I just bought a windows PC but how do I surf internet on it? Oh for that you should buy a mac that comes BUNDLED with safari & cool media player and cool everything and is EU proof. Oh, & macs don't evne have viruses. There are security holes discovered, but no one ever cares to write a virus.

Re:Sensible

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

So what do you expect? Windows should be shipped without a browser?

Yes.

Oh I just bought a windows PC but how do I surf internet on it?

You use the browser pre-installed on the computer, specifically chosen by the OEM, not by Microsoft.

Oh for that you should buy a mac that comes BUNDLED with safari & cool media player and cool everything and is EU proof.

Did you even read my comment. Go back and read the part about how clueless people always present an analogy and it is always a non-monopoly. Gee, Apple is a non-monopoly for OS's and computers. Brilliant!

Google for Mac-sites

[CiaoYunz]

http://www.google.com/mac

Follow the money...

[djupedal]

...do you have any idea how much iTMS is worth? Talk about profit...

Re:Follow the money...

[LauraW]

do you have any idea how much iTMS is worth

Not a lot, actually. Though Apple makes a profit on iTMS, haven't they said publicly that the main point is that iTMS helps sell lots of iPods?

Re:Follow the money...

[Trumpet of Doom]

Yes... I can't remember where I saw it (probably here on /.), but I think it covers its own operational expenses and maybe a couple of extra cents every $1,000 or so.

Speaker BIOS?

[Viol8]

How many BIOSes does it have?? I know these new Macs are hi-end kit but even so....

Macs...

[glowingsnowball]

Macs were so sick of getting there ass kicked they made a good OS.I grew up with Macs sucking hardcore. I always believed that a mac was flashy and didn't do anything. My girlfriends brother in law showed me Mac OSX and it's so amazing it shouldn't count as a Mac OS. I hope that google teams up with Apple becuase Apple is finaly heading in the right direction where microsoft is heading in the wrong direction.

Re:Macs...

[green pizza]

Macs were so sick of getting there ass kicked they made a good OS.I grew up with Macs sucking hardcore. I always believed that a mac was flashy and didn't do anything. My girlfriends brother in law showed me Mac OSX and it's so amazing it shouldn't count as a Mac OS.

That's because Mac OS X is more like NeXTSTEP 5.x than it is Mac OS 10.x.

Steve Jobs and his engineers took over when Apple bought NeXT* in 1997. First step was damage control, next step was marketing, and now we're finally seeing the sweet products and solid engineering. Apple was great in the 1980s, but that old hardware sucked on newer versions of Mac OS by the early 1990s, and the new machines then weren't much better. By 1996 the Mac OS world was a hellufa mess.

*Some people say NeXT bought Apple for negative $400M :)

Re:Macs...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Mac OS X is more like NeXTSTEP 5.x than it is Mac OS 10.x.

Except that Mac OS X and Mac OS 10 are the same operating system. FYI: X is the Roman numeral for 10. It's not Mac OS "Ex."

Re:Macs...

[green pizza]

>> That's because Mac OS X is more like NeXTSTEP 5.x than it is Mac OS 10.x.

> Except that Mac OS X and Mac OS 10 are the same operating system.
> FYI: X is the Roman numeral for 10. It's not Mac OS "Ex."

I know this. I should have said "more like NeXTSTEP 5.x than it is Mac OS 9+1"

Re:smiley face

[Anonymous Coward]

Winking face... even more gay. 75% of the time a winking smiley is attached to a limp-wristed unfunny joke used to make a point in some debate.

Google and Apple, sitting in a tree..

[bigdaddyhame]

- Apple has the iPod. - Google has YouTube. - the possibilities are lucrative.

Re:Google and Apple, sitting in a tree..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we can see an iMac successor, the youMac?

Feb. 2007 Slashdot News Item.

[krell]

Google Buys Apple.

Re:Feb. 2007 Slashdot News Item.

[DarkestDream]

that not going to happen, that very much against Google's philology. All they want to focus on search-related.

Re:Feb. 2007 Slashdot News Item.

[Ash-Fox]

that very much against Google's philology.

Their philosophy is "Do no evil" (what's evil about buying Apple?). Their mission is to organize the world's information.

What's wrong here

[zeromorph]

Why is everyone so "Google and Mac? I'm so excited, I'm going to p..."???

One major company (Google) starts to recognize the second largest non-OSS OS of a stylish hardware vendor as a possible field of profit and devotes a few more resources to that area. Great.

Don't misunderstand me, I love my Mac and the GUI is very well designed and Google still is the best search engine out there. So what?

I myself would be happier if there would be more good search engines out there (maybe even one more in a Wiki and/or OSS spirit???), and if OSS would be at the forefront of user-friendly GUI design. (KDE and Gnome have made enormous progress, but they are still way behind the Mac GUI.)

