Demoman
Aug 15, 08:40 PM
The Expos� in Spaces screenshot is wild...
And agree with Chundles that until we see ALL of Leopard's features listed, there's no way you can make a valid purchase decision on it.
Understand, I am not suggesting how you should spend your money. This is just another opinion. But, I have been through all the 'cats' from the .0 release on. I have never had reason to complain.
Apple may not be perfect, but they sure beat the pants off Brand X. I have been working in IT since 1981. I have spent the vast majority of time with Workstations and PC's. These include every incarnation of DOS and Windows, SPARC/Sun, SGI/MIPS, OS/2, and the IBM RS-6000 Series. I am a late arrival to Apple/Macs. In fact, it was somewhat by accident. But, I am now convinced OSX is the finest desktop OS ever made. Until this no longer the case, I will throw my support fully behind the most innovative HW/SW manufacturer in the world. I would gladly pay full price for a beta copy of Leopard right now.
And agree with Chundles that until we see ALL of Leopard's features listed, there's no way you can make a valid purchase decision on it.
Understand, I am not suggesting how you should spend your money. This is just another opinion. But, I have been through all the 'cats' from the .0 release on. I have never had reason to complain.
Apple may not be perfect, but they sure beat the pants off Brand X. I have been working in IT since 1981. I have spent the vast majority of time with Workstations and PC's. These include every incarnation of DOS and Windows, SPARC/Sun, SGI/MIPS, OS/2, and the IBM RS-6000 Series. I am a late arrival to Apple/Macs. In fact, it was somewhat by accident. But, I am now convinced OSX is the finest desktop OS ever made. Until this no longer the case, I will throw my support fully behind the most innovative HW/SW manufacturer in the world. I would gladly pay full price for a beta copy of Leopard right now.
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
Philter
Jan 30, 09:34 PM
Apple stock is tanking because Apple stopped making tools (which people need) and started making fashion objects (which are the first to go in a recession.)
Maybe if Apple would make some real computers at fair prices... instead of these toys...
Maybe if Apple would make some real computers at fair prices... instead of these toys...
jettredmont
Oct 23, 10:42 AM
just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?
No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."
That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.
No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."
That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.
more...
electric
Apr 22, 11:17 AM
Hahaha,
Even if the chip was available, Apple would not use it. They would prefer to have it's customers buy a 3G phone, then have a need/want to buy the 4G in less than 2 years.
His name is Steve Jobs and he approves of this logic.
Even if the chip was available, Apple would not use it. They would prefer to have it's customers buy a 3G phone, then have a need/want to buy the 4G in less than 2 years.
His name is Steve Jobs and he approves of this logic.
Bonsai1214
Sep 14, 12:38 AM
Thousand Suns was such a disappointment. one, maybe two good songs at best.
anywho: InvisiShield MAXIMUM for ipt4. i'm ocd about keeping gadgets clean. and my lord, the ipt4 is a fingerprint magnet. i just about cried after seeing it within 5 minutes of opening. i also vacuum my playstation every week when i'm at home..
anywho: InvisiShield MAXIMUM for ipt4. i'm ocd about keeping gadgets clean. and my lord, the ipt4 is a fingerprint magnet. i just about cried after seeing it within 5 minutes of opening. i also vacuum my playstation every week when i'm at home..
more...
clintob
Oct 23, 10:27 AM
Why is anyone surprised about this? It goes without saying that MS will try to squeeze every dime they can out of Vista, and that includes making non-PC users pony up for the most expensive version. It's the way it's always been with MS... nickel and dime all the way. Just yet another checkmark in the "why I can't get away from MS fast enough" column.
Losers.
Losers.
cuestakid
May 1, 11:52 PM
Your 2nd date appears to be incorrect.
http://www.biography.com/articles/Adolf-Hitler-9340144
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267992/Adolf-Hitler
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-commits-suicide
how so?
http://www.biography.com/articles/Adolf-Hitler-9340144
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267992/Adolf-Hitler
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-commits-suicide
how so?
more...
avkills
Aug 15, 02:02 PM
Well anyone with a G5 or Mac Pro should not even question the upgrade as it brings a full 64bit OS to your machine. Couple that with point upgrades to applications to 64bit and you have some massive memory enhancements.
-mark
-mark
jhu
Oct 23, 08:23 PM
how is this any different than apple's end user-license agreement for mac os x? here is section 2A (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.pdf):
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computer at the same time.
the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx) also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.
This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computer at the same time.
the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx) also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.
more...
pcharles
Apr 15, 03:26 PM
Snow Lion? :rolleyes:
Everyone knows it will be Garfield!
Everyone knows it will be Garfield!
SandynJosh
Jun 6, 05:33 PM
Yeah, "accidentally," sure. :rolleyes: The price and the buttons on the app store are clearly labeled. You don't just "accidentally" purchase this. It's only believable if the kid is still an infant and randomly tap on stuff, but 11 year old?
Maybe he was hunting for an Easter Egg.... :)
Maybe he was hunting for an Easter Egg.... :)
more...
BRLawyer
Dec 2, 10:37 AM
Up to the point, RacerX...I am tired of these "security warnings" that carry little more than vaporware and a thirst for publicity and hacker-like "fame"...
If a kernel panic is a "serious issue", think again...and go Vista...and please, no market share arguments anymore...we have probably more than 50 million Apple users out there...I am sure a few hackers are still trying hard to make a virus in the wild for them.
If a kernel panic is a "serious issue", think again...and go Vista...and please, no market share arguments anymore...we have probably more than 50 million Apple users out there...I am sure a few hackers are still trying hard to make a virus in the wild for them.
regandarcy
Apr 11, 01:28 PM
I assume the iMacs and air books will get thunderbolt in the next few months. So where does that leave the iPad? Will it always be able to support thunderbolt too? Eventually?
more...
irbdavid
Jul 21, 11:24 AM
Afterall Apple does not want you to use Windows, it only wants you to believe you could run Windows if you had to, in order to ease switcher anxiety.
Actually they want to sell you the hardware, right? Apple calls itself a hardware company that makes a bit of software on the side, rather than software company that makes hardware to sell with it, doesn't it?
Actually they want to sell you the hardware, right? Apple calls itself a hardware company that makes a bit of software on the side, rather than software company that makes hardware to sell with it, doesn't it?
billchase2
Jul 25, 09:23 AM
i totally called this! and was told i was wrong... ;)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=209192&page=7&highlight=none+touch#172
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=209192&page=7&highlight=none+touch#172
more...
jav6454
Apr 14, 01:00 PM
As always, jailbreakers should not update to this software... it is an obvious release to patch up PwnageTool exploit.
Megakazbek
Apr 13, 09:59 AM
Wouldn't it be helpful to see a Gmail-style snippet of your new emails visible when you unlock your phone? Or possibly a small calendar display so you can see at a glance that there's a meeting you're booked into later? I guess it might be difficult to integrate these things without dramatically reducing the space visible for apps but I can imagine a lot of people having a use for this kind of functionality and Apple is denying people the choice at the moment.
I think it may be useful for the lock screen. For home screen I don't think it's much more effective than just launching separate apps to look at mail or calendar.
Anyway, I don't think that it's bad to have widgets or customization, I just think that it's not that important. It will make iOS better, but only a tiny bit better, it won't be any huge step forward.
I still don't quite understand why people are so averse to the idea of a visible file system
It gives too much irrelevant information and it's too easy to make it messy.
For example, if I run Word on PC and click open file, then it will show me the whole filesystem with thousands of browseable folders, but only few of them actually contain any Word documents. Ideally, what I should be able to see instead is list of all Word documents on my computer and all connected devices in a very organized way that makes it easy to find any document in less than a second. I shouldn't care that one part of a report is in my local folder, another part is on flash drive and some other part is written by another dude and is on a network server, but file system wants me to care of these irrelevant things. I can think of hundreds other examples where file system gets in the way of organization and productivity. Basically, it's not the best way to manage documents and media and it should be superseded by something entirely different. And IMHO for Apple moving forward is so principal that they are willing to reject archaic ways of doing some things even if it's currently the ONLY way of doing them. Apple is like - do it the best way or don't do it at all.
I think it may be useful for the lock screen. For home screen I don't think it's much more effective than just launching separate apps to look at mail or calendar.
Anyway, I don't think that it's bad to have widgets or customization, I just think that it's not that important. It will make iOS better, but only a tiny bit better, it won't be any huge step forward.
I still don't quite understand why people are so averse to the idea of a visible file system
It gives too much irrelevant information and it's too easy to make it messy.
For example, if I run Word on PC and click open file, then it will show me the whole filesystem with thousands of browseable folders, but only few of them actually contain any Word documents. Ideally, what I should be able to see instead is list of all Word documents on my computer and all connected devices in a very organized way that makes it easy to find any document in less than a second. I shouldn't care that one part of a report is in my local folder, another part is on flash drive and some other part is written by another dude and is on a network server, but file system wants me to care of these irrelevant things. I can think of hundreds other examples where file system gets in the way of organization and productivity. Basically, it's not the best way to manage documents and media and it should be superseded by something entirely different. And IMHO for Apple moving forward is so principal that they are willing to reject archaic ways of doing some things even if it's currently the ONLY way of doing them. Apple is like - do it the best way or don't do it at all.
DavidWilton
Nov 22, 02:52 PM
Hoping my GF agrees to buying me a Magic Mouse and Apple Wireless Keyboard.
AidenShaw
Mar 29, 11:30 PM
That is all it is for most people. I barely know what WWDC is, I just know I usually end up watching a keynote online from it.
Back in the day, Apple participated in user conferences called MacWorld. There was an winter one in San Francisco, and a summer/late summer one on the east coast. There also was a late spring developer conference in San Francisco - but that was mostly irrelevant if you weren't an Apple OSX developer.
Life was good.
But, the turtle-necked overlord got into a hissy-fit with the company that was organizing the conferences.
The summer MacWorld was cancelled for petty reasons. Soon after, Apple withdrew from the winter conference as well.
So, today, the only venue that Apple has control over is the late spring developer conference - which they've co-opted to trumpet whatever the PR department needs at the time.
Back in the day, Apple participated in user conferences called MacWorld. There was an winter one in San Francisco, and a summer/late summer one on the east coast. There also was a late spring developer conference in San Francisco - but that was mostly irrelevant if you weren't an Apple OSX developer.
Life was good.
But, the turtle-necked overlord got into a hissy-fit with the company that was organizing the conferences.
The summer MacWorld was cancelled for petty reasons. Soon after, Apple withdrew from the winter conference as well.
So, today, the only venue that Apple has control over is the late spring developer conference - which they've co-opted to trumpet whatever the PR department needs at the time.
digitalbiker
Jul 12, 07:09 PM
Apple labels iWork as a "consumer level" app. not me.
My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.
I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.
Very well put. I agree with you 100%. I bought pages thinking it could replace MS Word after seeing Jobs demo at MacWorld a couple of years ago.
When I tried to use it to build a Messier Catlog viewers guide it was the worst software experience I have ever had. It crashed constantly, it corrupted files. It was difficult to manipulate the graphics and get them where I wanted them. Text flow was clumsy. It was painfully slow.
I have a G4 1.67 GHz, 1 GB, PB and it took 7 minutes (I timed it) to open the document. The document contained 100 tiffs and 100 jpgs in tables on only 50 pages. It would open, then it would take another 3 minutes to scroll.
Pages V2 was better but still sucked. I could never make compatible .doc files. Most of my co-workers were on Windows machines running Office 2003 and when I would email the .doc, I would always get an email back saying that something was wrong with my file or that their virus checker said it was bad. Whatever, I had to finally abandon Pages.
