Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #55278 > unrolled thread

past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-24 11:04 -0700
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS "zulu" <zulu.romeotangohotel@ntlworld.com> - 2014-01-24 18:34 +0000
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-24 15:59 -0500
      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-24 23:32 -0700
        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 02:29 -0500
          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-25 08:11 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-25 19:03 +0000
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-01-25 20:01 -0600
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:48 +1100
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-26 14:26 +0000
                      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-26 15:58 +0000
                        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-27 13:12 +0000
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 15:44 +0000
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:39 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-26 13:50 +1300
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-01-26 17:36 +1300
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Erilar <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> - 2014-01-26 13:56 +0000
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-26 14:28 -0500
                    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 09:54 +1300
                      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-01-26 18:06 -0600
                        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 14:53 +1300
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-27 02:00 +0000
                          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-27 17:41 +1300
                            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-26 22:06 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
              Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-01-25 15:43 -0500
                Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-01-25 19:59 -0600
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-01-26 15:26 +1300
                  Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-01-26 13:44 +1100
        Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 14:41 -0500
          Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-25 13:48 -0700
            Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-25 16:25 -0500
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-01-24 16:15 -0500
      Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-25 11:54 -0500
    Re: past, present, and future of Mac OS and iOS Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-01-24 17:44 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#55463

On 1/26/14 2:54 PM, in article 270120140954036606%YourName@YourISP.com,
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
>>> timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
>>> Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
>> 
>> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.
> 
> Snow Leopard  ->  Lion  ->  Mountain Lion  ->  Mavericks
> or in more useful terms:
>     10.6  ->  10.7  ->  10.8  ->  10.9
> 
> Using codenames is a meaninglessly silly idea which Apple should
> abandon.

It helps people remember. It's a tool. You can't relate?!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55469

In article <CF0AFF0C.A6D19%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/14 2:54 PM, in article 270120140954036606%YourName@YourISP.com,
> "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> > <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> >> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
> >>> timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
> >>> Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
> >> 
> >> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.
> > 
> > Snow Leopard  ->  Lion  ->  Mountain Lion  ->  Mavericks
> > or in more useful terms:
> >     10.6  ->  10.7  ->  10.8  ->  10.9
> > 
> > Using codenames is a meaninglessly silly idea which Apple should
> > abandon.
> 
> It helps people remember. It's a tool. You can't relate?!?

It's easier to remember numbers than completely irrelevant cat / surf
beach names. It's also *MUCH* *MUCH* *MUCH* easier to see what the
release order is and know that "10.8" is newer than the "10.6"
installed on your computer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55471

On 2014-01-27, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <CF0AFF0C.A6D19%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
><ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 1/26/14 2:54 PM, in article 270120140954036606%YourName@YourISP.com,
>> "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> > In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
>> > <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
>> >> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
>> >>> timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
>> >>> Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
>> >> 
>> >> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.
>> > 
>> > Snow Leopard  ->  Lion  ->  Mountain Lion  ->  Mavericks
>> > or in more useful terms:
>> >     10.6  ->  10.7  ->  10.8  ->  10.9
>> > 
>> > Using codenames is a meaninglessly silly idea which Apple should
>> > abandon.
>> 
>> It helps people remember. It's a tool. You can't relate?!?
>
> It's easier to remember numbers than completely irrelevant cat / surf
> beach names. It's also *MUCH* *MUCH* *MUCH* easier to see what the
> release order is and know that "10.8" is newer than the "10.6"
> installed on your computer.

I've always preferred version numbers for this very reason.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55473

In article <270120141453543380%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> In article <CF0AFF0C.A6D19%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 1/26/14 2:54 PM, in article 270120140954036606%YourName@YourISP.com,
> > "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > In article <lc346h$j5u$1@dont-email.me>, Erilar
> > > <drache@chibardun.netinvalid> wrote:
> > >> David Empson <dempson@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> > >>> 
> > >>> Given hints like Safari updates, and patterns for usage level and
> > >>> timeframe, I'd expect to see security updates for Lion and Mountain
> > >>> Lion, but not for Snow Leopard.
> > >> 
> > >> I don't remember off-hand what numbers those names refer to.
> > > 
> > > Snow Leopard  ->  Lion  ->  Mountain Lion  ->  Mavericks
> > > or in more useful terms:
> > >     10.6  ->  10.7  ->  10.8  ->  10.9
> > > 
> > > Using codenames is a meaninglessly silly idea which Apple should
> > > abandon.
> > 
> > It helps people remember. It's a tool. You can't relate?!?
> 
> It's easier to remember numbers than completely irrelevant cat / surf
> beach names. It's also *MUCH* *MUCH* *MUCH* easier to see what the
> release order is and know that "10.8" is newer than the "10.6"
> installed on your computer.

I forgot to say, you'll notice that iOS doesn't have silly codenames,
just sensible numbers.

Even better than numbers would be to use the year, then you could also
easily tell how old your version of the OS is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55474

In article <270120141741186474%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Even better than numbers would be to use the year, then you could also
> easily tell how old your version of the OS is.

That worked quite well for Microsoft.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55342

In article <250120140811350980%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Despite a rather strong message from people sticking with Snow Leopard,
> > Apple only made shy attempts at toning down its unpopular policies for
> > desktop and did the stupid thing of adding translucency to IOS.
> 
> That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."

it's also 'i don't want all the other crap that came with lion, like
autosave'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55350

On 14-01-25 14:41, nospam wrote:

>> That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."
> 
> it's also 'i don't want all the other crap that came with lion, like
> autosave'.


In my case right now, it also involves "I don't have the time to spend
to install Mavericks and test it, and spend much time finding how to
disable all the stuff I don't want, re-enable allthe stuff that Apple
has disabled etc.

For hispters who spend time at Starbucks, they likely have a pretty
vanilla install and can just upgrade in an afternoon and not really test
anything. But for me, this is quite different.

(Just consider having to save the Snow Leopard server management
applications and place them back into the system after the install has
updated them to the dumbed down versions that may not work with SL
server and have reduced functionality.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55386

In article <52e421e2$0$9788$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-01-25 14:41, nospam wrote:
> 
> >> That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."
> > 
> > it's also 'i don't want all the other crap that came with lion, like
> > autosave'.
> 
> 
> In my case right now, it also involves "I don't have the time to spend
> to install Mavericks and test it, and spend much time finding how to
> disable all the stuff I don't want, re-enable allthe stuff that Apple
> has disabled etc.
> 
> For hispters who spend time at Starbucks, they likely have a pretty
> vanilla install and can just upgrade in an afternoon and not really test
> anything. But for me, this is quite different.
> 
> (Just consider having to save the Snow Leopard server management
> applications and place them back into the system after the install has
> updated them to the dumbed down versions that may not work with SL
> server and have reduced functionality.)

It's nice to see someone else with reservations about Maverick 8-)  I 
don't think I COULD retrieve most of what it would destroy on my laptop.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55392

In article <drache-517287.19594725012014@news.eternal-september.org>,
erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <52e421e2$0$9788$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > On 14-01-25 14:41, nospam wrote:
> > 
> > >> That rather strong message is "I need or want Rosetta."
> > > 
> > > it's also 'i don't want all the other crap that came with lion, like
> > > autosave'.
> > 
> > In my case right now, it also involves "I don't have the time to spend
> > to install Mavericks and test it, and spend much time finding how to
> > disable all the stuff I don't want, re-enable allthe stuff that Apple
> > has disabled etc.
> > 
> > For hispters who spend time at Starbucks, they likely have a pretty
> > vanilla install and can just upgrade in an afternoon and not really test
> > anything. But for me, this is quite different.
> > 
> > (Just consider having to save the Snow Leopard server management
> > applications and place them back into the system after the install has
> > updated them to the dumbed down versions that may not work with SL
> > server and have reduced functionality.)
> 
> It's nice to see someone else with reservations about Maverick 8-)  I 
> don't think I COULD retrieve most of what it would destroy on my laptop.

You could always install it on a separate drive or partition, and then
have a dual-boot system until you're sure everything you need works
properly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55393

In article <drache-517287.19594725012014@news.eternal-september.org>,
 erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:

> It's nice to see someone else with reservations about Maverick 8-)  I 
> don't think I COULD retrieve most of what it would destroy on my laptop.

Two days ago, accompanying a friend who had to return a MB charger, I 
asked one of the huge numbers of Apple sales attendants whether my MB 
(2010) with 4GB RAM would run well on Maverick. He said yes. I don't 
think I am running any Power PC apps anymore, I would have to leave 
good old MT-NW. Am still mulling it over.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55341

In article <240120142332020553%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > he said 'unlikely'. he didn't say 'never'. 
> 
> Never say "never".

exactly my point. 

> > converging for the sake of converging is stupid.
> > 
> > that doesn't mean it won't ever converge for some *other* reason, a
> > non-stupid reason. 
> > 
> > it just says they won't do a half-assed job of it by slapping a
> > touchscreen on a laptop and pretending it's a good idea.
> 
> Right, and that would not be the iOSization of the Mac OS.

it could be. you don't know what a future device might be. even apple
employees do not know, outside of those specifically involved with the
project.

it might run a merged version of the two. maybe it will run both in a
dual boot configuration. maybe one emulates the other. 

having to carry multiple devices is not a good solution. 

what it won't be is a half-assed job.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55351

In article <250120141441480957%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > he said 'unlikely'. he didn't say 'never'. 
> > 
> > Never say "never".
> 
> exactly my point. 

My point is that even if you mean "never", don't say "never" because
never may never come.

> having to carry multiple devices is not a good solution. 

That's the reason my Mac is a desktop and I carry an iPad.

> what it won't be is a half-assed job.

On that we can agree.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55355

In article <250120141348163093%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > he said 'unlikely'. he didn't say 'never'. 
> > > 
> > > Never say "never".
> > 
> > exactly my point. 
> 
> My point is that even if you mean "never", don't say "never" because
> never may never come.

exactly.

he said unlikely. that means there is a possibility.

> > having to carry multiple devices is not a good solution. 
> 
> That's the reason my Mac is a desktop and I carry an iPad.

but you don't carry a laptop *and* an ipad.

and then there's a phone, which duplicates a lot of what an ipad can do.

what would you call a mac based on an arm chip? it could *easily* run
ios apps *and* mac apps. i would not be the least bit surprised to see
such a product. when that happens is unknown, but it's certainly
realistic in the next few years. 

remember, apple calls the a7 'desktop class'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55290

In article <240120141104047739%michelle@michelle.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
> out:
> 
> <http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/01/23/abc.to.air.interview.with.apple.
> ceo.on.january.24/>
> 
> Federighi went further, saying that while iOS and OS X "cross
> pollinate" each other, he believes it unlikely that the two operating
> systems will ever merge. In doing so, he took a swipe at Microsoft,
> which has engineered its current Windows incarnations to support both
> touchscreens and traditional keyboards and mice -- a move that appears
> to have alienated users or either form of input. "To say [OS X and iOS]
> should be the same, independent of their purpose? Let's just converge,
> for the sake of convergence? [It's] absolutely a nongoal," Federighi
> said. "It's obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of
> hardware, but is that a good experience? We believe, no."

There's a good discussion on this at Macintouch in combination with the 
'walled garden' approach:
<http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/apple/index.html#d24jan2014>
Scroll to the Mac App Store heading.

The posts by Dave Lockwood and Jay Gardinar seem the most insightful.

-- 
Entropy ALWAYS wins.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55331

On 2014.01.24, 16:15 , Fred Moore wrote:
> In article <240120141104047739%michelle@michelle.org>,
>   Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
>> out:
>>
>> <http://www.macnn.com/articles/14/01/23/abc.to.air.interview.with.apple.
>> ceo.on.january.24/>
>>
>> Federighi went further, saying that while iOS and OS X "cross
>> pollinate" each other, he believes it unlikely that the two operating
>> systems will ever merge. In doing so, he took a swipe at Microsoft,
>> which has engineered its current Windows incarnations to support both
>> touchscreens and traditional keyboards and mice -- a move that appears
>> to have alienated users or either form of input. "To say [OS X and iOS]
>> should be the same, independent of their purpose? Let's just converge,
>> for the sake of convergence? [It's] absolutely a nongoal," Federighi
>> said. "It's obvious and easy enough to slap a touchscreen on a piece of
>> hardware, but is that a good experience? We believe, no."
>
> There's a good discussion on this at Macintouch in combination with the
> 'walled garden' approach:
> <http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/apple/index.html#d24jan2014>
> Scroll to the Mac App Store heading.
>
> The posts by Dave Lockwood and Jay Gardinar seem the most insightful.


Apple sell $4B - $5B worth of Macs every quarter (We'll see how that's 
holding up on Monday afternoon).  So OS X behaving as it is, is fine.

The security settings for installing DL'd code are a great balance.  I'd 
hate to see the third option removed and I don't think it will be.

-- 
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
                                                   - Mike Tyson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#55293

On 2014.01.24, 13:04 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> For those who are concerned about the iOSization of the Mac, check this
> out:

Never was.  A couple misguided souls may finally see the light, however.


-- 
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
                                                   - Mike Tyson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web