Re:What's wrong here

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac GUI well designed? Don't make me laugh. It's better than Windows, but that's like saying that being raped in the ass is better than being raped in the ass and the mouth at the same time. I know people who've used OS X daily ever since it was first released and still haven't figured out how to use the Dock productively.

OS 9 had a pretty good GUI, apart from that silly strip thing (I forget what it was called). OS X blew it bigtime.

Re:What's wrong here

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's better than Windows, but that's like saying that being raped in the ass is better than being raped in the ass and the mouth at the same time.

That would make Linux being raped in the ass and the mouth, but it keeps slipping out of the mouth and jabbing you in the eye.

Yeah the OS X GUI sucks, except compared to all the other options.

Re:What's wrong here

[rm69990]

LOL, so funny and so true. I got sick of how ugly my desktop looked because I had 10 applications using 5 different tool-kits open because some of the KDE applications are half-baked jokes so you are stuck running Gnome applications on KDE (or the other way around). The only half-way decent IM client is aMSN, which uses yet another tool-kit. Some weird program that monitored my fans just used a plain X window. It was a real eye sore, nevermind the fact that I had 2 or 3 different file choosers, all with different behaviours and layout. I used Linux for a long time, but since going back to Windows and then later getting a Mac, working on a Linux desktop makes me cringe.

Leave it in the server room and on the geeks desktop where it belongs. Linux is a long way away from running on Joe Blow's Dell.

it's all about TV ads and Google PC

[boxlight]

The way I see it, Google wants to own the multi-billion dollar TV ad revenue market. And Apple is on the verve of owning the way TV is distributed from the internet to the living room.

Google + Apple is natch.

Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.

boxlight

Re:it's all about TV ads and Google PC

[nine-times]

Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.

If that were the case, if they just wanted the hardware, wouldn't it make more sense for Google to go to Asus or whoever it is (I forget) who actually manufactures the Apple hardware? The only reason to go to Apple is if they don't want a "Google PC" but want OSX running Google software.

Re:it's all about TV ads and Google PC

[TechOgre]

A cut down mac-mini (fewer/no options/ports), with a version of MacOS and software that was streamlined just for this hardware. Connect it to a TV and it would be perfect for mom. I would get one for my home network, just for my parents.

Re:it's all about TV ads and Google PC

[qazwart]

I have five Macs at home, and I think this would be silly. Google's "OS" is Linux based, so why run on what is really premium priced hardware? No, if Google is going to release a Google PC, they'd get their own box made to their own specs, and put their own OS on it. It's cheaper that way, and they would have more control over it.

That said, Google really doesn't see a need to move into the PC hardware arena. Nor, are they interested in distributing their "OS". It's one thing supporting their "OS" at their company where some of the best technical wizards live. It's quite another to give it to the world and have to support people like your parents. That would take lots of resources, provide very little benefit, and have the potential to fail miserably.

Much better for Google to dump web application after web application out there, and declare it all "beta". If people like it, cool. If not, it quietly disappears. That's where Google's strength resides, and they don't have to "take sides" in the hardware/OS wars.

Re:it's all about TV ads and Google PC

[Johnny Mozzarella]

I'm of the opinion that Apple should make a web kiosk account a standard option of it's OS.
This would be perfect for my parents.
As soon as they log in it goes to full screen Safari.
No Finder, just webmail, surfing and the like.

This almost sounds like what Google OS would be...no desktop, just browser.

Flying chairs

[jhylkema]

Maybe Google will fucking kill Apple.

Re:Flying chairs

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled "Fucking Kill(TM)."

Developing for a closed platform is a dead end

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether it be Microsoft or Apple, in the end they both offer a closed platform. Don't be fooled by Mac fanbois, develop for REAL open platforms like Linux and FreeBSD.

Google for web services, mac for desktop

[bommai]

With people getting annoyed with .Mac outages, the $100 annual fee, etc. I propose that Apple outsource/partner .Mac services to google and may be google can reduce the annual fee or eliminate it. Then, google can write desktop equivalents for windows while Apple writes all the Mac desktop specific stuff (with google input). So, Picasa integrates with iTV on the PC side, iPhoto integrates with iTV on the Mac side, you get the idea. Now, that Apple is trying to expand beyond the mac market share, products like the iTV, any future iPods, iPhones should be able to integrate with Windows as well as Macs. Google can probably help with this. Content management works well for Google.

Would somebody think of the janitors!!!

[flatass]

If what the OP is alluding too, a possible merger/purchase involving these two companies, actually happened, there simply would not be enough rolls of paper towels to stuff down the ./ communities collective pants to prevent a catastophic biological speciman spill. Oh the humanity.

My prediction for 2010?

[Sigg3.net]

GSlashdot!

No, seriously.

Re:My prediction for 2010?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Gashdot?

I smell...

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell Apple iTV appliance work with these jobs. We already know that Google is partnering with Apple for some of the video playback.

lagging behind in Safari compatibility

[bunions]

> "While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility..."

everybody has been lagging behind in Safari compatibility because it's only been 4 months or so since Apple released a simple goddamn javascript debugger for it.

Re:lagging behind in Safari compatibility

[INeededALogin]

because it's only been 4 months or so since Apple released a simple goddamn javascript debugger for it.

I used a debugger that was built-in by using one of the tweaker apps to make it appear. That was 12 months ago and the level of debugging that safari has(not just javascript) was amazing.

Re:lagging behind in Safari compatibility

[bunions]

First I've heard of it. Same deal with the dojo developers and several other javascript toolkit vendors.

Not to mention my growing love for Google.

[pkulak]

Once Spanning Sync is released, they will be able to completely replace .mac for me, and for free.

Mac Apps, Partition software, etc

[green pizza]

You might be interested in iPartition. It's not free, but it's more flexible than /Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility. There are others, but this is the only one that quickly comes to mind. Don't bother asking Powerquest/Symantic to make a Mac version of Partiton Magic, ports of existing Windows utilities generally suck on other platforms.
http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.php

As for other Mac Applications, there are several websites you can check out for various Mac apps. I have never found a shortage of Mac (or Linux) applications, once I avoided the pitfall of finding a "port" or "perfect replacement" for my favorite Windows applications. Things are a little different in the Mac and Linux world, so you might need to find similar, but significantly different applications to meet your needs.

Check out:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/
http://www.macorchard.com/
http://www.macupdate.com/
And if you want games:
http://aspyr.com/product/product_listing
http://www.destineerstudios.com/macsoftgames/mac_l isting.html
http://www.feral.co.uk/
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/all.html
http://www.pangeasoft.net/index2.html
http://www.freeverse.com/
http://www.apple.com/games/
http://www.macgamefiles.com/

Glad I bought my MacBook

[TheoCryst]

Considering that I've been unofficially promised an internship at Google's Phoenix office this coming summer, maybe it's time I start to learn a little Cocoa/Xcode. After all, I've had Hillegass's book sitting on my shelf for a few months now... *starts reading*

many google employees seems to be mac users

[quisxt]

It seems like every other Google employee I meet is using a Mac laptop. That probably has something to do with it.

They need more OS X wizards...

[OhBoy!]

...or even just some half-baked apprentices. Google Notifier for Mac takes 100MB of RAM and constantly takes around 1/2% of CPU time, just sitting there idle.

Re:They need more OS X wizards...

[Andy75]

I noticed the Windows version also was a memory hog (a year ago, have no idea now..)

Surely simple stuff like this should fit into a few hudred k at most?

What I see in this

[dan20164]

Apple demos iTV. Google and Apple form a relationship. Google buys YouTube. Will YouTube be a menu selection on the iTV ? Me thinks yes..

Mac ports

[green pizza]

As a fan of both BSD flavored Unix and the Mac GUI, I had always been hoping that companies would develop for the Mac just because it's so cool. I've just had to accept that things just don't work that way. Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

That's on the the reasons why many "Mac ports" simply suck. I've been much more satisfied with Mac work-alikes than I have with Mac ports. Real, Mac-like, native software generally works better for me that some Windows or Linux app that was quickly ported the the Mac platform.

Microsoft

[javilon]

Microsoft is starting to lose ground on the desktop. Apple is eroding market share from the top with expensive, trendy systems. Linux is coming from the bottom with the tech savy crowd that wants something flexible and Free.

Things look good :-)

Almost as bad as:

[WiseWeasel]

Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer
Now THAT was funny. Show me any professional shops using Windows for serious video or audio production, and I'll show you the most miserable, mislead team of designers in the World...

OS9 vs OSX

[WiseWeasel]

I'm a longtime Mac user, (since OS 6 came with my Mac ][cx), and I couldn't disagree more. Sure, OS 9 was the bees knees at the time, but when I got my hands on the first public beta of MacOS X, and installed it on my blue Powermac G3, I knew there would be no going back. Once version 10.0 was released, even as rough as it was, I had pretty much stopped using MacOS 9 by that point, and was just looking for new OSX apps to use. By 10.1, I didn't even boot MacOS9 anymore, and going back was painful. MacOS X, with its fully-buffered window manager for snappy window switching, bulletproof system stability, and countless UI improvements (the Dock and Finder Column view being the most prominent), going back to OS 9 was unacceptable. By now, there's just no comparison. It's about time you say goodbye to the classic Mac UI, and embrace this new paradigm. Sure, there could still be work done to improve consistency in the Finder, but it's still 10x more usable than OS9 ever was.

