They are implemented in such a way that every. single. person. who uses a computer can make use of them.
You simultaneously underestimate and overestimate the human race, which is a bit odd.
You overestimate them in that you've actually (with emphasis) said that every person who uses a computer can use this -- trivially false. Aside from people who cannot practically justify having a Mac (and thus cannot run the OS, let alone use it), there are the people who learn this stuff by rote, who will refuse to learn a new interface, no matter how shiny, if there is any possible way they can hang on to their old interface and habits.
I'm not sure what you are reading, but I'm stating that these features are implemented in such a way that anyone can use them. Your first "point" is just plain stupid. Of course you have to have a computer that runs Lion to use features of Lion. I find it impossible to believe you actually think I meant that even people on Windows, or without a computer at all, can use these features.
Your second point shows no understanding of how these features work. Two of them require no alteration in interaction whatsoever. They just happen. The only one with a reasonable amount of change in workflow is versions.
If you can use a Mac *AT ALL*, you can use Resume and Autosave. Versions is an extra button, and is presented in a way that anyone can pick up with virtually no effort. And *NONE* of the three involve changing habits or changing from their old interfaces.
You underestimate them in that the ones who are actually willing to try out a new OS, and don't have to go through the pain of installing it themselves, don't really seem to have too much trouble using at least some of these concepts on other OSes. For example, I actually can't remember a desktop Linux that didn't support some form of Resume, and I'm a bit confused as to how "Would you like to save your session?" isn't something people could figure out, once the idea was presented to them.
You don't understand AT ALL how this works.
You don't get a prompt. You don't hit a button. You don't set an option.
You don't do ANYTHING different AT ALL. When you quit a program (whether directly, or by logging out or shutting down), the next time you start it, it is in the exact same state that you left it in. This goes much further than "saving your session". For example, if you save your session in Safari or Firefox, it reloads the pages you had open. With Resume, it doesn't reload them from the web, it reloads the memory from the program exactly as it was when it quit.
This is why "oh, this other OS has done this for decades" falls on deaf ears. What good is a feature to someone if they can't use it?
First, it irks people to no end to see Apple claiming credit for these things as "innovations" and bashing everyone else for being so far behind, when, in fact, the majority of these "new" features have been elsewhere for decades, and that elsewhere would maybe like a bit of credit.
Apple almost NEVER claims to be the first to come up with these features. They do often call them innovations, and quite simply, they often are. The main innovations aren't "a system that can autosave files" or "a backup system built into the OS" or anything so vague. The innovation is in the implementation. If you have any grasp of how Resume works given my description, you'll understand how much of an innovation this really is in terms of making it a feature for a consumer OS. Nothing out there comes close other than iOS.
For geeks who don't want to fuck around with every little detail on their computer, this is huge. For tinker-nerds who would rather spend time setting up their computer rather than using their computer, this is 'meh'.
I'm fairly sure this is not only a false dichotomy,
Only in the eyes of brain-damaged nerds who base their opinions of Apple on something other than reality. A special species of nerd uniquely attracted to Slashdot.
Given how Apple likes to actually announce stuff at their shindigs, either they are priming us for a relatively empty one, or they have big news that will overshadow all that. Apart from them taking over Sony, I don't see what could be THAT big, though.
Um... They outlined exactly what they are going to show off.
iOS 5 iCloud Lion
These are all big, newsworthy things. The only thing that can be disappointing is if none of these will be available during June.
"People who like something I don't like? Must call them 'fanbois'!"
Anyway, Apple isn't going to be showing off any new physical products next week (maybe updated Airs and/or other computers, but nothing that will generate lines). iOS, iCloud, and Lion will be online offerings (Lion will also be available in physical form, but it's not like people are going to need a sleeping bag to get a copy). iPhone 5 isn't likely to be shown, and is definitely not part of the "advance warning" Apple gave out today.
For the non-asshat, actually-founded-on-reality, interpretation of the announcement, it's pretty obvious: Apple is asking everyone (especially the press) to pay attention to next Monday's keynote. They want to have everyone listening, so they are giving them reason to.
It's a bit disingenuous to compare Cocoa with KDE. KDE is just one of many user-facing layers on an OS, while Cocoa is *the* user-facing layer. There are a few others around for compatibility, and games bypass even these altogether, but adding a feature to Cocoa has much wider system benefits than adding a feature to KDE does.
And Resume isn't just restarting the same apps you had open when you restart your computer. This is apps not even having to "restart" in the first place. Their entire state is saved, so restarting a program just reloads the memory. This makes opening previously "closed" apps much quicker, and makes restarting your computer much less jarring. Aside from checking uptime or pagefile usage (or other tallied metrics, like network traffic), you can't tell the difference from a computer that was just restarted and one that has been heavily used for months.
Autosave: I don't know a single OS that has it. Programs, sure, but not OSs. Versions: Aside from some snapshotting filesystems, I am unaware of any OS which has this either, although snapshots are similar enough. VSS is also similar, but much cruder. This is significantly more than having RCS (or similar) installed. Resume: The only consumer OS I'm aware of with this is iOS. I assume there must be some mainframe systems which have something similar.
just not dressed up to look as pretty...
They aren't merely "dressed up". They are implemented in such a way that every. single. person. who uses a computer can make use of them. This is why "oh, this other OS has done this for decades" falls on deaf ears. What good is a feature to someone if they can't use it?
This is far from simply making them visually appealing. Of the three, only Versions has a "dressed up" UI. The other two just happen. For normal people, this is huge. For geeks who don't want to fuck around with every little detail on their computer, this is huge. For tinker-nerds who would rather spend time setting up their computer rather than using their computer, this is 'meh'.
I was right! Apple has gotten by with "security by obscurity" for so long that practically NO sally average Mac user follows safe practices, nobody on the Apple side runs AV or antimalware, so here come the sharks.
You're full of shit, as always, and think that you're fucking Noah every time it rains. Macs get a new piece of malware every now and then. This is the most interesting one to date, but you can lay off building your ark.
Which only makes sense, because despite all the "poo poo, Macs aren't toys for the rich, poo poo" studies have shown that not only do mac owners have multiple Macs, they on average pull down $100,000 a year.
It will become obvious to anyone that reads that article (or that reads your posts in general), that you see the world though a pair of tinted glasses that you have worn for so long that you don't even realize they are on.
From the article: "Thirty-six percent of Apple computer owners reported household incomes greater than $100,000, compared to 21 percent of all consumers." In other words, 67% of Mac users make less than $100k, and 79% of PC users do as well. That's a far cry from "Macs are toys for the rich".
Also from the article: "NPD’s study also shows 85% of all Mac owners also have a Windows PC." and "66% of Apple computer households have three or more computers. For Windows households, only 29% have three or more computers." So, while it's true that some Mac owners have more than one Mac, even more have their old PC. And a significant number of PC owners have THREE OR MORE computers as well. Does that mean PCs are only toys for the rich?
Well over 10% of households have Macs. Mac market share is growing faster than PC market share. Macs are consistently the highest rated computers on the market, and are extremely popular among consumers. These aren't just rich people. Fuck, these aren't even *PRIMARILY* rich people.
Mark my words: Now that they have seen how well they can spread the blood IS in the water, now the sharks will come. like any other predator the wolves looking to steal CCs
They already are... via phishing emails. As far as CC stealing malware, your ilk have cried "wolf!" for a decade now.
As a windows builder allow me to say...Welcome! The "how not to get pwned" workshop is on Thrusdays, coffee and donuts are in the back. Welcome to the club fellas, hey at least that means you're popular now, right?
The truly disturbing thing is your posts on this topic have been near orgasmic. Not only are you prematurely predicting a malware "tidal wave" for Mac users, but you appear GIDDY about it. You also seem to think that Mac malware is about to exceed PC malware (well, that you think "PCs will keep the bot nets, and Macs will get the CC stealing malware" or whatever). Ok, Mr. Camping, what are you going to do when your prediction fails to materialize?
I have a feeling Android may be the "mass market" product the bones the Linux guys, so at least you won't be alone.
Android has almost nothing to do with Linux. Primarily, the connection is the kernel. iOS is the "mass market" product (there are more than twice as many iOS devices out there than Android devices, and iOS still outsells Android on a daily basis). However, Android gets the overwhelming bulk of the malware (there has been a small amount of malware (I think two) for jailbroken iPhones).
This is not because Android is more common (it's not even close), it's because Android is easier to target. Also, even if Android ends up majorly pwned by the malware makers, let's say it becomes even worse than Windows (I'm not predicting that all, btw, this is just for illustration), that will have essentially *ZERO* impact on desktop Linux malware (aside: for which there is more malware than there is for the Mac!).
First off, you're engaging in another straw man, I never played the "it's not a virus" word game. And no one says viruses are impossible on the Mac. They say you don't have to worry about them, which is true. When one of your victims says, "I don't need antivirus, I have a Mac, Macs can't get viruses," they don't mean it's impossible, they mean it's not possible right now, and although there are a very small handful of trojans (which I'm including as viruses, you idiot), it's still true in the way people mean it, which is that they don't need AV software.
There isn't a single Mac user who will tell you that Macs will never need antivirus software.
Second, it's not "spreading like wildfire". It's the most successful Mac malware to date, but it's still insignificant.
And finally, you may have been "in the trenches" for 25 years, but that clearly hasn't imparted any actual knowledge beyond the PC. You are too set in your ways to understand how different things might work differently. To, it's already a foregone conclusion that Mac malware is going to explode... Funny, jackasses like yourself have been claiming that for a DECADE now, to no avail. Sure, it's *possible* that it will happen, but it's not necessarily coming any time soon.
Will that get them to switch to Linux or Windows? Who knows, but I doubt it.
That was YOUR point. This is a perfect example of PC jackasses making up bullshit claims. You pose a question that you don't even think is likely? That's an extremely dishonest way to try to bolster your point.
You also try to pain Mac users as stupid and arrogant rich people. That is just another example of your pathetic inability to understand people who aren't just like you.
Call it an infection then, using the generic term, instead of viral infection if you really want to, but that's just being pedantic. The "but macs don't get viruses" contingent has always truly meant and implied, if not outright stated, that OSX was not subject to the same malicious software infections that windows was. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
And they are right.
Likewise, the mac user just knows that their computer is "sick" and "this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen to macs".
And it doesn't.
The mistake you are making (and I bet you are ready to reply right now having made that very mistake here with my post) is thinking that saying "Macs don't get viruses" or whatever is the same as saying, "it's impossible to make a virus/malware for the Mac". It's not. That's the very same pedantry you are (rightfully) complaining about.
MacDefender is so far the most successful malware for Mac OS X to date... and it's hardly a blip. Macs are still all but infinitely less like to become infected by malware than Windows.
At some point, the time may come when it will no longer be reasonable to say Macs don't get viruses. Where you won't be able to say, "Macs don't get viruses (a handful exist, but they are basically ignorable)". That day is not today, but MacDefender did bring us closer to that day.
You never, ever hear people say, "I have a Mac, but if it had viruses, I'd switch to a PC". NEVER. That's a fantasy that people who sell PCs tell themselves. What you are calling "stupid" is simply a lack of knowledge and a lack of either desire or enthusiasm for getting to know technology the way nerds do. This is not "stupidity", it's just being a person with different interests than you.
You also keep building the same old straw man, that Mac users think Macs somehow magically can't possibly get viruses. When people say this, they all but universally mean that they don't have to worry about viruses, not that they are impossible. Any time a Mac user talks about this online, they *ALWAYS* point out some variation of "but it's not impossible", to appease PC nerds like yourself who are so quick with a bag of straw.
Right now, even with MacDefender, Mac users don't have to worry about viruses. This may change. This is really the first somewhat interesting malware for the Mac, and only time will tell how this is going to pan out, but even assuming this is the beginning of a virus "tidal wave", people aren't going to all of a sudden switch to Windows. Why would they? It's not like the virus situation there is any better. In fact, even if this is the start of a "tidal wave" (which has been predicted for a decade now, and is not something you can reliably predict anyway), it would have to be a tidal wave of a *PHENOMENALLY IMPOSSIBLE* magnitude for it to be worse than on Windows.
More and more people are buying Macs at an ever increasing rate. Lack of viruses is just one part of their reasoning.
Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone. It's similar to Chrome vs Chromium. If you want the "full" Android experience, there are non-open source limitations. Google's claims of being open are smoke and mirrors. They are, at best, "open-ish".
Version 3.0 isn't even open-ish. The part you can get the source for is the kernel, which is a heavily modified, but obviously still GPLd, Linux Kernel. You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not. I'm talking about Android itself, as officially designed by Google.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
You are making no sense. First off, no one is saying it's "completely closed". Second, you are looking at it ass-backwards. The Mac OS X kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Mac OS X open. The Android kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Android open. The proof of this is 3.0. You can't just hand-wave it away. Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open, just like TiVo has no impact. Linux is completely open, Android is sometimes open, but never completely.
The precedent would be absolutely toxic, though. What would keep the MPEG-LA from going to every app developer who uses a movie view in their app, and demanding a little 3% too?
What stops MPEG-LA from doing this is that they aren't the patent trolls people here seem to think they are. Their members benefit from people using H.264 (and other codecs).
It's the same situation
Not really. Unlike MPEG-LA, Lodsys doesn't seem to have a vested interest in their patented technology being used except to draw royalties.
Also, simply because some people pay up doesn't set a legal precedent. Until it's tested in court, the legal status of their claim is not certain. You are right, though, that if this is given legal approval, it would indeed set a disturbing precedent.
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux
Android is not Linux. The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is. Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules. There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it. It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!
It's not that I'm so prescient, but that so many people denied that there would be a Mac App Store after the rumors abounded.
NO THEY DIDN'T. They said Apple wouldn't make a LOCKED DOWN Mac App Store. And they haven't.
But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.
And yet, incrementally, that's exactly what's going to happen. And I agree, it is stupid.
What's stupid is thinking that incrementalism means whatever those increments can lead to is where it's going. That's not how the world works. Things continue for only as long as the people in charge think it makes sense. If you think it's a stupid ends, why do you think Apple wouldn't also think that?
If someone starts walking down the street, do you think they just keep on walking until they get hit by a car, fall off a cliff, or drown in the ocean? It's the exact same nonsensical "logic".
Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true.
Why do you believe they are "negative"? The app store is quite a success for Apple. The locked-down platforms are Apple's biggest successes. Are you suggesting that locked-down platforms are "negative"? Who are you to dare disagree with Apple's business model?
Fucking idiot, I never said a locked down platform is negative. But a locked down PC (in the same way iOS is locked down) *IS* negative. It can't work, and Apple isn't so stupid to think otherwise.
Do you honestly think that Apple thinks that if they make Mac OS X as much like iOS as technically possible, that Mac sales will soar? They're already selling better than ever. What possible reason would Apple have to fuck that up?
I give it 5 years tops. Lion is not only a step towards that direction, but also a test. If apps on macs start selling faster than expected, kiss the Mac as you know it goodbye and replaced with a desktop sized IPad.
What possible reason could they have to do any of that?
Every single person who says Apple is going to lock down the Macs *ALWAYS* cites one or more of the following:
1. That's "the direction" they are going. 2. iOS outsells Mac OS X. 3. They will replace Macs with iPads.
And yet not a SINGLE one of those "reasons" make a compelling case for Apple to lock down Mac OS X. Why would Apple make the Mac *WORSE*? It makes absolutely no sense.
Apple will do whatever they think makes Macs better. There is absolutely *ZERO* indication that they think locking down Mac OS X, or replacing it with iOS, will make Macs better.
