iPhone UI is "liquid", keyboard rocks: Chicago Sun Times article.

[Certs]

Here's what the author said:

" The iPhone runs the same OS as the Macintosh.Nope, everything I've learned says that it truly does run Leopard"

Then he goes on to say:

"The iPhone runs OS X, but it's an iPhone, not a Macintosh. And it stands to reason that the OS on the iPhone doesn't include any bits that it doesn't need."

What is sounds like to me is that it is based on the same structure as the Leopard. Same FRAMEWORK. It makes perfect sense, its like "Leopard Lite," OSX without the elements of the OS that wouldn't be beneficial to this device. So both are right, it IS leopard OS but it is not the EXACT leopard thats on a Mac.

 

[kmrivers]

Give me break. An OSX that runs on a different CUP is not the same OS. None of the current OSX existing app can run on it.

Unless it comes with a software emulation layer like the "classic" environment that let you run universal binary. Why keep insist that it's OSX. Steven Jobs can brand anything OSX, it's Apple's own brand.

Is that supposed to be CPU? If so. Then I guess OS X for Intel processors isn't really OS X, huh? I mean, without Rosetta you couldnt run PowerPC apps. Can't be OS X.

Whats important is what they deem OS X. OS X isn't the apps it can run. It is a set of things like core animation, quartz, core image, etc.

If Apple has those things then writing apps for it will be nearly identical, it will just have to be compiled for the CPU in it.

No one has to insist it is OS X. Apple says it is. If you want to prove them wrong, buy an iPhone when it comes out and strip it off and you tell me what it is. Until then, save me the semantics.

 

[samkim]

Chill.

 

[archie]

Give me break. An OSX that runs on a different CUP is not the same OS. None of the current OSX existing app can run on it.

Unless it comes with a software emulation layer like the "classic" environment that let you run universal binary. Why keep insist that it's OSX. Steven Jobs can brand anything OSX, it's Apple's own brand.

AAAaaarrrgghhh!

I can't believe people are making this out to be such a big deal. And what does it matter anyway? Least of all to you and the people who are determined that the iPhone and Apple are no good.



For those that want to listen and believe what I have to say, read on. The rest of you can go about your business, comfortable with the fact that I have no idea what I am talking about.

Apple's OS is built in a modular, layer based fashion.

Here are the layers:

User Experience
Application Environment
Application Services | Graphics & Multimedia
Core Services
Core OS​

The base layer (Core OS) is what sits directly on top of the hardware. Certain aspects of this will change based on the CPU the OS is sitting on (Power PC chip, Intel chip, or Samsung ARM chip)

The next 2 layers stay the same, regardless.

The top layer, the user experience, is obviously different for the new iPhone. This is where much of the innovation is that is so noticable.

So in breaking it down it seems the only point of contention is the Application Environment layer. I think if people understand that even in the fully capable "Mac OS X", there are different environments here. Now it might be easier to grasp the concept of OS X sitting on the iPhone and in turn officially being able to call it OS X.

Some of the different application environments for OS X are Carbon, Cocoa, Java and X11.

Does it make more sense now?
Now it would stand to reason that this is where the iPhone form of OS X differs because as everyone knows, we cannot run the Mac OS X desktop apps on the iPhone. So there has to be some new application environment here that is probably really similar to Cocoa, only smaller.

This serves to explain how the OS can be called "OS X".

 

[oalvarez]

I think you should try a test unit then give a full review of the OS. Only then will you truly know if it has limitations or not.

Surur, ya, why not give it a try then report back to everyone. after all , you seem like you have a lot of time to do so. the problem is that not many respect your comments nor trust them. go get em tiger!

i'm a treo owner and i still think they suk.

 

[surur]

AAAaaarrrgghhh!

Application Services | Graphics & Multimedia
Core Services
​

And do you really think these two layers are the same too? Will all the services running by default on OSX run on the IPhone? I think not.

Surur

 

[archie]

AAAaaarrrgghhh!

I can't believe people are making this out to be such a big deal. And what does it matter anyway? Least of all to you and the people who are determined that the iPhone and Apple are no good.