Oh, and Control Strip was the name you were looking for...

Re:OS9 vs OSX

[rm69990]

OS 9 is clearly dated. I had to boot into it the other day to update a firmware I've been meaning to do for a while on my old Powermac, and I felt like I was using Windows 95 or KDE 2.x. I wish people would let it die. It should have been still-born IMHO. It was horrible stability wise as well.

Mac 'n Google

[Anonymous Coward]

in 2001 i believe Apple purchased 20% of Google.
now it may pay off, at last

iTMS + Ads = money, lots of mony!

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

We all now how hard Google wants to dominate video Ads, the way they dominate text. (to clarify I mean, adds appearing IN video content, not video format adds appearing in text content)

They are talking to the TV companies who currently control video distribution. But why tie yourself to yesterdays companies, it is iTMS (and possible YouTube) that are likely to control video content soon.

Google have already realised that keyword searching isn't a killer 'product' for video content, people just don't want to plug keyboards into their TV's. So the are looking at other ways to enter and dominate that ad market.

What surprises me is Google's (public) lack of contact with the big games companies. Obviously in-game advertising has significant potential, but it is also likely that the next gen winner will control a significant portion of the 'living room'. Why should a Blue-ray disc force you to sit though last months trailers when it is being played on a PS3 sitting on a nice fat broadband connection. Live may be for downloadable games now, but what would stop Microsoft using that network to push video (to your TV and/or Zune).

Re:iTMS + Ads = money, lots of mony!

[LokiSnake]

Google also is planning to venture into audio ads (radio) I recently heard that Google has purchased a company of some sorts that makes radio broadcasting hardware, and is planning to integrate their ad bidding model into radio ads. I wonder how they'll moderate video and audio ads for content, to ensure that there won't be inappropriate content.

Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Safari is so broken I never use it. Periodically it reaches a point where all future attempts to connect to a web site fail with Safari hanging indefinitely as if waiting for a response from the server. Happens on a friend's Mac too.

Not only does Firefox work better on the Mac, it actually looks better than Safari, pretty weird given that we're talking about an Apple application here. So as long as Google properly support Firefox I'm happy. (Though I slightly prefer Safari RSS handling.)

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[Pink Tinkletini]

Firefox looks better than Safari? There's just no disputing Firefox is a terrible, terrible port of a Linux/Windows application in look, let alone feel. No Keychain integration. Preferences are oddly arranged. Forms and controls behave like reanimated simulacra of their Cocoa equivalents. In short, nothing works the way a Mac user would expect them to. Are you a PC user or something?

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[macs4all]

If Safari is SO broken, why was it the first (and still one of the only) browsers to pass the Acid2 test?

I have been using Safari EXCLUSIVELY for 3 years now, and with the exception of the tax prep service I use, it works FLAWLESSLY with every single website I browse. Trust me, I wouldn't use it otherwise, and, FYI, I use FireFox on my hideous XP system at work.

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[Anonymous Coward]

True. If Firefox's UI was astoundingly great on Macs then there would be no need for Camino.

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[mblase]

Safari is so broken I never use it. Periodically it reaches a point where all future attempts to connect to a web site fail with Safari hanging indefinitely as if waiting for a response from the server. Happens on a friend's Mac too.

That's weird, because I use Safari all the time, and so does my family. My teenage daughter, whose surfing habits are heavy on MySpace and YouTube, never encounters any insurmountable problems with either.

There's only one website I've visited more than once with serious Safari problems, and since its news content is far from exclusive, I tend to just ignore it. (Point of fact: that website's custom HTML is so ghastly and overwrought, and pages take so long to load even in Firefox, I've actually offered to fix their code myself.)

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[Ash-Fox]

If Safari is SO broken, why was it the first (and still one of the only) browsers to pass the Acid2 test?

That only tests compliance to CSS rendering, not if a browser is broken in some way.

I have been using Safari EXCLUSIVELY for 3 years now, and with the exception of the tax prep service I use, it works FLAWLESSLY with every single website I browse.

I've had issues with the way it replaces graphical form buttons with Aqua elements, completely upsetting the page designs.

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I get hangs after about 5 minutes of use. So does a colleague of mine who just acquired a new MacBook. Do you use the RSS facilities? I wonder if they have something to do with it.

Re:Does it matter if Safari support lags?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

From the screenshots Camino looks exactly like Firefox to me. But thanks for mentioning it, I might give it a spin.

There are lots of features of Safari I'd like to have. But as I can only run it for a few minutes at a time, they're denied me.