As for them updating macs, yes they're upgrading them now. Now how about a year from now? Two Years? throughout their current presentations you keep hearing the "Post PC" era. What do you think that means to Apple.
It means exactly this:
People will want the "post PC" devices more and more, until eventually that's the default consumer choice. But people will still want PCs, and Apple will continue to sell them. Until Moore's Law and other technological advances completely obsolete the notion of a PC, Apple will sell PCs. Apple has absolutely *NO PLANS* to replace the Mac with iPads. Absolutely none.
They will stop selling Macs when people stop buying them.
Yes, talk by said fucking idiots. I wouldn't throw your hat in with them. MS actually is porting Windows to ARM, do you think that means MS is going to lock down Windows and abandon Intel too?
It's mildly possible Apple would make a MacBook Air style computer based on ARM, if they can make a chip fast enough and with low enough power requirements to justify it, but they won't be abandoning Intel any time soon.
As for the people wanting Mac's, that easy. You get Steve Jobs on a stage and say that "OSX is dead" and "IDesk" is the future of Apple" and problem solved. The people want what Apple Tells them to want.
Rubbish. Apple makes things people want. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. The only thing Apple "tells" people is what *APPLE* will make. It's up to the consumer to decide whether Apple is right or not.
The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work?
For three very huge reasons:
1. iOS was never *not* locked down. 2. The reasons to lock down a mobile OS do not similarly apply to a PC OS. 3. It will not make Macs more compelling, and in fact do just the opposite.
Quite simply: the Mac is not an iPhone.
Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.
If the "average user" won't notice, what would be Apple's motivation? There would be no benefit, and would simply completely alienate everyone who relies on their Macs being a PC.
That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?
No one is saying they won't make Mac OS X more like iOS (and vice versa), but that's not the claim being discussed. The claim is that Apple would make the monumentally moronic move of locking down their PC OS. PC's don't take kindly to being locked down. That severely undermines their utility. Of course Apple cross pollenate iOS and Mac OS X (both are, in fact, variants of OS X (note the lack of "Mac") after all), but they won't put things into iOS from Mac OS X that don't make iOS better, and they won't do the reverse.
That is possibly the most stupid prediction I've seen.
Aren't you the guy who said exactly the same thing to me about eight months ago when I said that Apple would bring the App Store to OSX?
You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!
But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.
Yes, I think that's you. You said something about how Apple would never do that to its development community.
My "predictions about Apple" have been good enough that Apple stock is putting my daughter through a private university. I'll put that up against your fanatical devotion to Apple.
Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true. That you were right in predicting AAPL would continue its decade-long rise is not impressive, and rather contradicts your notion that Apple is going to lock down Mac OS X.
And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX. You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.
No, they won't do this. Ratz, you are a fucking idiot who has never had a single one of your Apple "doom" predictions come to pass. What makes you think this, one of the most insanely absurd, will come true?
Define "soon", put it in your sig. Something like "by 2015, all consumer Macs will be locked down" (and 2015 is me being generous with your claim of "soon").
They will never make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. They will never lock down Mac OS X the way iOS is locked down. MACS AREN'T IPHONES. They will not remove the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X, they will not remove the ability to compile your own software for Mac OS X. They will NEVER remove the ability to install software from whatever source you wish.
Slashdot Mirror
They are implemented in such a way that every. single. person. who uses a computer can make use of them.
You simultaneously underestimate and overestimate the human race, which is a bit odd.
You overestimate them in that you've actually (with emphasis) said that every person who uses a computer can use this -- trivially false. Aside from people who cannot practically justify having a Mac (and thus cannot run the OS, let alone use it), there are the people who learn this stuff by rote, who will refuse to learn a new interface, no matter how shiny, if there is any possible way they can hang on to their old interface and habits.
I'm not sure what you are reading, but I'm stating that these features are implemented in such a way that anyone can use them. Your first "point" is just plain stupid. Of course you have to have a computer that runs Lion to use features of Lion. I find it impossible to believe you actually think I meant that even people on Windows, or without a computer at all, can use these features.
Your second point shows no understanding of how these features work. Two of them require no alteration in interaction whatsoever. They just happen. The only one with a reasonable amount of change in workflow is versions.
If you can use a Mac *AT ALL*, you can use Resume and Autosave. Versions is an extra button, and is presented in a way that anyone can pick up with virtually no effort. And *NONE* of the three involve changing habits or changing from their old interfaces.
You underestimate them in that the ones who are actually willing to try out a new OS, and don't have to go through the pain of installing it themselves, don't really seem to have too much trouble using at least some of these concepts on other OSes. For example, I actually can't remember a desktop Linux that didn't support some form of Resume, and I'm a bit confused as to how "Would you like to save your session?" isn't something people could figure out, once the idea was presented to them.
You don't understand AT ALL how this works.
You don't get a prompt.
You don't hit a button.
You don't set an option.
You don't do ANYTHING different AT ALL. When you quit a program (whether directly, or by logging out or shutting down), the next time you start it, it is in the exact same state that you left it in. This goes much further than "saving your session". For example, if you save your session in Safari or Firefox, it reloads the pages you had open. With Resume, it doesn't reload them from the web, it reloads the memory from the program exactly as it was when it quit.
This is why "oh, this other OS has done this for decades" falls on deaf ears. What good is a feature to someone if they can't use it?
First, it irks people to no end to see Apple claiming credit for these things as "innovations" and bashing everyone else for being so far behind, when, in fact, the majority of these "new" features have been elsewhere for decades, and that elsewhere would maybe like a bit of credit.
Apple almost NEVER claims to be the first to come up with these features. They do often call them innovations, and quite simply, they often are. The main innovations aren't "a system that can autosave files" or "a backup system built into the OS" or anything so vague. The innovation is in the implementation. If you have any grasp of how Resume works given my description, you'll understand how much of an innovation this really is in terms of making it a feature for a consumer OS. Nothing out there comes close other than iOS.
For geeks who don't want to fuck around with every little detail on their computer, this is huge. For tinker-nerds who would rather spend time setting up their computer rather than using their computer, this is 'meh'.
I'm fairly sure this is not only a false dichotomy,
It wasn't a dichotom
Only in the eyes of brain-damaged nerds who base their opinions of Apple on something other than reality. A special species of nerd uniquely attracted to Slashdot.
Given how Apple likes to actually announce stuff at their shindigs, either they are priming us for a relatively empty one, or they have big news that will overshadow all that. Apart from them taking over Sony, I don't see what could be THAT big, though.
Um... They outlined exactly what they are going to show off.
iOS 5
iCloud
Lion
These are all big, newsworthy things. The only thing that can be disappointing is if none of these will be available during June.
"People who like something I don't like? Must call them 'fanbois'!"
Anyway, Apple isn't going to be showing off any new physical products next week (maybe updated Airs and/or other computers, but nothing that will generate lines). iOS, iCloud, and Lion will be online offerings (Lion will also be available in physical form, but it's not like people are going to need a sleeping bag to get a copy). iPhone 5 isn't likely to be shown, and is definitely not part of the "advance warning" Apple gave out today.
For the non-asshat, actually-founded-on-reality, interpretation of the announcement, it's pretty obvious: Apple is asking everyone (especially the press) to pay attention to next Monday's keynote. They want to have everyone listening, so they are giving them reason to.
It's a bit disingenuous to compare Cocoa with KDE. KDE is just one of many user-facing layers on an OS, while Cocoa is *the* user-facing layer. There are a few others around for compatibility, and games bypass even these altogether, but adding a feature to Cocoa has much wider system benefits than adding a feature to KDE does.
And Resume isn't just restarting the same apps you had open when you restart your computer. This is apps not even having to "restart" in the first place. Their entire state is saved, so restarting a program just reloads the memory. This makes opening previously "closed" apps much quicker, and makes restarting your computer much less jarring. Aside from checking uptime or pagefile usage (or other tallied metrics, like network traffic), you can't tell the difference from a computer that was just restarted and one that has been heavily used for months.
I have seen all of them on other OSes
No, you haven't. Not desktop OSs at any rate.
Autosave: I don't know a single OS that has it. Programs, sure, but not OSs.
Versions: Aside from some snapshotting filesystems, I am unaware of any OS which has this either, although snapshots are similar enough. VSS is also similar, but much cruder. This is significantly more than having RCS (or similar) installed.
Resume: The only consumer OS I'm aware of with this is iOS. I assume there must be some mainframe systems which have something similar.
just not dressed up to look as pretty...
They aren't merely "dressed up". They are implemented in such a way that every. single. person. who uses a computer can make use of them. This is why "oh, this other OS has done this for decades" falls on deaf ears. What good is a feature to someone if they can't use it?
This is far from simply making them visually appealing. Of the three, only Versions has a "dressed up" UI. The other two just happen. For normal people, this is huge. For geeks who don't want to fuck around with every little detail on their computer, this is huge. For tinker-nerds who would rather spend time setting up their computer rather than using their computer, this is 'meh'.
And Solaris.
Why wouldn't you just get a phone and a tablet, instead of a phone and a tablet-shell?
Exactly. Some people think it means more than it really does.
I was right! Apple has gotten by with "security by obscurity" for so long that practically NO sally average Mac user follows safe practices, nobody on the Apple side runs AV or antimalware, so here come the sharks.
You're full of shit, as always, and think that you're fucking Noah every time it rains. Macs get a new piece of malware every now and then. This is the most interesting one to date, but you can lay off building your ark.
Which only makes sense, because despite all the "poo poo, Macs aren't toys for the rich, poo poo" studies have shown that not only do mac owners have multiple Macs, they on average pull down $100,000 a year.
It will become obvious to anyone that reads that article (or that reads your posts in general), that you see the world though a pair of tinted glasses that you have worn for so long that you don't even realize they are on.
From the article: "Thirty-six percent of Apple computer owners reported household incomes greater than $100,000, compared to 21 percent of all consumers." In other words, 67% of Mac users make less than $100k, and 79% of PC users do as well. That's a far cry from "Macs are toys for the rich".
Also from the article: "NPD’s study also shows 85% of all Mac owners also have a Windows PC." and "66% of Apple computer households have three or more computers. For Windows households, only 29% have three or more computers." So, while it's true that some Mac owners have more than one Mac, even more have their old PC. And a significant number of PC owners have THREE OR MORE computers as well. Does that mean PCs are only toys for the rich?
Well over 10% of households have Macs. Mac market share is growing faster than PC market share. Macs are consistently the highest rated computers on the market, and are extremely popular among consumers. These aren't just rich people. Fuck, these aren't even *PRIMARILY* rich people.
Mark my words: Now that they have seen how well they can spread the blood IS in the water, now the sharks will come. like any other predator the wolves looking to steal CCs
They already are... via phishing emails. As far as CC stealing malware, your ilk have cried "wolf!" for a decade now.
As a windows builder allow me to say...Welcome! The "how not to get pwned" workshop is on Thrusdays, coffee and donuts are in the back. Welcome to the club fellas, hey at least that means you're popular now, right?
The truly disturbing thing is your posts on this topic have been near orgasmic. Not only are you prematurely predicting a malware "tidal wave" for Mac users, but you appear GIDDY about it. You also seem to think that Mac malware is about to exceed PC malware (well, that you think "PCs will keep the bot nets, and Macs will get the CC stealing malware" or whatever). Ok, Mr. Camping, what are you going to do when your prediction fails to materialize?
I have a feeling Android may be the "mass market" product the bones the Linux guys, so at least you won't be alone.
Android has almost nothing to do with Linux. Primarily, the connection is the kernel. iOS is the "mass market" product (there are more than twice as many iOS devices out there than Android devices, and iOS still outsells Android on a daily basis). However, Android gets the overwhelming bulk of the malware (there has been a small amount of malware (I think two) for jailbroken iPhones).
This is not because Android is more common (it's not even close), it's because Android is easier to target. Also, even if Android ends up majorly pwned by the malware makers, let's say it becomes even worse than Windows (I'm not predicting that all, btw, this is just for illustration), that will have essentially *ZERO* impact on desktop Linux malware (aside: for which there is more malware than there is for the Mac!).
I understand that part of
Why wouldn't you think about the possibility of the information being harvested? That's a main part of Google's business model.
Because: "Don't Be Evil"
A lot of people (understandably) assume it means more than it really does.
First off, you're engaging in another straw man, I never played the "it's not a virus" word game. And no one says viruses are impossible on the Mac. They say you don't have to worry about them, which is true. When one of your victims says, "I don't need antivirus, I have a Mac, Macs can't get viruses," they don't mean it's impossible, they mean it's not possible right now, and although there are a very small handful of trojans (which I'm including as viruses, you idiot), it's still true in the way people mean it, which is that they don't need AV software.
There isn't a single Mac user who will tell you that Macs will never need antivirus software.
Second, it's not "spreading like wildfire". It's the most successful Mac malware to date, but it's still insignificant.
And finally, you may have been "in the trenches" for 25 years, but that clearly hasn't imparted any actual knowledge beyond the PC. You are too set in your ways to understand how different things might work differently. To, it's already a foregone conclusion that Mac malware is going to explode... Funny, jackasses like yourself have been claiming that for a DECADE now, to no avail. Sure, it's *possible* that it will happen, but it's not necessarily coming any time soon.
Will that get them to switch to Linux or Windows? Who knows, but I doubt it.
That was YOUR point. This is a perfect example of PC jackasses making up bullshit claims. You pose a question that you don't even think is likely? That's an extremely dishonest way to try to bolster your point.
You also try to pain Mac users as stupid and arrogant rich people. That is just another example of your pathetic inability to understand people who aren't just like you.
Call it an infection then, using the generic term, instead of viral infection if you really want to, but that's just being pedantic. The "but macs don't get viruses" contingent has always truly meant and implied, if not outright stated, that OSX was not subject to the same malicious software infections that windows was. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it.
And they are right.
Likewise, the mac user just knows that their computer is "sick" and "this sort of thing isn't supposed to happen to macs".
And it doesn't.
The mistake you are making (and I bet you are ready to reply right now having made that very mistake here with my post) is thinking that saying "Macs don't get viruses" or whatever is the same as saying, "it's impossible to make a virus/malware for the Mac". It's not. That's the very same pedantry you are (rightfully) complaining about.
MacDefender is so far the most successful malware for Mac OS X to date... and it's hardly a blip. Macs are still all but infinitely less like to become infected by malware than Windows.
At some point, the time may come when it will no longer be reasonable to say Macs don't get viruses. Where you won't be able to say, "Macs don't get viruses (a handful exist, but they are basically ignorable)". That day is not today, but MacDefender did bring us closer to that day.
You never, ever hear people say, "I have a Mac, but if it had viruses, I'd switch to a PC". NEVER. That's a fantasy that people who sell PCs tell themselves. What you are calling "stupid" is simply a lack of knowledge and a lack of either desire or enthusiasm for getting to know technology the way nerds do. This is not "stupidity", it's just being a person with different interests than you.
You also keep building the same old straw man, that Mac users think Macs somehow magically can't possibly get viruses. When people say this, they all but universally mean that they don't have to worry about viruses, not that they are impossible. Any time a Mac user talks about this online, they *ALWAYS* point out some variation of "but it's not impossible", to appease PC nerds like yourself who are so quick with a bag of straw.
Right now, even with MacDefender, Mac users don't have to worry about viruses. This may change. This is really the first somewhat interesting malware for the Mac, and only time will tell how this is going to pan out, but even assuming this is the beginning of a virus "tidal wave", people aren't going to all of a sudden switch to Windows. Why would they? It's not like the virus situation there is any better. In fact, even if this is the start of a "tidal wave" (which has been predicted for a decade now, and is not something you can reliably predict anyway), it would have to be a tidal wave of a *PHENOMENALLY IMPOSSIBLE* magnitude for it to be worse than on Windows.
More and more people are buying Macs at an ever increasing rate. Lack of viruses is just one part of their reasoning.
Android Open Source Project is not the same Android you get on a phone. It's similar to Chrome vs Chromium. If you want the "full" Android experience, there are non-open source limitations. Google's claims of being open are smoke and mirrors. They are, at best, "open-ish".
Version 3.0 isn't even open-ish. The part you can get the source for is the kernel, which is a heavily modified, but obviously still GPLd, Linux Kernel. You seem to think I'm talking about carrier or handset maker extensions. I'm not. I'm talking about Android itself, as officially designed by Google.
Just because you can have a version that is not open doesn't make it entirely closed. The OSX kernel has many BSD components, it doesn't make BSD closed, the source for 2.3, the latest version of Android available for mobile phones is up for you, i'm sure you can find it.
You are making no sense. First off, no one is saying it's "completely closed". Second, you are looking at it ass-backwards. The Mac OS X kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Mac OS X open. The Android kernel is open source, but that doesn't make Android open. The proof of this is 3.0. You can't just hand-wave it away. Android 3.0's closed nature have absolutely zero impact on whether Linux is open, just like TiVo has no impact. Linux is completely open, Android is sometimes open, but never completely.
The precedent would be absolutely toxic, though. What would keep the MPEG-LA from going to every app developer who uses a movie view in their app, and demanding a little 3% too?
What stops MPEG-LA from doing this is that they aren't the patent trolls people here seem to think they are. Their members benefit from people using H.264 (and other codecs).
It's the same situation
Not really. Unlike MPEG-LA, Lodsys doesn't seem to have a vested interest in their patented technology being used except to draw royalties.
Also, simply because some people pay up doesn't set a legal precedent. Until it's tested in court, the legal status of their claim is not certain. You are right, though, that if this is given legal approval, it would indeed set a disturbing precedent.
If Android is closed by virtue of the hardware and additional lockdown software then so is Linux
Android is not Linux. The software that is locked down in Android is not "additional", it's Android itself.
Android is to Linux similar to what TiVo is to Linux. TiVo is closed, but the Linux kernel is not.
So it's not Android that is closed, it's some phone platforms
No, Android is closed. Or simply just "not open". Show me where the source code for 3.0 is. Show me where you can build an official Android handset without meeting Google's rules. There *is* an open version of Android, but no one uses it. It's almost like a TiVo distribution without the TV listings or season pass features, etc.
you can't equate say the Motorola DroidX to the Nexus One just as you can't say Linux is closed just because it's on a TiVo when you can install it on a PC and it's fully open.
No, because this isn't a comparison between a generic Linux OS and a customized, specialized, closed one. They both run a customized, specialized, closed (or "not open") Linux-based OS.
So what you're saying is that Linux isn't really "open"?
No, that's not what he's saying. Linux, the kernel (which is the extent to which Android can really be called "Linux", and even that is custom), is very open. It's the stuff you heap atop it, and the hardware you run it on, that might not be so open. In the case of Android, the hardware and software are varying degrees of closed.
This is quite similar to TiVo.
It's not that I'm so prescient, but that so many people denied that there would be a Mac App Store after the rumors abounded.
NO THEY DIDN'T. They said Apple wouldn't make a LOCKED DOWN Mac App Store. And they haven't.
And yet, incrementally, that's exactly what's going to happen. And I agree, it is stupid.
What's stupid is thinking that incrementalism means whatever those increments can lead to is where it's going. That's not how the world works. Things continue for only as long as the people in charge think it makes sense. If you think it's a stupid ends, why do you think Apple wouldn't also think that?
If someone starts walking down the street, do you think they just keep on walking until they get hit by a car, fall off a cliff, or drown in the ocean? It's the exact same nonsensical "logic".
Why do you believe they are "negative"? The app store is quite a success for Apple. The locked-down platforms are Apple's biggest successes. Are you suggesting that locked-down platforms are "negative"? Who are you to dare disagree with Apple's business model?
Fucking idiot, I never said a locked down platform is negative. But a locked down PC (in the same way iOS is locked down) *IS* negative. It can't work, and Apple isn't so stupid to think otherwise.
Do you honestly think that Apple thinks that if they make Mac OS X as much like iOS as technically possible, that Mac sales will soar? They're already selling better than ever. What possible reason would Apple have to fuck that up?
Are iPads iPhones? Why are they locked down?
They are all iOS devices. That's how iOS works. That's NOT how Mac OS X works.
When MacBooks have cellular transceivers built in will they be iPhones then?
My god you are stupid. I can't believe I'm answering this, but no, a MacBook with a cell transceiver will not be an iPhone.
The first locked-down Apple laptop will come out before Christmas of 2013.
And when that doesn't come to pass, then what? You will still simply make up more stupid shit with no basis in reality.
I give it 5 years tops. Lion is not only a step towards that direction, but also a test. If apps on macs start selling faster than expected, kiss the Mac as you know it goodbye and replaced with a desktop sized IPad.
What possible reason could they have to do any of that?
Every single person who says Apple is going to lock down the Macs *ALWAYS* cites one or more of the following:
1. That's "the direction" they are going.
2. iOS outsells Mac OS X.
3. They will replace Macs with iPads.
And yet not a SINGLE one of those "reasons" make a compelling case for Apple to lock down Mac OS X. Why would Apple make the Mac *WORSE*? It makes absolutely no sense.
Apple will do whatever they think makes Macs better. There is absolutely *ZERO* indication that they think locking down Mac OS X, or replacing it with iOS, will make Macs better.
As for them updating macs, yes they're upgrading them now. Now how about a year from now? Two Years? throughout their current presentations you keep hearing the "Post PC" era. What do you think that means to Apple.
It means exactly this:
People will want the "post PC" devices more and more, until eventually that's the default consumer choice. But people will still want PCs, and Apple will continue to sell them. Until Moore's Law and other technological advances completely obsolete the notion of a PC, Apple will sell PCs. Apple has absolutely *NO PLANS* to replace the Mac with iPads. Absolutely none.
They will stop selling Macs when people stop buying them.
Why do you think there's already rumors of Apple dumping Intel for their own in house Arm Chip?
Why do I think there are such rumors? Because some people are fucking idiots.
And as for Thunderbolt, there's talk that Thunderbolt is DOA
Yes, talk by said fucking idiots. I wouldn't throw your hat in with them. MS actually is porting Windows to ARM, do you think that means MS is going to lock down Windows and abandon Intel too?
It's mildly possible Apple would make a MacBook Air style computer based on ARM, if they can make a chip fast enough and with low enough power requirements to justify it, but they won't be abandoning Intel any time soon.
As for the people wanting Mac's, that easy. You get Steve Jobs on a stage and say that "OSX is dead" and "IDesk" is the future of Apple" and problem solved. The people want what Apple Tells them to want.
Rubbish. Apple makes things people want. If they didn't, people wouldn't buy them. The only thing Apple "tells" people is what *APPLE* will make. It's up to the consumer to decide whether Apple is right or not.
Apple will not cripple Mac OS X.
The immediate response that comes to mind is Apple 'crippled' iOS so why would a locked down Mac not work?
For three very huge reasons:
1. iOS was never *not* locked down.
2. The reasons to lock down a mobile OS do not similarly apply to a PC OS.
3. It will not make Macs more compelling, and in fact do just the opposite.
Quite simply: the Mac is not an iPhone.
Once Photoshop and some audio/video software is signed on would most people even notice? The average user spends most of their time on the web anyway.
If the "average user" won't notice, what would be Apple's motivation? There would be no benefit, and would simply completely alienate everyone who relies on their Macs being a PC.
That's why there are two OS's in the first place! Tech "writers" need to figure this out.
There are many reasons for having two OS's. (for instance at one point MS offered two fundamentally different lines of Windows before merging them). I personally don't think having a controlled software channel is the reason here. From Apple's standpoint doesn't iOS seem to be much more successful than Mac OS? Why wouldn't they be motivated to make MacOS more like iOS?
No one is saying they won't make Mac OS X more like iOS (and vice versa), but that's not the claim being discussed. The claim is that Apple would make the monumentally moronic move of locking down their PC OS. PC's don't take kindly to being locked down. That severely undermines their utility. Of course Apple cross pollenate iOS and Mac OS X (both are, in fact, variants of OS X (note the lack of "Mac") after all), but they won't put things into iOS from Mac OS X that don't make iOS better, and they won't do the reverse.
Aren't you the guy who said exactly the same thing to me about eight months ago when I said that Apple would bring the App Store to OSX?
You mean long after the rumors that Apple would make a Mac App Store? Wow, how prescient of you!
But no, the stupid prediction wasn't that Apple would make a Mac App Store, but that it would be like iOS, where it's the only way to get Mac apps. Now, *THAT'S* stupid.
Yes, I think that's you. You said something about how Apple would never do that to its development community.
My "predictions about Apple" have been good enough that Apple stock is putting my daughter through a private university. I'll put that up against your fanatical devotion to Apple.
Not a single one of your negative predictions have come true. That you were right in predicting AAPL would continue its decade-long rise is not impressive, and rather contradicts your notion that Apple is going to lock down Mac OS X.
No one ever said it wasn't trivial, just that it's not the sort of thing Apple does.
It's not "crippling", it's revenue enhancement.
And, yes, they will certainly lock down OSX. You may still be able to buy a Mac Pro with an unlocked OS, but I'm willing to bet that soon all iMacs and MacBooks will be 100% walled garden.
No, they won't do this. Ratz, you are a fucking idiot who has never had a single one of your Apple "doom" predictions come to pass. What makes you think this, one of the most insanely absurd, will come true?
Define "soon", put it in your sig. Something like "by 2015, all consumer Macs will be locked down" (and 2015 is me being generous with your claim of "soon").
They will never make a "Pro" version of Mac OS X. They will never lock down Mac OS X the way iOS is locked down. MACS AREN'T IPHONES. They will not remove the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X, they will not remove the ability to compile your own software for Mac OS X. They will NEVER remove the ability to install software from whatever source you wish.