MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
iMikeT
Aug 2, 05:21 PM
What isn't new?
This is what I think:
-Financial report
-Update report of Macs using Intel processors
-Update report of universal applications
-Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) preview
One more thing......
-Mac Pro (Intel powered PowerMac) announced. Will ship with Woodcrest. Will ship early-mid September.
-(Very slim chance of announcement) Intel powered Xserve
This is what I think:
-Financial report
-Update report of Macs using Intel processors
-Update report of universal applications
-Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard) preview
One more thing......
-Mac Pro (Intel powered PowerMac) announced. Will ship with Woodcrest. Will ship early-mid September.
-(Very slim chance of announcement) Intel powered Xserve
chrono1081
Apr 7, 01:54 PM
It's sad but it's starting to sound like that's exactly what anti-Apple people want. They're making it sound like Apple regularly colludes with suppliers. Maybe it does, but there's no proof, or at least Apple buying up the supply of touch panels certainly doesn't constitute proof.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
+1 its not anticompetitive, its smart. Apple actually MOVES these things and people buy them. It would only be anti-competitive if they bought a ton of them on purpose and never used them.
The amount of anti-apple on mac rumors is sickening anymore. Its like going to engadget.
Apple legitimately amassed a large cash reserve. Apple is using that massive hoard of cash to secure the best possible deals with component suppliers. If that's called anticompetitive, then I don't know what to say.
+1 its not anticompetitive, its smart. Apple actually MOVES these things and people buy them. It would only be anti-competitive if they bought a ton of them on purpose and never used them.
The amount of anti-apple on mac rumors is sickening anymore. Its like going to engadget.
danpass
May 7, 01:49 PM
hmmm ............. iWork.com is free.
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
maybe some combined functionality setup soon?
Tmelon
Mar 30, 08:50 PM
I still can't remove Launchpad on mine >.< Did you update via Software Update or reinstall the new build? I updated via Software Update to build 2.
Software update doesn't give you build two. It gives you the ability to download build two from a code in the App Store.
Developers have to redownload the whole OS so it wouldn't make much sense for it to be less than a megabyte... :rolleyes:
Software update doesn't give you build two. It gives you the ability to download build two from a code in the App Store.
Developers have to redownload the whole OS so it wouldn't make much sense for it to be less than a megabyte... :rolleyes:
mdntcallr
Nov 22, 08:31 AM
i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
Small White Car
Apr 26, 02:39 PM
Can the iPhone succeed when devs start to divert resources to Android development? Will the "cool" factor of owning an iPhone save it when the next "Angry Birds" type game is only available on Android?
That's a funny example you've got there since Angry Birds (one of the biggest success stories on any platform) has had extreme trouble figuring out how to earn money directly from Android users.
If THEY can't even do it easily then what does that mean for other Android developers?
That's a funny example you've got there since Angry Birds (one of the biggest success stories on any platform) has had extreme trouble figuring out how to earn money directly from Android users.
If THEY can't even do it easily then what does that mean for other Android developers?
CalBoy
Apr 15, 01:45 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been. The people who would have worked there can't complain the way an autoworker or public school teacher can complain. It's okay, it's not like we need jobs or anything. Let's just raise taxes enough on the top 1% of earners to employ everyone looking for a job. We can have them built a high speed rail network across the country. The only snag is our country would collapse before finishing one route. We would have a scattering of tracks as a reminder of our incompetence.
There's also positives that come along with this as well. If higher capital gains were able to support things like universal healthcare and better education, then more individuals would not only be able to innovate, but also take the risk on themselves because failure wouldn't mean dying as a pauper on the streets.
Our current tax system only encourages rewarding those who already have plenty. It does nothing for the small business owner that might lose his shirt if the business fails. We live in a land of extremes; you're either extremely wealthy or teetering on the brink of insolvency. That isn't the recipe for a successful society.
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
There's also positives that come along with this as well. If higher capital gains were able to support things like universal healthcare and better education, then more individuals would not only be able to innovate, but also take the risk on themselves because failure wouldn't mean dying as a pauper on the streets.
Our current tax system only encourages rewarding those who already have plenty. It does nothing for the small business owner that might lose his shirt if the business fails. We live in a land of extremes; you're either extremely wealthy or teetering on the brink of insolvency. That isn't the recipe for a successful society.
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
dontwalkhand
Mar 30, 12:59 AM
Hey Apple,
I don't want my iPhone 5 to be leaking radiation...
Too soon? :cool::rolleyes:
I hope you know that cell phones emit radiation.
I don't want my iPhone 5 to be leaking radiation...
Too soon? :cool::rolleyes:
I hope you know that cell phones emit radiation.
Astro7x
Mar 29, 09:43 AM
I still don't get how this is better than Dropbox, hopefully it can compete with Dropbox though to make the service better.
I am up to 7GB I believe of free storage on Dropbox too.
And what's the point of having 5GB of data in the cloud if mobile data plans only allow you to download 2GB?
wallpaper transformers. gi
Wallpaper Transformers 2
wallpaper transformers 2.
transformer 2 revenge of the
Transformers 2 Wallpaper 5
Wallpaper Information
The Last New Transformers 2
Transformers Wallpaper v.2
Wallpaper image: Transformers
I am up to 7GB I believe of free storage on Dropbox too.
And what's the point of having 5GB of data in the cloud if mobile data plans only allow you to download 2GB?
Snowy_River
Jul 22, 10:58 AM
...
The Pro Mac is overdue, but the software isn�t ready. Maybe keep a G5 in the works, for people who work and move on with the new Pro Macs.
...
Overdue? How do you figure that? If anything, the entire line is being changed faster than anyone expected. And, given the faster pace, most people have guessed that the MP will arrive at WWDC. So how can it be overdue?
The Pro Mac is overdue, but the software isn�t ready. Maybe keep a G5 in the works, for people who work and move on with the new Pro Macs.
...
Overdue? How do you figure that? If anything, the entire line is being changed faster than anyone expected. And, given the faster pace, most people have guessed that the MP will arrive at WWDC. So how can it be overdue?
Surreal
Jul 24, 10:04 AM
I bought the 17" MBP the day it came out and i must say;
i don't care about these new chips.
that feels really good.
thank you apple. finally.
i don't care about these new chips.
that feels really good.
thank you apple. finally.
iGary
Sep 11, 06:50 AM
To recap:
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
bousozoku
Nov 23, 02:48 PM
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.
Someone who worked across the aisle from me had a PowerCD connected to his Mac and it was really nice, but it was way too expensive. Then again, you could say that about any of the equipment at the time. It's become much better but the value is often not apparent to the majority of the people.
Hattig
Jul 30, 08:17 AM
so what CPU would power the phone ?
Something based off of the ARM architecture. Maybe a TI OMAP processor (a 150MHz TI OMAP 1510 powers my Motorola phone, that has an integrated ARM9 CPU, I could see an Apple phone using the newer 1710 for example). There's dozens of other mobile phone chipset providers of course, with their own ARM based solutions integrating varying types of functionality.
Something based off of the ARM architecture. Maybe a TI OMAP processor (a 150MHz TI OMAP 1510 powers my Motorola phone, that has an integrated ARM9 CPU, I could see an Apple phone using the newer 1710 for example). There's dozens of other mobile phone chipset providers of course, with their own ARM based solutions integrating varying types of functionality.
puma1552
Apr 20, 12:59 AM
Considering I'm on a lowly, pathetic, dinosaur 3G that can't even run itself without severe, severe lag and a shattered screen, and will be coming home to the US in mid-September after being stuck with this pile for yet another 5 months, I will DEFINITELY be getting one.
A white one, on Verizon no less. Hallelujah.
A white one, on Verizon no less. Hallelujah.
lazyrighteye
Jul 31, 01:13 AM
I can already see Phil sitting in the audience and then Job's cell phone rings..
Jobs: um..excuse me a sec..Seems I have a phone call..
Pulls out this cool looking cell phone,flips it open and says hello?
Phil: Say Steve,can we have a chat real fast ? then starts up iChat on his iPhone..
Jobs: starts up iChat on his cell phone..
The rest is history :D
While I don't believe it will be a flip phone (more candy bar, something between an iPod and a Nano - speaking of, VZW recently announced their new Nanoish Chocolate: talk about a stupid name), everything else you speculate? Oh yeah. Dope.
Should a more integrated, Apple-branded phone hit the street, it is quite likely that I'll kick VZW to the curb. Real quick like. Penalty or not. There just seems SUCH an opportunity for someone to swoop in and redefine the cell phone market/experience.
APPL could be that someone...
Jobs: um..excuse me a sec..Seems I have a phone call..
Pulls out this cool looking cell phone,flips it open and says hello?
Phil: Say Steve,can we have a chat real fast ? then starts up iChat on his iPhone..
Jobs: starts up iChat on his cell phone..
The rest is history :D
While I don't believe it will be a flip phone (more candy bar, something between an iPod and a Nano - speaking of, VZW recently announced their new Nanoish Chocolate: talk about a stupid name), everything else you speculate? Oh yeah. Dope.
Should a more integrated, Apple-branded phone hit the street, it is quite likely that I'll kick VZW to the curb. Real quick like. Penalty or not. There just seems SUCH an opportunity for someone to swoop in and redefine the cell phone market/experience.
APPL could be that someone...
Yamcha
Mar 28, 11:42 AM
I'm surprised at the response, I'm personally looking more forward to Mac OS then anything else, I couldn't care much for the next iPhone..
dr_lha
Aug 11, 10:54 AM
Could Apple technically squeeze a Xeon proc into the MBP?
Have you seen the size of the heat sink in the Mac Pro? ;)
Have you seen the size of the heat sink in the Mac Pro? ;)
Popeye206
Apr 20, 08:07 AM
It's not like me to pass on any Apple product upgrade but if the next iPhone is the exact same form factor and screen size with a camera upgrade, an A5 chip and 1 GB of ram, I'm passing.
I use that money for a second iMac.
Unless there's something in it not expected, I'll probably pass too.
But not because I don't think the rumored upgrades would be great... just because my current iPhone4 works great and I'm assuming iOS5 will bring lots of new toys to iPhone4 and 5 customers. So why spend the money?
However, I have yet to spend more than the original money I spent for the iPhone 1. Every upgrade for me has been free as I've been able to sell my previous phone for the $200 needed to upgrade. So, no skin off my bones.
I use that money for a second iMac.
Unless there's something in it not expected, I'll probably pass too.
But not because I don't think the rumored upgrades would be great... just because my current iPhone4 works great and I'm assuming iOS5 will bring lots of new toys to iPhone4 and 5 customers. So why spend the money?
However, I have yet to spend more than the original money I spent for the iPhone 1. Every upgrade for me has been free as I've been able to sell my previous phone for the $200 needed to upgrade. So, no skin off my bones.
scu
Aug 7, 04:00 PM
The last rumor I had read stated we would not see these machines for 5 or 6 weeks. They are available today. Glad we went to Intel.
Apple should sell a ton of these since there are those who waited for the Intel chips in the desktops. Once Photoshop comes out with the Intel version the transition is complete.
I was hoping to see some new displays but the drop in price was good news never the less.
By this time next year AAPL should be worth double:)
Apple should sell a ton of these since there are those who waited for the Intel chips in the desktops. Once Photoshop comes out with the Intel version the transition is complete.
I was hoping to see some new displays but the drop in price was good news never the less.
By this time next year AAPL should be worth double:)
kalsta
May 6, 11:54 AM
The only preference I still have for imperial is food based. Can i have 500 grams of sliced ham? It just sounds wrong.
So, ask for 'half a kilo'. Problem solved. :)
So, ask for 'half a kilo'. Problem solved. :)
grue
Apr 22, 12:51 AM
How utterly retarded does one have to be to get to the point where they put workstations on top of the desk instead of on the floor where they belong? Do you really need to put your Apple computer next to your overpriced, glossy Apple display to prove yourself?
MacBoobsPro
Aug 2, 11:16 AM
Apple's been so boring this year, with a bluetooth might mouse just about the most exciting release thus far... I have expectations Apple, don't let me dont please
Erm... did you miss the whole Intel thing? :rolleyes:
Erm... did you miss the whole Intel thing? :rolleyes:
