I wouldn't have chosen the word "construction" cause I consider 10.0 to be an excellent, complete OS.
What they are doing, though, is upgrading it and doing so quickly. OS X gives them a lot of leverage to innovate and while there are a few things that were deferred because they weren't critical but are "nice to haves" most of what I see going on (and as a developer, I see a lot) is moving the OS to the point where it is the drop-dead best OS out there.
They were really hampered (or unmotivated) in the OS 9 days by comparison-- cause they seem to be doing a lot very fast.
A lot of what's in os 10.2 is new stuff-- some of it I can't use as a developer because I don't want to limit my app to 10.2 (Yet), but the groundwork is there for developers to make use of it...
This is not a static OS like windows is (by comparison) or OS 9 was-- it is in very active development.
Interesting the rumor of another iDevice. I have theories about where they are going but I don't see a killer category for them to dominate, like they are trying with MP3 players.
Try comparing Apples prices to IBMs prices. You get a better deal with Apple.
IF you go Gateway or Dell or build it yourself, then sure, you're getting a lower quality machine that may last two years if you're lucky, and saving a few bucks.
But price performance wise Macs have been the better deal since 1993 or so. Its only people who think clockrate is the same as performance who think Macs are overpriced. but then, there will always be suckers to buy into your marketing line and bully for Intel to drive clockrate based marketing.
Apple doesn't sell really low end hardware-- the margin on them isn't worth the risks.
But if you're looking at $1500 computers, then you get more Mac for your money then by buying a comparable quality PC.
Where the PC has commoditized parts-- PCI bridges, etc, Apple uses them. But the CPU, which is expensive on PCs is a lot cheaper on Macs, and in the end, Macs end up being better deals.
Its only if you think the clockrate is the same as performance or if your alternative is building a computer from scratch with non-waranteed hardware that Macs look expensive.
IF you need a headless webserver, fine, buy a mother board power supply etc, and put one together.
You're just not getting the same machine you'd get if you spent $1500 at IBM OR Apple.
just stop with the constant whining about features that you (or some underpaid web journalist) think are missing from the platform.
Especially when the features ARE there or the difference is an IMPROVEMENT.
Apple has made OS X very tweakable- but in standardized consistent ways. This is necessary so you don't get the system instability that people got with OS 9 customizations.
Hell, you don't even need resedit anymore- you can just use finder to get at the images an app uses for its buttons, etc.
Is wired so desperate for news that they have to resort to bashing apple because their clearly-marked-private-but-really-tweakable-with-p ublic-header-files API's changed?
But the company ISN'T on track financially. They're on Microsoft (R) brand life support.
You're such an idiot. apple is the only profitable computer company.
It isn't on "life support" from Mcirosoft-- hell mcirosoft office isn't even selling well on the Mac. Not because there aren't Macs out there, but because people don't care about office anymore.
Yes, actually, the iBook beats your celeron and costs less.
Like I said, you're a bigot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
You probably think Microsoft bougth a big chunk of apple with that "investment" of $150Million...
Sheesh.
I understand why slashdot readers are linux fans, but do they have to be so stupid? Where are the programmer,s the people who can recompile their kernel? The people with basic computer architecture knowledge? Buying a machine with a celeron is like buying a PowerPC 603-- EG: A Mac laptop of about 1996 vintage would beat your celeron in a laptop. PC laptops (non-transmeta anyway) are particularly hobbled due to the x86 really high power draw.
You talk about truth and zeolotry? Get a fucking education first, man. When you understand the words I'm using, then you can talk about truth.
The article was talking about OS 9 when it said that, not OS X. Whining about OS 9 is absurd, its dead.
Furthermore, OS X is far more tweakable than OS 9 for the reasons I've already said. So whining about that is absurd.
Yes, it is newbies who install these modifications. They don't create them, but they do install them. And when they do so and their machine starts crashing, they pin it on apple.
After all,thats why there are actually people out there who think OS 7-9 crashed a lot. It never did for me ONCE in Apple code, always in third party code. (nice to have the stack traces).
Re:Yet more speculation running as news.
on
No More Mac Tweaking?
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Why is it reasonable for a company to restrict the way we use the product? This isn't Apple designing a product to be consistent, this is Apple locking down an existing product that people are using is a way that they didn't anticipate, because the creativity these users are demonstrating angers them.
You don't even know what you're talking about.
The API are in/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks.
They have header files so you can link against them.
They are there for everyone to use.
How is saying "Please don't count on these private frameworks not changing from release to release, thank you." "Locking down an existing product"???
I think you simply don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The many of the previously private frameworks have become public, and many of the private frameworks there now are new-- not existing.
When you say apple is locking down an existing product because they are angered at people using it in a way they didn't anticipate: YOU ARE LYING.
That is a bald faced lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
The ironic thing is you're flaming them when they have made the "private" apis more public and well documented than any other OS I know about. They are right there for anyone to use...
Its just that they aren't standard yet, and you cannot complain when apple changes them.
Apple provides header files, you can easily link against them-- this is not like calling into specific memory locations under DOS!
There is ALWAYS a valid technical reason to break it-- every time this has happened its been because Apple was moving the API to a more public version.
This idea that you have to support people who are not writing to your public APIs is crap. That is what makes computers unstable, and why windows still sucks so much.
Apple is, as usual, doing the right thing, and actually going far above and beyond the call of duty. And once again people who don't understand, and apparently don't know how to program, are whining about it.
You're talking about two different situations. Just go to your mac in/System/Library/PrivateFRameworks and you can see all the private frameworks.
Private is a lable-- it means "Don't use this, it may well change".
What microsoft did was make the OS react different ly to different programs that were accessing published APIs. Microsoft was making its APIs not fit the specification, and it was providing hidden hooks into its OS.
The private framworks are there for everyone to see-- you're just told that they will change. When they do, you don't get to cry foul.
When microsoft releases a new product that breaks your own product that was using the public apis, then its legitimate to cry foul.
The difference is microsoft was making it so products could only work if they approved them.
Apple is merely saying "you're responsible if you use these, they will change".
Damn, even your references suck. Both point to articls about Steve Jobs getting apple back on track financially. Nothing about being a petulant child at all.
But then, something tells me you're of the group who will spend twice as much money on a machine that performs half as well as a macintosh and think that you got a better deal on a faster machine. You're irrational to begin with.
Yeah that was flamebait. Why is it people think they can just make up whatever crap they want about apple and people will believe it?
Oh yeah, because there's a lot of bigots out there who will.
You cant even remember the show, and what steve said was "Mcirosoft, just doesn't have a sense of style" Nothing about him having en emotional problem.
The G4 Cube had no quality problems that I've ever heard of-- in fact, people who have one love them. They're quite a following. Unforutnately it didn't sell well, but that says nothing about its quality, just its popularity.
ARe you really so stupid you believe what you're shovelling?
Yet more speculation running as news.
on
No More Mac Tweaking?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Ok here's the deal: There are private APIs in OSX. They are undocumented and marked that way- these frameworks are in the private- frameworks folder.
Apple isn't deliberately breaking peoples products, it is changing internal APIs.
Many of these APIs start out internal and when they are ready for prime time, become public, supported, documented, standard APIs.
Until then, you use one and it doesn't work in the next rev, its your own damn fault.
And this is the right way for things to be- OS X is far more theme friendly than any other OS- hell the graphical eliments are all easily accessible pdf or tiff files and easy to replace. Want a different looking dock? Trivial. Want a different looking login window? no problem.
But the areas where things can cause instability in the OS should not be left wide open for people to change in an uncontrolled manner.
Quicktime has an API for skinning it. MAYBE Apple will release one for OS X, but if they are smart, they won't.
Standardized controls are what makes OS X much easier for newbies to use than other operating systems.
Let people change the look of their computer, but not the feel. That's the right strategy and the one apple seems to be following.
Why don't you get a Firewire DV bridge? Granted they don't support HDTV, but the DV format represents SD rather well. The formac studio dv/tv has a tuner built in, and cheaper products take composite and SVideo.
I have it on good authority that there will be a software PVR to make use of such devices soon enough....
Yeah, it had to be because steve jobs is a petulant child-- it couldn't be because NVIDIA wanted the business and made it worth Apple's while, or because NVIDIA is shipping better products (A lead that changes periodically,) or any other of a dozen business reasons. No, it couldn't have been that.
It must be becuase steve jobs is a petulant child and was mad that ATI mentioned the iMac 1 day before it was released.
Yeah, that must be it.
Just because so many kiddies online are so emotional about things, steve jobs must be super sensitive as well. Yeah, thats it. Like he really cares about that kind of crap.
What he DOES care about is quality products, and if anything, THAT was the reason Apple switched to NVIDIA.
The Macs advantages are employed there as well. Furthermore, now that Macs are based on Unix, a lot of the high end apps are getting ported- No point in selling into only a Solaris market when you can have potentially millions of Mac desktops to sell into-- plus there's the cost advantages of desktop computers for what were traditionally workstation applications, and OS X is the best desktop Unix out there (with the widest installed base.)
When the government is found to be doing a poor job at something (as it always is, due to its nature) the standard response is to charge more for it-- obviously it must be lack of money that is the problem. So they raise fees.
This is how we have the situation where the average single person pays over %50 of their income in taxes, and still doesn't get adequate fire coverage, adequate roads, adequate health care.
Any REAL patent reform would require taking it out of governments hands and putting it into an entity that has an incentive to provide a good job. For thats is why government sucks-- it has no incentive to do an adequate job, and so it doesn't.
Structure an entity such a way that it makes more money with good patents and its unprofitable to issue bad patents and you'll then have a good patent office.
Until then, the patent office will continue to give the socialists among us an excuse to complain about how "All property is theft".
Well, the Abacus increases productivity a little, but the Macintosh increases productivity more than any person computer environment yet invented. This according to the studies I've read, and the experience I have had, and also, the test I did. (Took two secretaries who had windows MS Word experience. Had them type a series of white papers under MS Word on both Windows and Mac machines. In both cases the Mac test resulted in about a %40 savings in speed-- even though they were not Mac trained, and even when the Mac was the first one they typed it on.
Not everyone can do their own testing, but if you do, the results are clear.
I know you were just trolling. I mean, what applications are there that the Mac doesn't excell at? I know of none where the Mac doesn't enjoy an advantage.
I for one wish Apple would start manufacturing the Newton again. Just make the last model they made the 2100 (or was it 2200) as it is... and maybe do some software updates to sync with the mac....
I have an original Newton (with the "bad" handwriting recognition that works great) and its still better than everything out there in the PDA space all these years later.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't have chosen the word "construction" cause I consider 10.0 to be an excellent, complete OS.
What they are doing, though, is upgrading it and doing so quickly. OS X gives them a lot of leverage to innovate and while there are a few things that were deferred because they weren't critical but are "nice to haves" most of what I see going on (and as a developer, I see a lot) is moving the OS to the point where it is the drop-dead best OS out there.
They were really hampered (or unmotivated) in the OS 9 days by comparison-- cause they seem to be doing a lot very fast.
A lot of what's in os 10.2 is new stuff-- some of it I can't use as a developer because I don't want to limit my app to 10.2 (Yet), but the groundwork is there for developers to make use of it...
This is not a static OS like windows is (by comparison) or OS 9 was-- it is in very active development.
Interesting the rumor of another iDevice. I have theories about where they are going but I don't see a killer category for them to dominate, like they are trying with MP3 players.
Ignore reason, logic and facts and respond with an irrelevancy about two products... and you call me a zeolot.
Its not funny, its sad.
But you could have gotten a Mac for $800 and gotten a better deal.
ITs not the choice between $500 and $3500. Its $300 you're quibbling over.
1.2mhz != 2.8ghz *EVER*
Thus I remain steadfast in my conviction that anti-apple idiots don't understand the basics of computers operation or architecture.
Yeah, its a nitpick, and worse, its not true.
Try comparing Apples prices to IBMs prices. You get a better deal with Apple.
IF you go Gateway or Dell or build it yourself, then sure, you're getting a lower quality machine that may last two years if you're lucky, and saving a few bucks.
But price performance wise Macs have been the better deal since 1993 or so. Its only people who think clockrate is the same as performance who think Macs are overpriced. but then, there will always be suckers to buy into your marketing line and bully for Intel to drive clockrate based marketing.
Apple doesn't sell really low end hardware-- the margin on them isn't worth the risks.
But if you're looking at $1500 computers, then you get more Mac for your money then by buying a comparable quality PC.
Where the PC has commoditized parts-- PCI bridges, etc, Apple uses them. But the CPU, which is expensive on PCs is a lot cheaper on Macs, and in the end, Macs end up being better deals.
Its only if you think the clockrate is the same as performance or if your alternative is building a computer from scratch with non-waranteed hardware that Macs look expensive.
IF you need a headless webserver, fine, buy a mother board power supply etc, and put one together.
You're just not getting the same machine you'd get if you spent $1500 at IBM OR Apple.
just stop with the constant whining about features that you (or some underpaid web journalist) think are missing from the platform.
Especially when the features ARE there or the difference is an IMPROVEMENT.
Apple has made OS X very tweakable- but in standardized consistent ways. This is necessary so you don't get the system instability that people got with OS 9 customizations.
Hell, you don't even need resedit anymore- you can just use finder to get at the images an app uses for its buttons, etc.