Actually when I say this isn't a big deal, I am refering to those that don't think it is a big deal. Why? Because it obviously won't affect them since they seem to dislike the phone anyway.


BUT; what is a big deal is that... IT IS "OS X" - for those that, ummm... like OS X.

The reason Steve made such an announcement was that he was slyly letting us know that they have created an embedded OS that we will see in many products throughout the year. There were 3 of them announced at MWSF.

iPhone
Apple TV with Front Row and many other services
Airport Express with its server like capabilities also giving NAS functionality.

The iPod will obviously be next and we can expect other items too. Yup, having developed an embedded OS that is as flexible as OS X is makes Apple a very NIMBLE and powerful company. They can essentially put this OS anywhere they want and they can do it quickly. People don't yet realize this and for those that do, they probably don't realize how much power they wield because of it.

 

[Pearl_Diva]

So when's the video iPod coming?

 

[archie]

And do you really think these two layers are the same too? Will all the services running by default on OSX run on the IPhone? I think not.

Surur

Pretty much, yes.

Core Services:
collection management, data formatting, memory management, string utilities, process management, XML parsing, stream-based I/O, low-level network communication

Application Services:
HTML rendering, address book management, font management, speech synthesis and recognition, iChat Presence, PDF Kit, Web Kit, Sync Services, Image Capture

Graphics & Multimedia:
QuickTime, Core Animation, Core Image, Core Audio, text and fonts


Well, you get the idea... I think. There are definitely more that I can't think of. I suppose it is possible there might be a service here and there that needs to be trimmed (like maybe OpenGL).

 

[surur]

So it will run Bonjour, so I can copy files of your Iphone. Kewl!!!

Surur

 

[whatever7]

Archie, by your definition, people can also call WM5 "winXP" or "WinVista" since by your definition they all share the same look and feel (and other frame work).

And older iBooks that are running up to date OSX can't even run core image and other core whatever because the GPU is not powerful enough, how can you call these a requirement of what "OSX" is?

I am not taking issue that Steve Jobs is calling it OSX (again, he can call anything OSX becuase Apple can brand anything OSX). I am taking issue that the writer call "this is not like the WM5 of Apple". This is exactly the WM5 version of OSX.

And no I don't need an iPhone to prove it. I don't need to be a chef to tell if an egg is cooked well so there.

 

[Tastypeppers]

I don't care what you call the OS as long as you don't call me late for dinner.

Seriously. Whoooooooooooooo cares?

Me, I'm going to wait until the iPhone comes out. Then I will go to the Apple store. Pick it up. Fondle it. I will like it or not. Buy it or not.

In other words, I'm going to take the Ted Kennedy approach to life -- "I'll drive off that bridge when I get to it."

 

[whmurray]

..........There is really no way of knowing except either having the code or believing Apple. Such is the advantages of a closed and tightly controlled system.

Surur

That sounds pretty secure to me. Are you trying to have it both ways? Is it secure enough to resist you but not as secure as "real" OS X on the Mac?

 

[archie]

Archie, by your definition, people can also call WM5 "winXP" or "WinVista" since by your definition they all share the same look and feel (and other frame work).

If you read my post...
by my definition, I say just the oppisate of what you are crediting me.

I'll say it again: "The top layer, the user experience, is obviously different for the new iPhone. This is where much of the innovation is that is so noticable."

This is just superficial... and I don't say "look and feel (and other framework)". Superficial in regards to the subject at hand.

And older iBooks that are running up to date OSX can't even run core image and other core whatever because the GPU is not powerful enough, how can you call these a requirement of what "OSX" is?

These services are present, it's just that the Core OS notes that the hardware is not capable and then deals with it. Kind of like not having a mic connected. It can detect this and deal with it.

I am not taking issue that Steve Jobs is calling it OSX (again, he can call anything OSX becuase Apple can brand anything OSX). I am taking issue that the writer call "this is not like the WM5 of Apple". This is exactly the WM5 version of OSX.

I don't know how and if (probably not important anyway) this relates to what the authur was saying in the above article but...

WM5 is definitely NOT like OS X. Even with my limited knowledge, I can tell you that OS X is object oriented, modular. Microsoft's OS, all of them, are poorly constructed in that they are not opject oriented like Apple's. Apple can easily deal with the parts and pieces by basically just adding a service bit here and there or take it away. And because the Core OS is so well written (and because Apple software engineers seem to have more talent thn M$) they can easily change up the kernal to move it to a new processor.

I don't feel like writing anymore. I'm done.

 

[surur]

WM5 is definitely NOT like OS X. Even with my limited knowledge, I can tell you that OS X is object oriented, modular. Microsoft's OS, all of them, are poorly constructed in that they are not opject oriented like Apple's. Apple can easily deal with the parts and pieces by basically just adding a service bit here and there or take it away. And because the Core OS is so well written (and because Apple software engineers seem to have more talent thn M$) they can easily change up the kernal to move it to a new processor.

I don't feel like writing anymore. I'm done.

Pity. You were just starting to expose your ignorance. And I thought you actually knew something, anything even.

FYI WM can and does run services, is built on Win CE which is modular, and works well enough thank you.

Apple would have to be an idiot to run services which they do not intend to use. But I guess if they listen to you they might.

Surur

 

[whmurray]

.............
WM5 is definitely NOT like OS X. Even with my limited knowledge, I can tell you that OS X is object oriented, modular. Microsoft's OS, all of them, are poorly constructed in that they are not opject oriented like Apple's. Apple can easily deal with the parts and pieces by basically just adding a service bit here and there or take it away. And because the Core OS is so well written (and because Apple software engineers seem to have more talent thn M$) they can easily change up the kernal to move it to a new processor.
............

The problem confronted by MS is more difficult than that confronted by Apple. MS tries to/has to maintain backward compatibility. It tries to be completely open to all "standard" hardware.

Every few years, Apple draws a new line in the sand and starts over. There are few to complain. If MS tried that, one would hear the whining on the moon. Apple is also less open to hardware.

 

[surur]

That sounds pretty secure to me. Are you trying to have it both ways? Is it secure enough to resist you but not as secure as "real" OS X on the Mac?

I didn't know 'full OSX' security is based on not being able to run unvetted programs. You learn a new thing every day.

Surur

 

[whmurray]

I didn't know 'full OSX' security is based on not being able to run unvetted programs. You learn a new thing every day.

Surur

I did not intend to suggest that. However, the ability to resist arbitrary changes, the running of arbitrary code, or arbitrary viewing are ways that the security of an operating system may manifest itself.

Of course, reliable process-to-process isolation is another. One might be able to achieve the first three without achieving this last. On the other hand, the first three might make it difficult to demonstrate the presence or the absence of the fourth.

Reliable process-to-process isolation is necessary to resist interference with or contamination of open devices. It may be less necessary for closed devices or appliances.

"Nothing useful can be said about the security of a mechanism," for example, an operating system, "except in the context of a specific application and environment." A serially reusable multi-application device like the Mac may place different security requirements on its operating system than will a single-user single application device like a phone. Said another way, OS X might be "secure" in one use and not in another.

 

[meyerweb#CB]

I suppose it's possible the screen is incredibily scratch resistant, but I sure can't help but wonder. Time will tell. And I see the "no fingernail" thing as potentially a BIG problem. This could be a real drawback for a lot of women. The glove thing doesn't bother me too much, as you can't really use a Treo keyboard with gloves, either. But you can at least use the touch screen for basic things with gloves. I'm not thrilled at the idea of having to take my glove off to make a call when it's 20 degrees outside.

 

[whmurray]

I suppose it's possible the screen is incredibily scratch resistant, but I sure can't help but wonder. Time will tell. And I see the "no fingernail" thing as potentially a BIG problem. This could be a real drawback for a lot of women. The glove thing doesn't bother me too much, as you can't really use a Treo keyboard with gloves, either. But you can at least use the touch screen for basic things with gloves. I'm not thrilled at the idea of having to take my glove off to make a call when it's 20 degrees outside.

The requirement for voice dialing is independent of keyboard type.