Mac = Google PC

[wandazulu]

I think the Mac really is the "Google PC" that has been rumored. The key thing is that I'll bet it will be more a symbiotic partnership instead of a re-badged Mac; the next version of OSX could ship with the entire suite of available Google Mac apps, Google says that the Mac works best for their software, maybe new apps and features that are not available on the Windows version, etc. I could also imagine .Mac taking on a more "Google" hue, with docs written in Writely or whatever available for sync on .Mac.

Even though their stuff is essentially web-based, Google still needs a delivery platform. As others have suggested, it's possible that the killer-apps of the future will be both on-and-offline and thus having both Apple and Google working on both sides of the equation, together they will provide enough benefit to take on Microsoft, who has proven time and again that they want the playground for themselves, alone.

If a Google/Apple partnership works out, they have a very real potential of hitting at both of Microsoft's profitable products: Windows and Office, upon which the MS empire rests.

Wither indie devs already bridging the gap?

[saddino]

If Singh's technical expertise and history of OS X wizardry any indication, we can hope for some cool Mac software from Google.

Although Singh's hiring is definitely a step in the right direction concerning Google's commitment to the Mac, it's been a long time coming. In the meantime, independent Mac developers have already started writing tools and utilities that bridge the gap between OS X and Google. Just a few examples (the first being a shameless plug, natch):

• Amnesty Generator – converts Google web page hosted gadgets into Dashboard widgets.
• Google Maps Plugin – integrates Apple Address Book with Google Maps and Google Earth.
• Dashalytics – gives you quick access to prettified Google Analytics stats in a widget.
• Spanning Sync – syncs iCal with Google Calendar.

I suppose the real question is: does Google's newfound enthusiasm for OS X simply mean rewriting all these existing tools in-house?

NeXTSTEP 8

[DECS]

You are forgetting that NeXTSTEP has improved at Apple. It was at v 4 when Apple bought NeXT in the final days of 1996.

Rhapsody, 10.0, 10.1 = v 5
10.2 = v 6
10.3 = v 7
10.4 Tiger = v 8

10.5 Leopard = v 9

Mac OS X gets the ten from its legacy of Mac versions leading up to it, but Apple uses the NeXTSTEP version numbering system to version Darwin, the core OS. The major version of ten indicates the version of the new platform (i.e. Tiger's Darwin is v 8, and todays' 10.4.8 is Darwin 8.8).

So when you see the version number system for Mac OS X, every number has meaning:

Tiger 10.4.8=

10th generation of Mac system software
4th major revision of this generation's platform, and the n revision of NeXTSTEP + 4 = 8th generation of NeXT's NS based platform.
8th minor revision.

It's all about iTV and Google Video Services

[iendedi]

Apple's new iTV gizmo coming out in January will be able to feed google and youtube video to your television in a nice handy way. I think the idea is to bring a new age of video to the masses via google and Apple.

This is the endgame that I think they are aiming for.

Re:It's all about iTV and Google Video Services

[billsoxs]

This is what I am waiting for. I have not bought anything for a few years, old hardware works fine but iTV I will buy almost as soon as it hits the street. Too nice of an idea,

Is this a troll?

[Slur]

You are factually wrong on several points:

Single-user mode: Very easy, just hold down COMMAND-S at startup. With applejack installed repairs can be very quick. In a pinch archive-and-installing the system gets you back to where you were very quickly, preserving settings.

Context menus: Actually Mac uses them all over the place now, and they are comprehensive.

Mac Consistency: You're completely wrong about application behavior. For all applications, not just the Finder, only the clicked-on window comes to the front. An application that uses PALETTES (like Photoshop) shows them when one of its windows is active. The key-combination to hide apps is COMMAND-H for all apps that don't override it for legacy reasons. Adobe apps traditionally use Cmd-H for "Extras" so they change the hide key to COMMAND-CONTROL-H. In any case, you can always COMMAND-OPTION-CLICK any Dock icon to hide all other apps. Icons appearing under the Dock: It's so easy to avoid. Put the Dock on the side of the screen and make it smaller for the best experience.

Linux is getting better all the time though, I agree with that.

Re:Is this a troll?

[falcon5768]

I have high doubts he has ever played with OS X. He didnt even get OS Xs install setup right. Its probably the easiest install setup of any OS out there and has remained pretty much unchanged since OS 8

Re:Is this a troll?

[drinkypoo]

Single-user mode: Very easy, just hold down COMMAND-S at startup. With applejack installed repairs can be very quick. In a pinch archive-and-installing the system gets you back to where you were very quickly, preserving settings.

Never heard of applejack. Why should it be hard to deal with the system without additional software? It's easy to get to single user mode but at least as of 10.3 (We're unlikely to spend the money to go to 10.4 as long as the apps run on 10.3 - and when Adobe CS3 comes out, we're likely to ditch this stupid G5 and I can do all my work on the PC finally) you have to run a handful of commands to get system services up and running before you can even set the password. I have heard that this is different in 10.4, but I haven't heard how.