Apple isn't purposely breaking them.
Their private frameworks change from iteration to iteration until they are ready to be public.
Its a quality issue. When the quality is there, they make them public, and the API is standardized.
The idea that apple is purposely breaking stuff is fiction made up by people who want to bash apple or a wired author desperate for controversy.
Apple is quite explicit that you shouldn't rely on private framework apis, because they will change.
And the changes I've seen have been good ones.
Yeah, its true. They're hidden in plain sight.
Is wired so desperate for news that they have to resort to bashing apple because their clearly-marked-private-but-really-tweakable-with-
This is really pathetic.
But the company ISN'T on track financially. They're on Microsoft (R) brand life support.
You're such an idiot. apple is the only profitable computer company.
It isn't on "life support" from Mcirosoft-- hell mcirosoft office isn't even selling well on the Mac. Not because there aren't Macs out there, but because people don't care about office anymore.
Yes, actually, the iBook beats your celeron and costs less.
Like I said, you're a bigot, you don't care about the facts, you're just going to rant and rave.
You probably think Microsoft bougth a big chunk of apple with that "investment" of $150Million...
Sheesh.
I understand why slashdot readers are linux fans, but do they have to be so stupid? Where are the programmer,s the people who can recompile their kernel? The people with basic computer architecture knowledge? Buying a machine with a celeron is like buying a PowerPC 603-- EG: A Mac laptop of about 1996 vintage would beat your celeron in a laptop. PC laptops (non-transmeta anyway) are particularly hobbled due to the x86 really high power draw.
You talk about truth and zeolotry? Get a fucking education first, man. When you understand the words I'm using, then you can talk about truth.
You're an irrational bigot, and you're not worth my time.
You've made it clear that facts are irrelevant to you, and that you're going to claim what you like even when the links you provide say differently.
Shame on you.
The article was talking about OS 9 when it said that, not OS X. Whining about OS 9 is absurd, its dead.
Furthermore, OS X is far more tweakable than OS 9 for the reasons I've already said. So whining about that is absurd.
Yes, it is newbies who install these modifications. They don't create them, but they do install them. And when they do so and their machine starts crashing, they pin it on apple.
After all
Why is it reasonable for a company to restrict the way we use the product? This isn't Apple designing a product to be consistent, this is Apple locking down an existing product that people are using is a way that they didn't anticipate, because the creativity these users are demonstrating angers them.
/System/Library/PrivateFrameworks.
You don't even know what you're talking about.
The API are in
They have header files so you can link against them.
They are there for everyone to use.
How is saying "Please don't count on these private frameworks not changing from release to release, thank you." "Locking down an existing product"???
I think you simply don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. The many of the previously private frameworks have become public, and many of the private frameworks there now are new-- not existing.
When you say apple is locking down an existing product because they are angered at people using it in a way they didn't anticipate: YOU ARE LYING.
That is a bald faced lie. You should be ashamed of yourself.
They already have. Its called "Finder".
Just right click and choose "Show package contents" on any application.
You can then change the pictures or nibs to your hearts delight.
Just don't be upset if you render the program inoperable.
But under OS X its easier than the resedit days.
The ironic thing is you're flaming them when they have made the "private" apis more public and well documented than any other OS I know about. They are right there for anyone to use...
Its just that they aren't standard yet, and you cannot complain when apple changes them.
Apple provides header files, you can easily link against them-- this is not like calling into specific memory locations under DOS!
There is ALWAYS a valid technical reason to break it-- every time this has happened its been because Apple was moving the API to a more public version.
This idea that you have to support people who are not writing to your public APIs is crap. That is what makes computers unstable, and why windows still sucks so much.
Apple is, as usual, doing the right thing, and actually going far above and beyond the call of duty. And once again people who don't understand, and apparently don't know how to program, are whining about it.
You're talking about two different situations. Just go to your mac in
Private is a lable-- it means "Don't use this, it may well change".
What microsoft did was make the OS react different ly to different programs that were accessing published APIs. Microsoft was making its APIs not fit the specification, and it was providing hidden hooks into its OS.
The private framworks are there for everyone to see-- you're just told that they will change. When they do, you don't get to cry foul.
When microsoft releases a new product that breaks your own product that was using the public apis, then its legitimate to cry foul.
The difference is microsoft was making it so products could only work if they approved them.
Apple is merely saying "you're responsible if you use these, they will change".
Yeah, that's a double standard. Nope.
Damn, even your references suck. Both point to articls about Steve Jobs getting apple back on track financially. Nothing about being a petulant child at all.
But then, something tells me you're of the group who will spend twice as much money on a machine that performs half as well as a macintosh and think that you got a better deal on a faster machine. You're irrational to begin with.
Yeah that was flamebait. Why is it people think they can just make up whatever crap they want about apple and people will believe it?
Oh yeah, because there's a lot of bigots out there who will.
You cant even remember the show, and what steve said was "Mcirosoft, just doesn't have a sense of style" Nothing about him having en emotional problem.
The G4 Cube had no quality problems that I've ever heard of-- in fact, people who have one love them. They're quite a following. Unforutnately it didn't sell well, but that says nothing about its quality, just its popularity.
ARe you really so stupid you believe what you're shovelling?
Ok here's the deal: There are private APIs in OSX. They are undocumented and marked that way- these frameworks are in the private- frameworks folder.
Apple isn't deliberately breaking peoples products, it is changing internal APIs.
Many of these APIs start out internal and when they are ready for prime time, become public, supported, documented, standard APIs.
Until then, you use one and it doesn't work in the next rev, its your own damn fault.
And this is the right way for things to be- OS X is far more theme friendly than any other OS- hell the graphical eliments are all easily accessible pdf or tiff files and easy to replace. Want a different looking dock? Trivial. Want a different looking login window? no problem.
But the areas where things can cause instability in the OS should not be left wide open for people to change in an uncontrolled manner.
Quicktime has an API for skinning it. MAYBE Apple will release one for OS X, but if they are smart, they won't.
Standardized controls are what makes OS X much easier for newbies to use than other operating systems.
Let people change the look of their computer, but not the feel. That's the right strategy and the one apple seems to be following.
Why don't you get a Firewire DV bridge? Granted they don't support HDTV, but the DV format represents SD rather well. The formac studio dv/tv has a tuner built in, and cheaper products take composite and SVideo.
I have it on good authority that there will be a software PVR to make use of such devices soon enough....
Yeah, it had to be because steve jobs is a petulant child-- it couldn't be because NVIDIA wanted the business and made it worth Apple's while, or because NVIDIA is shipping better products (A lead that changes periodically,) or any other of a dozen business reasons. No, it couldn't have been that.
It must be becuase steve jobs is a petulant child and was mad that ATI mentioned the iMac 1 day before it was released.
Yeah, that must be it.
Just because so many kiddies online are so emotional about things, steve jobs must be super sensitive as well. Yeah, thats it. Like he really cares about that kind of crap.
What he DOES care about is quality products, and if anything, THAT was the reason Apple switched to NVIDIA.
Sheesh. Why do people believe such rumors?
CAD, GIS, accounting, banking...
The Macs advantages are employed there as well. Furthermore, now that Macs are based on Unix, a lot of the high end apps are getting ported- No point in selling into only a Solaris market when you can have potentially millions of Mac desktops to sell into-- plus there's the cost advantages of desktop computers for what were traditionally workstation applications, and OS X is the best desktop Unix out there (with the widest installed base.)
When the government is found to be doing a poor job at something (as it always is, due to its nature) the standard response is to charge more for it-- obviously it must be lack of money that is the problem. So they raise fees.
This is how we have the situation where the average single person pays over %50 of their income in taxes, and still doesn't get adequate fire coverage, adequate roads, adequate health care.
Any REAL patent reform would require taking it out of governments hands and putting it into an entity that has an incentive to provide a good job. For thats is why government sucks-- it has no incentive to do an adequate job, and so it doesn't.
Structure an entity such a way that it makes more money with good patents and its unprofitable to issue bad patents and you'll then have a good patent office.
Until then, the patent office will continue to give the socialists among us an excuse to complain about how "All property is theft".
Well, the Abacus increases productivity a little, but the Macintosh increases productivity more than any person computer environment yet invented. This according to the studies I've read, and the experience I have had, and also, the test I did. (Took two secretaries who had windows MS Word experience. Had them type a series of white papers under MS Word on both Windows and Mac machines. In both cases the Mac test resulted in about a %40 savings in speed-- even though they were not Mac trained, and even when the Mac was the first one they typed it on.
Not everyone can do their own testing, but if you do, the results are clear.
I know you were just trolling. I mean, what applications are there that the Mac doesn't excell at? I know of none where the Mac doesn't enjoy an advantage.
I for one wish Apple would start manufacturing the Newton again. Just make the last model they made the 2100 (or was it 2200) as it is... and maybe do some software updates to sync with the mac....
I have an original Newton (with the "bad" handwriting recognition that works great) and its still better than everything out there in the PDA space all these years later.