1. surur's Avatar
    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
    01-19-2007 02:32 AM
  2. archie's Avatar
    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.
    01-19-2007 02:35 AM
  3. Pearl_Diva's Avatar
    So when's the video iPod coming?
    01-19-2007 02:40 AM
  4. archie's Avatar
    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).
    01-19-2007 02:49 AM
  5. surur's Avatar
    So it will run Bonjour, so I can copy files of your Iphone. Kewl!!!

    Surur
    01-19-2007 05:34 AM
  6. whatever7's Avatar
    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 10:48 AM
  7. Tastypeppers's Avatar
    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 10:58 AM
  8. whmurray's Avatar
    ..........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?
    01-19-2007 11:36 AM
  9. archie's Avatar
    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.
    01-19-2007 12:33 PM
  10. surur's Avatar
    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 ***** to run services which they do not intend to use. But I guess if they listen to you they might.

    Surur
    01-19-2007 12:45 PM
  11. whmurray's Avatar
    .............
    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.
    01-19-2007 12:46 PM
  12. surur's Avatar
    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
    01-19-2007 12:47 PM
  13. whmurray's Avatar
    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.
    01-19-2007 01:04 PM
  14. meyerweb#CB's Avatar
    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 01:12 PM
  15. whmurray's Avatar
    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.
    01-19-2007 01:16 PM
  16. archie's Avatar
    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.
    You people just CAN'T let it GO.

    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.

    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.
    You really have no concept do you. It is apparent that whatever I say will be incorrect, even though you may not even understand what it is that I write...
    So I can't continue, their is no motivation.
    01-19-2007 01:17 PM
  17. surur's Avatar
    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.
    True. If it can only run signed code that is about as much security as all other mobile OS's (Symbian and WM), although Symbian provides for different levels of access to the hardware, file system and radios etc, but of course I would expect a more sophisticated model from a 'full os'. However if its only security through obscurity, by not providing any mechanism to load software onto the device and not releasing the SDK, we dont even know if its as good as that.

    Surur
    01-19-2007 02:22 PM
  18. MacUser's Avatar
    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.
    /agree
    Those that use OS X understand the stability and look forward to having it in other media devices. For those who don't use it, you can't appreciate the feeling that it'll "just work" when you need it.
    01-20-2007 12:37 AM
  19. mobileman's Avatar
    Heres something I found today. I have been wondering if you could use the keyboard in horizontal mode. I guess you can......

    http://www.myiphone.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=238&c=6
    01-20-2007 08:16 PM
  20. whmurray's Avatar
    Heres something I found today. I have been wondering if you could use the keyboard in horizontal mode. I guess you can......

    And, in most cases will. While some of us enter very short text one-handed, for the most part we use both hands.
    01-20-2007 08:23 PM
  21. oalvarez's Avatar
    as we do with Treos, right?
    01-20-2007 11:18 PM
  22. whmurray's Avatar
    as we do with Treos, right?
    Yes, I meant "we" Treo users.
    01-21-2007 09:14 AM
47 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD