Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard: Apple ups the ante - Page 3

Have they stopped blocking Opera then? I tested that when MobileMe came out because I was curious, Opera was blocked no matter what user agent I used.

Sebastian

Only if you are a fan of MS and don't like this uncomfortable truth. MS has to adopt open standards. As many of its proprietary standards are not widely used. But MS still wants to push its own proprietary standards.


UNIX isn't free, Apple has continued development of it. My over all point is that one is open, the other is proprietary.


I agree same logic, one is open, one is proprietary.


I'm saying Apple supports standards with no proprietary extensions. While MS supports proprietary extensions and some standards.


Again one is open, one is proprietary. MS has to also support JPEG, H,264 and AAC otherwise Windows Media would not be able to display a great deal of the content in the world. But its not their goal to support open standards.


You are right I was too general, I meant XPS - the XML paper specification.


You cannot use open standard software for free you have to pay a license for their use. Apple often further adds development to open source software and gives it back to the open source community for free. So none of this is free for Apple.

The problem ultimately is that MS uses its dominance to compete with everyone and consolidate all standards and services under Windows. MS has in the past used its dominance to kill competitors and stifle innovation that will not directly benefit Windows.

That is exactly my thought. I dont think ZFS will ever caught on in Client Side. ZFS will properly included in Client without much advertise. Because it is simple not a user wanted feature.

May be it wont be included until Apple release a Apple Home Server. Which the clients will then install the OS update to interact with Apple Home Server ZFS system.

As we need more storage and backup. We would want to move those large HDD to outside. Keeping the Client Slim. By the time ZFS iron out all of its issues. SSD will be moving mainstream into all Apple's computer. Apple is already largest Flash buyer in the industry, they get better pricing and economy of scales once this apply to SSD. Which is essentially the same thing.

Therefore apart from the forth coming Apple Home Server, I dot see ZFS's place in Client side of things.

How about reading and writing data on those servers?

Sebastian

My point is that UNIX is open Windows NT is not.

Yes MS has been forced to submit its media standards for open source because this is the only way they have a chance of being widely used. As the market moves away from MS proprietary software.



I brought up Linux as an example to say that open source doesn't necessarily work the way you claim it would for OS X.

Yes, generally ANY company that wishes for their formats, in this decade anyway, to be widely adopted will submit them to a standards body, and generally any company that wishes for any interoperability of any kind or at least does not want to waste time remaking the wheel will adopt other open standards. UNIX has been reduced to a spec, I don't consider it a standard even if you can "certify" it and be able to use it's trademark, common UNIX software has long since been ported to Unix-like systems, BSD ended up rewriting UNIX but is still considered UNIX, OSs based on System V like Solaris and AIX can claim to have original UNIX source code, but if a Linux distributor had the money they could iron out anything in their distro that's not compliant, make it compliant, then submit it the Open Group and be proud licensees of a name, at least POSIX is a real standard, but even that's not important to anybody except management government agencies.

Edit: I wanted to add, that Microsoft also opened up some of .NET, including the CLR and the C# language, and I'm sure that if we had a comparison chart of which open standards (not open source, the two are not the same thing at all) are supported along with the level of support (bare minimum or all of it), we'd find Microsoft on a bare minimum, on par with Apple, and more likely, ahead of Apple. But such a comparison would be worthless because in the end they both support a metric assload of standards, some of which they started, mostly those they didn't, and they both take two different approaches to developing their OSs, Microsoft with a mostly closed source model, although Singularity is an open source research project, and Apple with their mostly open source kernel and userland but mostly closed source APIs, frameworks, and bundled apps and tools. I'm in preference of Apple's model over Microsoft's, but still think Apple would benefit from opensourcing all of their APIs and frameworks, even if they don't have the incentive to right now.