I don't even like pages for quick documents. AppleWorks is better or even BBedit, depending on the type of quick document I need.
Even Apple doesn't advertise this product as a competitor for Word. They simple sell it as a consumer level productivity tool.
My definition of a "Pro level" app is one that has industry maturity, is excepted as standard industry wide, has many many features which allow it to be versatile and is useful in a variety of professional industries. It probably isn't the easiest app to use because it isn't focused to just one industry.
I would bet you that not .1% of printshops, publishers, lawyers, engineers, etc. even know what a .pages file is let alone are they working with it daily.
Very well put. I agree with you 100%. I bought pages thinking it could replace MS Word after seeing Jobs demo at MacWorld a couple of years ago.
When I tried to use it to build a Messier Catlog viewers guide it was the worst software experience I have ever had. It crashed constantly, it corrupted files. It was difficult to manipulate the graphics and get them where I wanted them. Text flow was clumsy. It was painfully slow.
I have a G4 1.67 GHz, 1 GB, PB and it took 7 minutes (I timed it) to open the document. The document contained 100 tiffs and 100 jpgs in tables on only 50 pages. It would open, then it would take another 3 minutes to scroll.
Pages V2 was better but still sucked. I could never make compatible .doc files. Most of my co-workers were on Windows machines running Office 2003 and when I would email the .doc, I would always get an email back saying that something was wrong with my file or that their virus checker said it was bad. Whatever, I had to finally abandon Pages.
I don't even like pages for quick documents. AppleWorks is better or even BBedit, depending on the type of quick document I need.
Even Apple doesn't advertise this product as a competitor for Word. They simple sell it as a consumer level productivity tool.
dernhelm
Oct 19, 07:39 AM
Is there anything really innovative there? I don't think so. Yes, MacPro is an example of beautiful engineering, but there's not much innovation in there.
So what are you expecting? The computer industry hasn't been truly innovative since the first ICs were produced. I suppose you could claim the invention of the mouse was relatively innovative, but certainly not the addition of the keyboard - those had been used in typewriters for years! For the rest of it, all it is is binary mathematics - with short and long term storage - this was all stuff mathematicians had a handle on for millenia. Nothing innovative there right? The internet? Not really innovative, people had been connecting PCs together with serial and parallel cables for years before that. The internet did it better, but so what? To be truly innovative, you must come up with something that no one else has ever done, right?
In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much everything in the computer industry had been done before, or can be seen as an adaption of something else. So by your definition, there are no new ideas and therefore no innovation anywhere. Which leads me to ask, what innovative things are you looking for, that you feel you can criticize Apple for not being innovative enough?
So what are you expecting? The computer industry hasn't been truly innovative since the first ICs were produced. I suppose you could claim the invention of the mouse was relatively innovative, but certainly not the addition of the keyboard - those had been used in typewriters for years! For the rest of it, all it is is binary mathematics - with short and long term storage - this was all stuff mathematicians had a handle on for millenia. Nothing innovative there right? The internet? Not really innovative, people had been connecting PCs together with serial and parallel cables for years before that. The internet did it better, but so what? To be truly innovative, you must come up with something that no one else has ever done, right?
In case you hadn't noticed, pretty much everything in the computer industry had been done before, or can be seen as an adaption of something else. So by your definition, there are no new ideas and therefore no innovation anywhere. Which leads me to ask, what innovative things are you looking for, that you feel you can criticize Apple for not being innovative enough?
appleguy123
Apr 26, 05:34 PM
What's that supposed to mean? You're not specials but you're still special? Maybe in the sense that you both are wolves?
How could we be wolves if you are one, and there are only two?
How could we be wolves if you are one, and there are only two?
Minimoose 360
Apr 24, 03:13 PM
What product will the T-Mobile chic bash now??? :rolleyes:
She can bash my handset any day ;)
She can bash my handset any day ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment