- 01-19-2007, 01:32 AM #26
- 01-19-2007, 01:35 AM #27
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.
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.
- 01-19-2007, 01:40 AM #28
- 01-19-2007, 01:49 AM #29
collection management, data formatting, memory management, string utilities, process management, XML parsing, stream-based I/O, low-level network communication
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).
- 01-19-2007, 04:34 AM #30
- 01-19-2007, 09:48 AM #31
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.
- 01-19-2007, 09:58 AM #32
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."
- 01-19-2007, 10:36 AM #33
- 01-19-2007, 11:33 AM #34
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.
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.
- 01-19-2007, 11:45 AM #35
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 ***** to run services which they do not intend to use. But I guess if they listen to you they might.
- 01-19-2007, 11:46 AM #36
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.
- 01-19-2007, 11:47 AM #37
- 01-19-2007, 12:04 PM #38
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.
- 01-19-2007, 12:12 PM #39
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.
- 01-19-2007, 12:16 PM #40
- 01-19-2007, 12:17 PM #41
M$ is so messy and the code that goes into it is so intertwined with other bits of code elsewhere in the OS that isn't even in the same module. This is why it takes them 5 years to release an OS.
Look, I'm not a MS developer but I know enough to relize that WM5 and it's 48MB - 64MB foot print does in no way equal the 2, 3 or 4 GB that constitues Microsoft Windows XP. Compare this to Apple's 500MB OS X that sits on the iPhone along with the 1.25GB 1.5 GB (depending on additional languages that you may have loaded) OS X that sits on the desktop. That is a hell of a lot closer to being the same OS than M$'s platforms.
So I can't continue, their is no motivation.
- 01-19-2007, 01:22 PM #42
- 01-19-2007, 11:37 PM #43
- 01-20-2007, 07:16 PM #44
- 01-20-2007, 07:23 PM #45
- 01-20-2007, 10:18 PM #46
- 01-21-2007, 08:14 AM #47