Traffic from Apple's unannounced OS X 10.9 continues to grow - Page 3

Even BIGGER cats! NyanCat, LongCat, Cat Stevens, Katniss Everdeen, and LOLCat!

I'd like to finally see a web presence for maps.app.com instead of this redirecting to Google Maps when you share a location from an iDevice.

 

"I'm searching using only my voice, my voice, my voice…

Copying and pasting using my voice, my voice, my voice…

And if I ever lose my mouth

All my teeth, north and south

Yes, if I ever lose my mouth

I won't have to talk…"

 

Wait a minute…

I like the way Apple has been going with iOS & OSX borrowing from each other. I hope this continues. However, I hope they do not merge completely into 1 single system. I think Apple has been pretty good about understanding that different devices will have different primary use cases and design must cater to the manner in which we relate to and interact with these different devices, in both physical ways and mental.

I like that gestures have slowly incorporated their way into OSX, and Apple has not made the mistake of going full touch on their desktops and laptop systems. These are devices that are more stationary, and also more keyboard centric. They are not devices I hold in my hand, thus lending to a more touch centric input method like in a phone or tablet. A touch desktop or laptop would be extremely tiresome after even a minute, reaching around. I suspect it would even be less ergonomic. The tilted screen may provide somewhat of a solution, however, here too while it would be less reaching, so less tiresome on the arms, the discomfort would shift to the neck,

I would like to see the 2 systems integrated to a point where the exact same apps can be interchangeable between the two, The same touch gestures you would use on an iPad or iPhone would also be used on the trackpad. is this possible? Programs as we know them, already have ability to take in input from keyboard, mouse, trackpad, and in some cases voice, so why not touch as well? Is this a matter of ARM SoS on mobile vs processors found on laptops and desktops?

 

The most logical answer is this release will be 10.9 and the following year they'll come on stage and explain they've ran out of numbers and therefore the new release will be 11.0

 

If they explain it as simply as that it will be perfectly understandable and acceptable.

 

Just after Snow Leopard they missed out on this golden opportunity: http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/agarman/bco/cloudlep.htm

 

There's always Black Panther. For 11.0 and onwards I think they should move on to astronomical names.

Edited by Ireland - 2/1/13 at 5:43pm

The numbering of using n.10, n.11, etc is still logical but I agree that it's not the most likely outcome. I do think they'll marker it differently. There is no sense to say "we're calling this 11 because we don't want to use double digits for the secondary numbering scheme." I think their market the move away from 10 as being the major shift in the desktop OS. That said, why not just keep the well know brand of OS X which they recently renamed from Mac OS X?



PS: It's irrational to say you've run out of numbers. In fact, it's rational to say irrational numbers are numbers.

 

You think you're being clever, but when they say they've ran out of numbers after 10.9 so they're moving onto 11, everyone will understand what they mean and that will be that. Next slide.

 

I'm not saying they'll do that. I'm just saying it's something they could do. To me, it's something like Steve would say.

 

"So, with that said, today we're introducing OS 11 "Orion".

 

The Verge reports: "Apple introduces Orion"

Edited by Ireland - 2/1/13 at 5:54pm

Anyone know/remember about when we started to hear rumors about what Mtn Lion would include, before the official announcement?

.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/2/13 at 8:57am

We didn't. It was quite a shocker because it was on their website as coming this Summer the same day the elite few had reviews of their experience.


edit: It was announced February 16th, 2012. I wouldn't be surprised to see something on February 13 or 14th this year.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/1/13 at 6:26pm

Because that's been working out so well with Windows 8.

Wishlist:
 

• Clean Up Widgets/Notifications/Startup Item(in top right bar):  Put all of this into one place 
• Clean Up Communications/Social - Message/Facetime/eMail/Facebook/Twitter etc:  Put all of this into one unified place.  This should go beyond notifications.  We can already integrate FB into iMessage but this integration needs to be more simple, clean and featured.  Tweets, FB and messages should be allowed to be streamed in one unified box, ad customizable as to what level of importance and such would appear.
• Somehow integrate all of that with iTunes.  (let each individual thing be optional though)  What's playing should be an option to post to FB or Twitter much like Spotify, either at individual level, or automated.  See other friends or even friends of Friends who play/like purchase same/similar music books movies etc. Perhaps create dynamic chat-room/board invites based upon play-counts purchases likes etc etc 
• Get rid of Skeuomorphism:  Esp in Calendar, Address book, Notes, and Reminder
• Integrate & open up Calendar Address book, notes and reminder better.  Reminders should be a part of Calendar where it belongs.  If reminders is part of Calendar, this will eliminate redundancy of alerts.  Every part of making an Event and/or Reminder should be far more integrated.  Currently we can add attendees from our address book, but "Location" should also be linkable to contact in address book, yelp locations, street addresses which link to a map location. etc.  Every part of a contact or an event should be linkable and integrated.
• Siri.  Also, make it available offline
• iCloud:  Make files as clean and integrated to iCloud, as media files are in iTunes. Put it into finder exactly how ITunes has a little cloud icon/button letting you know if it is in the cloud, and giving you the option to put it there.
• Integrate iOS devices, Airdrop, iCloud:  Have all of these work together.  iOS devices should be able to access Airdrop, so should iCloud.
• iTunes & App Store:  Tabs, and open in new tab. Save/bookmark pages.  Be able to sort wish list.  Automatically delete an item from wishlist when it is purchased.  Add wishlist to Mac App store.  Add Ratings to Apps in iTunes and in Mac App Store.  Have option for ratings on computer update to a rating in the App Stores - If I rate it on my computer in my library, I should have the option of this automatically updating to the stores, and also individually updating to the stores, manually.  Add a note field to all stores.  So that we can put notes or reminders or whatever on a wishlist item or an app etc etc.  Sometimes we download several free trial apps which do the same thing, and we are deciding which one to buy, so rating, notes, keywords, and color code would all be welcomed.  Be able to view other people's/friends wishlist, like Amazon and be able to gift to them.  This should even be linkable to Contacts and reminders or calendars. etc.

 

woohoo!  That just 2 weeks away!

 

Nonsense.

 

I like a LOT of your other points, though.

Edited by Tallest Skil - 2/1/13 at 9:39pm

Can't wait. Every OSX has been a big improvement over the previous, and the last couple versions have had pretty significant behind the hood changes, as well as many feature additions. ML is by far the best version of OSX yet, and I benefit from every single one of its new features on a daily basis, including all the iCloud app syncing, notification ctr, etc. I have a feeling 10.9 will bring about some great changes and refinements, and will be complemented by iOS7.

 

There's different definitions and implementations of merging. All Microsoft did was throw 2 completely separate OSes in a single package. It would be like Apple adding an "iOS" button into OSX, which will throw you into iOS mode. ie, it will never happen. What I DO see Apple doing is from the backend, unify some apis, and from the front end, unify some UI paradigms as well as apps, etc. An iMac will never run the iPhone version of iOS, but Apple can retain different versions of it's OS which all include differing levels of capability and flexibility. iOS is getting more powerful and flexible all the time, as is the hardware its running on. They dont need to look or function in an identical manner, its all about the branding and consistency in certain over arching paradigms. OSX is used in many, many professional industries for many applications- Apple knows this, and they're not about to get rid of that. Is it becoming less important to Apple in the grand scheme of things? Yes, it is, and that's ok. 

 

+1 for each of these.

 

I don't think they'll being going from 10.n to 11.0 casually. 10.10 is more likely than 11.0. I think it'll stay 10.n until there is a major reworking of the entire OS, something bigger than SL under the hood and equally as big above the hood. (And no, it won't be a unification with iOS.)

 

 

Thanks. I very much appreciate this response. I have to say that Siracusa's view had me worried since first reading it. 

Erm..........there is still Cougar.......which has not been name yet.

Sabertooth has not existed for the last 42 million years. I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....

 

OK, I give... break out the duster and chaps and slap some tan leather on all of it.  OSXI should start the bovine series  

There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding the representation of versions, which has nothing to do with the representation of decimal numbers.

Traditionally (though many people don't follow this norm), version numbers are represented such that the <major>, <minor>, and <patch> versions can be easily expressed through a dot notation such as <major>.<minor>.<patch>. This notation is similar, but totally unrelated to, the representation of IP addresses.

Personally, I attribute the following meanings to the different parts of my own version numbers:

<major> - Increments every time all the changes brought in by <minor> versions are considered stable, if there is a significant difference in feature set between the latest <minor> and the latest <major> increments. When this number is incremented, <minor> and <patch> reset back to 0. All <major> increments in my software can be considered to be extremely stable, and anyone wishing to stay in a very stable branch should avoid the <minor> increments. Patches to <minor> increments that apply to the last <major> increment are always back ported to it. An increment to this number also means that the previous stable branch has been discontinued and will thus not see any additional <minor> or <patch> increments.

<minor> - Increments every time new features are introduced in an update. When this number increments, <patch> is reset back to 0. A <minor> version may become a <major> version if there is a significant difference between it and the last <major> increment and <patch> remains at 0 for extended periods of time (meaning no bug fixes, meaning stability has been achieved).

<patch> - Increments every time a patch is released without adding any features. Personally I choose to release patches independently from <major> and <minor> releases because they may be applicable to several <major> and <minor> releases, thus my bug fixes never go into either <major> or <minor> releases.

It is obvious that Apple attributes a slightly different meaning to the version components, but the notation is exactly the same.

Regarding OS X and iOS merging, I really don't think that will ever happen. Apple collects usage statistics, and I don't know many people who, for example, make any use of the Launchpad despite it having become a permanent fixture in Mountain Lion's dock because it's inconvenient and unintuitive compared to either Spotlight or simply browsing the Applications directory.

EDIT: AI thought that <major>, <minor>, and <patch> were HTML tags...
Edited by Vaelian - 2/2/13 at 1:25am

 

 

Tell me that you're joking. They went extinct only 11,000 years ago.

No- that doesn't support your point. It supports mine. I concede that the implementation of iCloud hurt your apps that used iDisk because they are no longer supported. But as we sit today, iDisk doesn't exist- iCloud does- so your point is moot.
Does it suck they dropped support in your specific case? Sure. But how does that change today about which is a better OS? And the fact that while, in your case, iCloud isn't better than iDisk- iCloud is better than no iCloud.

 

And, if you define merged loosely enough, you could just say they already are. They'll remain distinct under and above the hood.

Uh huh. Apple's products are such dismal failures because of the pictures on the boxes. /s


It would get them laughed off stage. For starters, the press would make jokes about Apple not being able to count past 10 without taking their shoes off. (And the stock would fall 8%).

There's a reason Apple has gone from emphasizing version numbers (9.2.3, 10.1..5) to cat names (while they use the numbers on their web site, almost all the references use the cat name. You buy OS X Mountain Lion, not OS X 10.8). Look at their "mountain lion" page - they don't even mention the version number:
http://www.apple.com/osx/

Add to that the fact that version numbers often include numbers greater than 10. Look at Windows build numbers or driver numbers - things like 7.1341.12 are common.


They could use Demi Moore's picture on the box. Oh, wait. Gazoobee would probably think that was tacky.

Not by itself. I could, however, see them switch from cat names to another naming convention at some point. Dinosaurs, celestial objects, sea creatures....

However, I believe the change to OS XI (or whatever they call it) and the change in naming conventions will occur when there's a massive change in the structure of the OS. I don't know what that would be, but something that takes the OS in a completely new direction - along the lines of the Mac OS 9 to OS X transition. That's when it makes sense to change the naming convention.

What's wrong with 10.10?

 

Why does that matter?

I think OS X and iOS will be merged together eventually. Its already rumored Apple wants to takes its desktop OS and move it to the ARM architecture and merging iOS and Mac OS together would pave the way for this to happen. They're already getting closer and closer together as it is. Its only a matter of time before 2 OS's become 1 OS. By then, you'll have everything you need, possibly without the need for Windows. It would truly have full control of its own hardware and software and not have to rely on others (Intel) to come out with better technologies. 

 

This doesn't mean that other Apple devices such as the AppleTV has to run the entire OS, just like it doesn't run a full blown version of iOS with the same interface and everything. They could still use iOS (or whatever they end up calling it) in all of their devices, including their computer lineup. 

 

We have that now. Have had it for roughly 20 years or more. 

OS X Bald Eagle

You can't say it will be one OS and then say that the devices will run a different OS in the next paragraph. It's there is one OS it's one OS. Mac OS X and iOS will continue to share frameworks and other code but unless you have an argument that makes putting Cocoa, not CocoaTouch, all the desktop drivers, etc. on an iPod Touch and Apple TV and growing the installation size to 5GB they will not be a single, merged OS.

 

Its still the same OS, I never said they were running different OS's. You can't tell me that the AppleTV, iPod Nano, and Shuffle doesn't run iOS can you? Either way you look at, its still iOS just with a different interface tailored to that specific device. The interface doesn't make the entire OS. Its the cohesiveness of everything regardless of the UI design.  That being said, AppleTV or any other device doesn't need the full 5GB installation...that doesn't not make them the same OS. 

 

Who's to say that Macs eventually won't have CocoaTouch, or some other kind of interaction thats married the 2 OS's together? We don't know what Apple's going to do down the road and this isn't something thats going to happen immediately. Were talking at least 2yrs down the road here. Merging the OS's together totally makes sense to me and is something I think will happen. When it does, I'm willing to bet it will work out a hell of a lot better than the way Microsoft did it with Windows 8. 

 

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I will sadly admit it is very handy to be able to run Windows in a VM on my Mac and virtually full speed. But I do get what you're trying to get at here hehe...

Adding CocoaTouch to Cocoa for some hybrid Mac solution isn't adding iOS to Mac OS X, it's adding an element from iOS. Same goes for QTX foundation coming from iOS to Mac OS X. Sharing of relevant and useful code didn't Mac OS X become iOS. For you to say that it will be the same OS you are 1) saying that an installation will work on the Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and any Mac, and 2) Apple will rename them so they follow what MS is doing with Windows, except go even further and make Windows Phone become Windows RT. Neither of these will happen.

If Mac OS X runs on ARM that does not mean it's not iOS. Darwin OS already runs on ARM so there only hurdles are to get the appropriate drivers and make sure the UI is fluid and smooth enough to be reasonable for an ARM-based product. There would still be driver issues for 3rd-party devices which I think is a strong indication they wouldn't go this route.

OS XI 11.0

Not games, the only reason why I have a Windows partition at all.