Context menus: Actually Mac uses them all over the place now, and they are comprehensive.

I've found that a lot of the time, the contents of the context menu are inferior to the top-of-the-screen menus. Even right-clicking on a file in the finder displays some disparity.

Icons appearing under the Dock: It's so easy to avoid. Put the Dock on the side of the screen and make it smaller for the best experience.

If it's at the side of the screen it makes it easier to get into a situation where you have to move the window before you can resize it - since the dock appears above windows. It's too bad they couldn't put the icons on the left and a classic NeXT dock (but hopefully themable) on the right. I ended up just shrinking the dock down, but I liked it better when it was bigger. At least this way I can see more of the icon when it pops up under the dock.

Of the three operating systems that I use the most frequently (OSX, XP, and Ubuntu) the one that's hung the most, and the one that generally causes me the most headaches, is OSX.

Re:Is this a troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you manually bringing up services in single use mode? Single user mode should be used for repair only and not password recovery. Setting or resetting passwords should be done though the Apple provided utilities, if you forgotten your admin password (just boot from the OS X install/restore disk).

Do you really want passwords easily resettable from single use mode?

Re:Is this a troll?

[drinkypoo]

Do you really want passwords easily resettable from single use mode?

It doesn't much matter what I want, since it already is that way - the only hard thing is remembering WHAT to type. There's no security there.

Requiring the CD is NO BETTER.

Re:Is this a troll?

[rm69990]

Yes, but his point is that you are purposefully doing things the hard way and then complaining about how difficult it is. And, as far back as I remember, single user (safe) mode has always been a 2 key combo on startup (Command+S), never 10 commands. You sure you weren't on acid when you were playing with OS X?

Re:Is this a troll?

[Ash-Fox]

I have high doubts he has ever played with OS X. He didnt even get OS Xs install setup right. Its probably the easiest install setup of any OS out there and has remained pretty much unchanged since OS 8

I take you've never installed MacOS X from scratch either. Completely brand new harddrive, you have to create a partition and toggle it as active -- I never had to-do this manually on a Linux installer unless I wanted to. How the heck a novice user who is new to computers would know to-do that is beyond me.

Re:Is this a troll?

[geoffspear]

All those novice users who are installing OS X on brand new hard drives instead of using the copy that Apple conveniently preinstalled on their computer sure are screwed, then. All 2 of them.

Re:Is this a troll?

[falcon5768]

I install from scratch all the time, hell I even make custom installers and network installers. How fucking hard is it to use your mouse to click the drive? Hell with network installers I can even tell it the drive to install to so I can have a 3 drive setup and know that my installer is ONLY working on the one I named.

A new hope

[megaditto]

We have been looking at this all the wrong way. Microsoft is branded an Evil Empire while Google is exhaled, hence the hoopla about Google expansion (whoopie-doo, OSX can run Goog13). Perhaps it is time to consider the alternative?

Consider that Bill Gates puts his money where his mouth is in terms of giving the largest private donations to fight AIDS and poverty, not buying up party planes and grabass photoshoots like certain individuals in charge of a certain search enGine.

Secondly, Microsoft seems to be on the right track regarding user privacy (having been bitten in the ass by their prior lapses), while Google told us they will retain our personal search and email data indefinitely, and do with it whatever they like (and are proud of that).

Thirdly, Microsoft is waking up to the impact their busness practices have on people: they considered withdrawing from China if the current police-state policies persist there. Google, on the other hand, is happily doing business with a dictatorship that jails people for voicing unpopular opinions and executes tens of thousands of Chinese to harvest their body organs. Google has no problem going out of its way to filter the search results to please the Big Brother. MSN tries not to do that.

Wake up people. Google-the-Rebel is long gone; a new Evil Empire has emerged.

Re:A new hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is eager to question the motives of someone "giving the largest private donations" but... it might be somehow linked to

• having one of the world's largest fortunes;
  
• buying goodwill valuable in fighting antitrust suits;
  
• excellent general public relations for MS;
  
• yeah, ok, being a good guy.
  
  

Re:A new hope

[LittleBigLui]

I want to add that #4 (BG being a good guy) and the idea that Microsoft is evil (for various definitions of "evil") aren't mutually exclusive, so what Mr. Gates does with his private fortune (and he certainly does much good) shouldn't cloud our judgement of Microsoft's actions which are a totally unrelated thing.

Merger

[skinfitz]

I heard Google were interested in buying Apple.

Re:Merger

[Jerry Rivers]

Uh, it would probably be the other way around if anything, but this is just another dubious rumor.

Switching from Linux to OS X

[anomaly]

After running linux as my primary desktop OS for SEVEN years, I bought a Mac three years ago.

I wanted to have an easier time of managing music, movies, and photos as well as producing new content. What I found was that what was *possible* on Linux (after investing a ton of time) was not only possible, but actually as easy as could reasonably be expected on my Mac. I drank the kool-aid. Let's be clear here. I was a passionate advocate of Linux on the desktop - using it personally and professionally EVERY DAY - on multiple PCs, both servers and clients - I knew what I was doing with it, and had success with it. I gave up - not because Linux was incapable, but because it was too expensive in terms of time. Frankly, that OS X was more complete in terms of user-space applications was not a surprise to me. I was a little surprised that I found myself happy to pay money for the "complete-ness" because my experience (and that of my wife and kids) was so far superior to our collective Linux experience.

What *shocked* me was that I decided just a couple of months ago that I no longer NEED Linux for my server OS at home because OS X can do everything that I count on Linux to do for me. I've been running Linux servers at home since 1994! To realize that I'm quite content to completely move away from Linux as a platform at home was truly surprising. I have a couple of major services to convert, but soon all will be migrated to OS X, and I can decomm my Linux servers completely.

I suspect that other folks who have been passionate about linux adoption will have tested the waters (especially now that Parallels can provide XP/Vista w/o rebooting) and have made the same decision I have made. To me, this suggests that there is likely to be a bit of a drain on Linux devotees.

The good news for Linux is that the market of users for all OS' is continually growing, and there's room for just about every technology itch to be scratched. Not only that, but many OS X things will leverage F/OSS toolkits, and thus be fairly portable to Linux, too.

Re:Switching from Linux to OS X

[mgv]

What *shocked* me was that I decided just a couple of months ago that I no longer NEED Linux for my server OS at home because OS X can do everything that I count on Linux to do for me. I've been running Linux servers at home since 1994! To realize that I'm quite content to completely move away from Linux as a platform at home was truly surprising. I have a couple of major services to convert, but soon all will be migrated to OS X, and I can decomm my Linux servers completely.


Yes, I know that feeling. I moved away from windows in 2002, getting tired of product activation as someone who was pulling their machine apart all the time.

Linux was getting to the point of being ok to use then.

But in 2004 I was finally convinced to buy an ibook, and things have gone crazy from there...

The real difference - my wife actually uses here apple laptop, but never really used the linux stuff.

I've said this before, and I belive this strongly - OS X is about as good as it gets for userland experience; its market share is on the ascent for a good reason, and its all about home users.

I can't see why OS X should succeed over Linux in any real server environment, but it does a neat job for a home user who isn't stressing the system. My G4 minimac can handle the server stuff well enough for the extremely light load I put on it (mostly as a nice way to send large files to people without killing their inboxes), and I get to play. I doubt that I'd use it if I was trying to run a server farm. On the other hand, if I was a graphic professional running a server for myself, it would make sense there.

Windows - well lets just see how well vista takes off - by that I mean, if apple's market share takes a fall because all the new apple converts go back to windows, then vista will be better than XP. I'll believe that when I see it.

Lets see if my 18% of laptop market share in the next 3-6 months pans out first...

Michael

Re:Say wah? ILFOL ! ! ! !

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU! I laughed hard and out loud at your response. Man, that was funny. People at work think I'm even crazier now.

Re:smiley face

[gevil]

Winking face... even more gay. 75% of the time a winking smiley is attached to a limp-wristed unfunny joke used to make a point in some debate.

82.5% of statistics are made-up

Re:Not the first big news in Apple-Google partners

[wootest]

I would make that colon a semi-colon: "It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along; it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions." making the two different sub-clauses.

It was like "Google in paperback form" because it had listings of everything you could imagine, thus the "Catalog" part of the name. I'm sure Jobs thinks the other stuff of Google too, but I don't think he meant to say that at that moment.

There are also rumors of Solaris uptake...

[rdean400]

I wonder if Google is looking to diversify their server-side platform support beyond Linux?

Re:There are also rumors of Solaris uptake...

[Douglas Goodall]

I just heard an hour long rant from Larry Ellison about Oracle's Unbreakable Linux. During the speech he had a high ranking Googleite come forward and praise Oracle's support and th new Unbreakable Linux support plan and prices. He said that Google has 150,000 servers. I can see why Google might want to use Larry's ripped of version of Red Hats Enterprise Linux. If I had 150,000 servers, I would prefer a free download and $100/year/server service contract. That would be only 15 million dollars a year to have the entire Google server farm under support contract. Just call Uncle Larry if anything goes wrong.

Fixed it for you

[Jerry Smith]

On linux it takes no commands; once you're in as root, you're in and you can reset your password. Unless it fails to mount root or something, but that can happen with OSX as well.

Off topic I know, but boot from the OSX-disk and, oh well, start halfway this http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106 156 link. It even has pictures ;-)

Google + Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate all you goddamn hippies.

Return of the Mainframe as a Good Thing (TM)

[Prien715]

The advantage of having a PC in the '70s vs using a mainframe was accessibility. You didn't have to be at work/school to access your documents. You could have a floppy disk and carry around your document to different computers. Now the situation is different.

It's a lot easier to get access to the internet than it is to get to your PC. I didn't bring a floppy disk to the coffee shop, but I can show someone I just met my document. Why carry around a disk?

Additionally, there's new opportunities. What if I want to collaberate with multiple people? Pass the disk around? I recently coordinated a party with my girlfriend by sharing the invite spreadsheet over google docs. Would you rather have your document stored on your hard drive or backed up on the google server farm?

As the internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, I see internet apps becoming more commonplace especially for tasks where bandwidth is unimportant such as word processing, but not as much so for say photo editing.

Re:Return of the Mainframe as a Good Thing (TM)

[b0s0z0ku]

Would you rather have your document stored on your hard drive or backed up on the google server farm?

Actually, both thank you very much. One for backup and collaboration, the other for use when I'm not on the 'net. But I'm not sure if I'd feel comfortable uploading financial or other sensitive documents to Google, at least not without strong encryption. I'd keep those on my HDD for the time being and sync them to an NFS share on a different box on my home network. Sorry, but not knowing the management of Google personally, I have zero reason to trust them not to release my personal data.

I didn't bring a floppy disk to the coffee shop, but I can show someone I just met my document. Why carry around a disk?

It doesn't have to be a large disk. It can be a 1GB or larger keychain flash drive...

What if I want to collaberate with multiple people? Pass the disk around? I recently coordinated a party with my girlfriend by sharing the invite spreadsheet over google docs.

That is definitely an advantage, though I'm not sure if it's a huge advantage over just e-mailing back and forth or whatever.

-b.

I was really happy to see Google Earth on OS X

[Douglas Goodall]

Recently I had a tantrum and pushed my PC off my desk. Not really but I put it somewhere else and got out my iMac. I have been very happy every day since I did that. I still use Linux and Unix also, FreeBSD and ubuntu. But after I put the Mac back up, I found BBEdit, and was very happy to find a Mac OS X port of Google Earth. I really like Google Earth. Microsoft wishes they had Google Earth. I wouldn't have been happy giving Earth up, and it alone is not worth going back to the PC. What the Mac has going for it is Apple's polish on top of FreeBSD's heritage of Unix stability and power, Oh and the thousands of applications. I don't think the Apple is "better" than a good version of Linux. I think it is about the same. I like both, after all, under the hood they are similar.

lamest. sig. ever.

[GrahamCox]

If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.

Having a sig like this, which you supposedly think is a witty remark, proves you have no brain. You know what FAR left/right MEANS I suppose? Why not check?

Re:I was really happy to see Google Earth on OS X

[Ash-Fox]

I really like Google Earth

I agree, I have been very happy with the Linux port.

What the Mac has going for it is Apple's polish on top of FreeBSD's heritage of Unix stability and power

Mac OS X doesn't run on a FreeBSD kernel, it runs on a modified XNU kernel, which is a combination of the Mach kernel with a BSD subsystem. There are also certain threading issues that seem to exist with MacOS X. Now, while this isn't being used in many desktop applications, the areas where MacOS X is supposed to be specialized in... Is generally using audio/video editing software. As such applications usually tend to be heavily threaded they could probably get better performance under a 'true' Linux/BSD system I would imagine.

Re:I was really happy to see Google Earth on OS X

[Douglas Goodall]

You are correct, but when I get a terminal window open and I am at the command line, it is my FreeBSD experience that gives me the knowledge to type file management commands, edit files, write and compile programs... I don't relate to the Mach kernel much because there is so much FreeBSD and GNU between it and me. I own some audio editing software for my Mac because I am a musician, and I valued that put of the Macs capabiities. I own Soundtrack (from Appple) and Deck and Peak (From BIAS). There are some limitation to the Mac I just live with. For instance I don't go to msnbc.com wanting to watch viseos because I refuce to load Microsoft Media Player on my Mac. I have some values. I don't do black magic, and I don't load Microsoft code on my Mac.

Google Earth

[Thomas2005]

Since Google and Apple are partnering with each other then I would like to see better integration between Google Earth and Address Book.

1 - Google Earth gets the ability to see Address Book entries so while using Google Earth we can select an address and go to it.
2 - Same the for Address Book but it will start Google Earth if it is no running
3 - Addresses can be added to My Places from Address Book and they can be added to Address Book from Google Earth.