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

archie

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
532
0
0
Visit site
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 idiot 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.
 

surur

Well-known member
Aug 6, 2005
1,412
0
0
Visit site
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
 

MacUser

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2004
271
0
0
Visit site
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.
 

whmurray

Well-known member
Aug 20, 2003
1,719
10
0
Visit site
Heres something I found today. I have been wondering if you could use the keyboard in horizontal mode. I guess you can......

357161915_388509248a.jpg

And, in most cases will. While some of us enter very short text one-handed, for the most part we use both hands.
 

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
260,677
Messages
1,767,783
Members
441,256
Latest member
emii28