Linux is a kernel that supports more architectures and probably more drivers (a Linux driver project claims it does anyway, I'd believe it simply because while it lags behind in newer hardware for wireless chipsets and graphics cards, less so recently but to an extent, it's support for older hardware is likely unparalleled when compared to any other kernel) than any other operating system in the world, I say that substantiates my claims that it would lead to Mac OS X being ported to more architectures and with a larger library of drivers so better hardware support as well, sadly it seems the kernel developers focus more on server performance than desktop performance, but there are patch sets to improve desktop performance. Of course if Mac OS X were ported to more architectures, then of course software could be compiled in a fat mach-o binary to support those other architectures, I've always wondered how it would run on the Cell.

Sebastian

That is why i said

May be it wont be included ( or tuned on ) until Apple release a Apple Home Server. Which the clients will then install the OS update to interact with Apple Home Server ZFS system.

1) That would be pointless, on par with not bundling a Terminal emulator or X emulator stupid, when they could just bundle the file system with both read and write access without hurting anyone or anything, and providing a useful tool for developers and admins to test Apple's ZFS support.

2) I'm not talking about your theoretical server, I'm talking about Apple's real servers that will use ZFS, the client OS should at bare minimum be able to read and write data from the server OS.

3) Even if they don't include it in Mac OS X by default, people will just grab it at macosforge.org, but it would still be stupid of them not to bundle it.

Sebastian

But it does introduce UE (user experience) issues along with ease of use issues.
a cool option for the power user, not for the basic. would be cool if it were terminal enabled, but that's it.

Amen! I just spent an entire day trying to figure out why Flash CS4 kept crashing on launch. Turns out it was the Helvetica Family of fonts I have. Only way to resolve it was to go spend $300 and purchase a version from Veer. Works like a champ now. But now I only have a limited set of Helvetica fonts. The full set will run you around $1700.

This will probably be handled by a network protocol unless you want to connect your server hard drives directly to your client (for whatever reason).

No mate, even for office work one can be much more productive with 2 screens. When doing work, for me nowadays, design or non-design (text, email, web surfing based), it is very difficult with just one screen, especially if that screen is a 13" or even 15".

That still doesn't make any sense out of your list of 7 technologies Microsoft support 5 of them and the only 2 they don't is UNIX, which quite frankly is never going to happen as its the equivelent of Microsofts core technology, why would they change? And WebKit which came after they developed there version so again why should they change. Also its not like you cant run WebKit if you want.

I don't get what it is you expect Microsoft to do, stop developing new ideas? And if they do develop new things why shouldn't they keep it for themselves, after all they developed it in the first place. It's not that much different with Apple, if you wan't to write an iPhone App you have to use Apples technology (no Java aloud) and have to sell it through the App Store, no independant stores aloud.

In this case because the difference between the two screens is so huge, yeah I don't think it is for dual-screen use. One 24" is some really nice screen real estate in and of itself. Unless for music and video editing, etc. where one would use a pair of 23" or 24" or 30"s.

NO WONDER the typography and embedding, etc. all gets weirded out in CS4. Thanks. I am enlightened.

So how do you suggest they make your system watch out for push updates without running a background process?

Won't happen.
If you're talking about one long menu bar that spans both screens, you're implying the need for literally dozens of drop-downs, icons, etc. What a mess that would be.
If you're talking about a duplicate menu bar on each monitor, I can think of half a dozen interface guidelines that that violates, starting with confusing duplication and 'corner anchoring'.
In 25 years of using a Mac, I've never heard anyone ask for that. First time for everything, I guess.

Multiple screens if far from a 'status thing'.
I work all day on a dual screen where I can slide distracting windows out of my main sight but still see them peripherally, or can compare large documents side-by-side.
While I need this less at home, I absolutely miss having it.

Yup, and a gourmet meal served in an outhouse is less than appealing as well.

My argument was that for me (and of course others probably), having two virtual screens is a much better solution than having the multiple physical screens. At work I currently use an iMac. I always have about three screens on the go, but they are "spaces" or virtual desktops. Virtual desktop software has been around for years and years but has only recently been built into OS X.

It's also my contention that in the techie realm at least, some of the reason for the extra *physical* screens is to do with status. The more work you do, the more screens, and the bigger screens you (apparently) need. It's also good to have many terminal windows open, and have lots of Unix-y goodness scrolling through them when the boss walks by.

Obviously, that's a (tiny) dig at techies who probably make up the majority of posters here, so no one's going to agree with me on that. It would be like Porche drivers owning up to buying the car to show (at least partially), how "manly" they are and to impress their dates. Everyone knows these are factors but no one will say it out loud.

I've read at least one report that a larger monitor is better than 2 separate ones. If you could have both of your documents side-by-side on one large screen would that not be better? Would n't having virtual windows so you could separate your personal and work windows be cheaper and more organized? My questions are not statements, I'm curious.

It only makes no sense if you choose to ignore that MS has developed proprietary technology with the intent to compete directly against open software.

The industry largely decided to use open standards for media playback and document viewing. MS has had no choice but to support open standards along with their proprietary standards. But if given the choice MS would prefer the industry uses its proprietary standards.


I'm not at all saying MS should not develop new ideas and proprietary platforms. Their is a clear difference between developing a product and trying to compete against everyone and dominate everything.

Their is no need for MS to compete against every standard, every service, and every major software company. MS cannot effectively compete against everyone, its a strategy that is not working and is costing MS billions in losses.

Their is some crucial technology that needs to be interoperable software that is not tied to any one company's interests. MS has proven a bad stuart of dominant standards. In the sense that MS has been willing to stifle technology that threatens the dominance of Windows. Such as the internet itself.

How is Apple any different, pray tell?

It's all personal preference.
My work setup is a Lenovo X61, the very small laptop with no trackpad, and a 20" monitor, docked in an expansion bay. Multiple monitors lets me pick and choose what I need. Undock for meetings, where i don't need a lot of screen real estate, and docked for when I need 10-15 apps/windows open.
Plus, as I said, having a separate screen lets me move distractions out of field of vision, but still off to the side if I need to notice it.
I look forward to the day when I can plug my as-yet-non-existent iPad into a keyboard/dock at home for a similar small/big combo.

In what areas?

I have no problem with the MobileMe control panel. Obviously it helps a lot. I mentioned that to counter the dishonest assertion that MobileMe was built on open standards and didn't require proprietary software. It does. I don't have a problem with proprietary software.

Beyond that, the vast majority of my post was about the user being forced to install iTunes and its unrelated background processes as well.

Not to mention the "Apple Updater" that will hassle you into installing Safari as well.

Yes if it wasn't for Apple, Windows users would never be subjected to ballon pop ups telling them that "updates are ready to be installed".

By golly, you're right. I went to FutureShop today, and about half the desktop and laptops come with Vista 64-bit installed.

Agreed.


Understood. Some techies probably just have a server ping constantly running on a screen... But I do use an extra screen, I'm not out to impress anyone since I have to carry a 17" screen to work a few days a week. That ain't worth the trouble just to impress somebody. Heh. A lot of people at my office do a lot of work on a 13" MacBook. If I were the boss, the mobility is great, but I would feel their productivity is hampered when sitting at a desk. Unless they have very good eyesight or suitable glasses/contacts. Which they might. Or generally I'm picky.

Damn... I wish Asia would catch up in that regard. We've got the latest motherboards, CPUs and GPUs, and RAM is hella cheap... but they aren't pushing Vista 64-bit just yet, still just Vista 32-bit. Vista 64-bit Ultimate purchased by itself is about the price of a CPU+motherboard...!

I used Spaces for a while but I stopped after a while. I'd rather have physical screens, with stuff just minimized when not in use, or just hidden.

If I could have one 20" monitor that would be good. But two 19" widescreen, for example, would be better. This is because if I have one 20" yes I can have two windows side by side. But I'd be constantly having to resize windows, even on a Mac... All the apps I would have to constantly adjust the window sizing depending on how I want to move things around. I'm very fanatical about symmetry. If I had two 19" screens, maximising one document/ app on one screen or the other is faster, most apps you just hit the Green button and maximise it.

Given that I have a Macbook 13", if I could have just one external 20" widescreen would be just nice. Then I wouldn't need two screens. But right now I just have a 17" 1280x1024 as my external screen. So I need two screens, the Macbook 13" and the external 17".

I'm using my laptop now in a "docking station" kind of way when I am at work and home at a desk.

If I had a Mac Pro I would use two 23". If I had an iMac 20" I might not need an external monitor.

Actually, the Apple Update isn't a balloon pop up, and try playing the Sims 2 while that thing keeps popping up. My girlfriend has a mac and loves the Sims. It kills her, because she spent all of that money on the game and expansions, and the quality is terrible, and pop-ups kick her out of the game. She loves her mac, but plays all of her games on my pc.

Honestly if budget was not a factor I'd get the latest 17" MacBook Pro with antiglare, leave one 23" Apple Cinema Display at my workplace desk and have one 24" LED Cinema Display at my home desk.

That would be a Porsche lifestyle, and yes, that would be luxurious. Not sure if it would impress the ladies other than helping them think I'm a rich kid and they should hang around me more and invite their friends that are models over to party at my place.

But then I'd also have to get a 46" TV screen and XBox360 and BluRay player and Home Theatre sound system and AppleTV for the lounge area.

You know, for symmetry.

Isn't it interesting that there is no similar docking station* for a MacBook/Pro/MacMini (right now) where you close the MacBook, put it into some docking station and can use *two* monitors at once...

*Unless someone has a recommended product they can share with us?

How is http://www.displaylink.com ?

The Kensington one looks a little less-spec'ed
http://us.kensington.com/html/14499.html

Correction, BEEN an Apple employee. Have been.

There's a reason to things and a reason THINGS are tracked (TRACKED!). If a copy surfaces, somebody gets pulled aside, never to be heard from again. There are rules, both old and new. Dev copies are not shipping because there's no need for it. Any/every app under 10.5 will work on 10.6.

10.6 slims down some code. Off-loads some to the GPU and introduces some new stuff. Stuff that is already there in xcode. Stuff that will debut for developers later are the later units and will be released with XC 4.

10.6 early released kernels were built prior to 08MBPS so no drivers were seen. Updated kernels were being built separately in a diff team.

When you build a modular OS like OS X and Linux you can work on certain things separately, make test compiles all together test then destroy taking notes back.

I'm NOT an Apple, inc. emp, nor do I play one but I know how the system works.

ZFS will probably be server only for a large number of reasons. Client side though, at deployment they may be avail but it will require a complete format and install, Hello Time Machine.

Why not turn off update notification? Or Auto check for updates.

Reread the post and whom I replied to. I'm not talking about Apple's OSX SU.

I would use Spaces if it wasn't broken. Many apps get confused by it and you have to jump through hoops to get the window you want. Excel does weird stuff like all your windows are in space #3, you click on the icon in the dock and go to space #2. This time is not only M$ who have it wrong.

I haven't done an update in a while so possibly some of this has been fixed but for now I am back in single-screen mode. This is something that was right on X-windows a long time ago. I'm not sure if NeXT supported this concept but if they did, it wouldn't be the only aspect where the Mac port of NeXTstep went backwards.

That's one way to dodge the issue, I suppose. A cowardly and insipid way, but a way…

UNIX was never open source; the model was far worse. Universities got it close to free including source and were expected to contribute back any improvements, a deal so asymmetric that it led to developments like free BSD. M$ tried to pull off the same stunt but no one was interested by that time. IBM still sells AIX but Linux is being pushed (and developed) heavily by them now. Their model is similar to Apple's: they give away most of their work, but charge for value adds, including support. Apple charges for a decent user interface so you don't need as much support. A clear choice there.


Probably terribly like everything else. Getting decent performance out of Cell is a PhD-level project. More detail at my blog.