Currently, not all 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPUs with 64-bit EFI are enabled to load a 64-bit kernel. I know, because my iMac 7,1 (mid 2007) is in this situation. It seems that Apple has enabled a subset of machines with a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit EFI and I've never been able to clarify exactly why. Penryn (about early 2008) is enabled but not any CPUs before that (as I understand it). Given this situation, I would think that 10.7 could support 32-bit kernels, and perhaps that support will be dropped in 10.8. On second thought, if 10.7 came out in 8/11, the aforementioned iMac would be 4 years old, and it is not unheard of for Apple to start dropping support for machines of about that age.
Then there is the situation like im in where we have Late 2008 Unibody Macbooks. We are in desperate need of a new firmware update to come out because atm we are having issues adding more than 4gb ram, Booting into 64bit and some minor fan control issues.
Otherwise the few of us that updated back then will not be able to boot 64bit only kernel os's.
Expect to see subtle underpinnings being discovered in early developer builds of OS X 10.7 that will bring into question Apples eventual intention to migrate OS X into the same AppStore type system that the iPhone and iPod Touch are constrained by.
Currently, not all 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPUs with 64-bit EFI are enabled to load a 64-bit kernel. I know, because my iMac 7,1 (mid 2007) is in this situation. It seems that Apple has enabled a subset of machines with a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit EFI and I've never been able to clarify exactly why. Penryn (about early 2008) is enabled but not any CPUs before that (as I understand it). Given this situation, I would think that 10.7 could support 32-bit kernels, and perhaps that support will be dropped in 10.8. On second thought, if 10.7 came out in 8/11, the aforementioned iMac would be 4 years old, and it is not unheard of for Apple to start dropping support for machines of about that age.
I don't think there is any significant chance that Apple would drop 32-bit kernels from 10.7. I'm confident that, like 10.6, 10.7 will ship with both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. I think the open question is which kernels 10.7 will boot by default. Since Xserves already boot 64-bit kernels by default, I think it's likely that 10.7 will boot 64-bit kernels by default whenever possible, with the user having the option to boot a 32-bit kernel if necessary for compatibility with old hardware accessories.
10.8 would seem to be the most likely opportunity for Apple to drop 32-bit kernels completely. That would mean dropping support (perhaps in 2013) for hardware lacking 64-bit EFI. If we ask what Apple could logically do with 10.7 to drop support for some but not all of the 32-bit EFI machines that can run 10.6, then I can find only one answer: Drop support for machines without a 64-bit processor. (I compiled a list of the specific hardware early in this thread.) Dropping support for 32-bit processors from 10.7 would give Apple the opportunity to ship 64-bit only, rather than fat, binaries for all the user apps in 10.7 which would allow 10.7 to be smaller than 10.6, which is a nice feature -- especially from a marketing perspective.
There is yet one more advantage to dropping support for 32-bit processors in 10.7 and shipping only 64-bit skinny binaries. Apple's compile times would be reduced, which means more time writing code and testing and less time waiting for compiles.
The more I think about it, the more surprised I would be if 10.7 supports Core Solo and Core Duo processor-based machines. I think only Core 2 Duo and later hardware will support 10.7.
The thing is that up to now they have chosen names for animals that actually exist ... not too sure about "Clouded Leopard" or " Sky Leopard", but what about Cheetah? ... The fastest cat of them all!
clouded leopard is a real cat don't know if it true I wouldn't be surprised It makes since with the Google OS coming out . but I hope it will run like leopard or snow just with extra bite with integrated cloud support
Indeed. the "stoplights" went well with the extreme and playfully rounded courners up until tiger, but when Leopard adopted the more mature (and better looking IMHO) style with sharper edges only slightly rounded, the perfectly round window buttons look quite out of place. they should be slightly rounded squares, like the arrow buttons.
I have not upgraded to SL from Leopard. No need. If Resolution Independence does not come, I will have to return to Windows. Last chance Apple. Us low vision folk need this. I could dig a new voice too. Alex is so much better than all the others. Need a girl voice with the same quality as Alex.
I have not upgraded to SL from Leopard. No need. If Resolution Independence does not come, I will have to return to Windows. Last chance Apple. Us low vision folk need this. I could dig a new voice too. Alex is so much better than all the others. Need a girl voice with the same quality as Alex.
I agree about having a new female voice with the quality of Alex.
Have you tried Zoom? Go to System Preferences > Universal Access. Select the Seeing pane, and then 'Options' for Zoom. There, you can set the defaults you prefer. I use a 5 factor.
Here are some useful short-cut keys:
⌘⌥8 to toggle Zoom on/off
⌘⌥+ to enlarge
⌘⌥- to diminish
⌃⌘⌥ to toggle white-on-black and black-on-white
Setting the desktop background to 'medium gray' helps as well.
You can set your mouse to Zoom as well.
Otherwise, it is highly unlikely you have the bargaining chips to move Apple or Windows software development. Resolution independence would be great, and I've got my fingers crossed for it in Mac OS X 10.7. You are talking about a very challenging technical achievement.
Apple needs resolution independence because of the every higher resolution displays. The new 27" iMac 2560-by-1440 resolution is a good example.
I am familiar with Zoom. Unfortunately, all magnification (Mac or Windows) results in a blurry/fuzzy situation for me. Pretty much the same result as altering my iMac resolution. Apple seems to have a very decent desire to create tools for blind and low vision. I have an iMac 20 inch. I have to get very close to the screen. Alex is a mandatory feature for my situation. I hope, by the time 10.7 arrives, the mini will have true HDMI. That would allow me to buy a TV and run a larger screen in 1366 x 768 resolution. While I am in a huge minority, it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to do. Many machines on the Windows side are including HDMI.
Not sure I get it when it comes to names. Safari? Then again, Firefox is a critter too. Will Apple continue with 10.7 then 8, then 9? Then what ... 11? Would it be OS 11 or OS XI? If Apple were to release the next OS in late 2011, then OS 11 is a perfect name. I like the simplicity of Ubuntu. The OS is number by year and month. Done. Perhaps the next Mac OS will have a pet name from another part of the jungle.
I am familiar with Zoom. Unfortunately, all magnification (Mac or Windows) results in a blurry/fuzzy situation for me. Pretty much the same result as altering my iMac resolution. Apple seems to have a very decent desire to create tools for blind and low vision. I have an iMac 20 inch. I have to get very close to the screen. Alex is a mandatory feature for my situation. I hope, by the time 10.7 arrives, the mini will have true HDMI. That would allow me to buy a TV and run a larger screen in 1366 x 768 resolution. While I am in a huge minority, it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to do. Many machines on the Windows side are including HDMI.
Not sure I get it when it comes to names. Safari? Then again, Firefox is a critter too. Will Apple continue with 10.7 then 8, then 9? Then what ... 11? Would it be OS 11 or OS XI? If Apple were to release the next OS in late 2011, then OS 11 is a perfect name. I like the simplicity of Ubuntu. The OS is number by year and month. Done. Perhaps the next Mac OS will have a pet name from another part of the jungle.
OK, sounds like you are well-informed about your options. So, I take it that you see the blurry screen and augment the screen with text-to-speech.
For myself, I can get by with Zoom on a 24 inch iMac. I don't know whether to presume that a 27 inch iMac at 2560 x 1440 would be workable or too expensive. You could do a try out at an Apple Store. From my experience, Apple Store employees know about 'accessibility', but not how to use the VoiceOver tool. If you want to check out Zoom, just ask them to Zoom to the maximum for you on the 27 inch iMac.
Check out this web site for additional info on the Mac platform about accessibility:
This web site is VoiceOver orientated. I tried that tool, but found that I really don't need it; Zoom is adequate. Besides, I have both a visual and hearing impairment.
Here is the Apple introduction to the VoiceOver tool:
With regard to HDMI – as far as I know, Apple is not going that direction. They are favoring MiniDisplayPort. I just did a Google on MiniDisplayPort and came across this adapter:
I am not an engineer; I am just pointing out a dubious option. Even after a connection, there could be functional problems. As far as I know, there is no route from a Mac to a TV with HDMI, even via an adapter.
Safari is a bundled web browser that comes with Mac OS X. Firefox can be installed on Mac OS X and used instead. But, Safari understands the VoiceOver tool.
As for the Mac OS naming convention. the 'X' is pronounced as 'Ten' and is an integral part of the OS name; 'Mac O S Ten'. The subsequent release number is conventional, such as 10.6.2. After that is a mascot name such as 'Snow Leopard' that is easy to remember. So, in this thread, we are speculating about what could be in a future Mac OS X 10.7 release, mascot name unknown, and perhaps it will be available sometime in 2011. There may be a preview of the unreleased OS at the upcoming Apple World Wide Developers Conference, perhaps this June. So, stay tuned.
Finally, I don't participate in the Mac versus Windows war.
BertP ... Thanks for the information. I am familiar with lioncourt and screenless switchers. I have used screens readers to test them. Jaws for Windows is a resource hog, but fairly easy to use. Window Eyes is just the opposite. By far, VoiceOver is the best. While zoom works for others, resolution independence sounds like something many others would like too. Not everyone has razor sharp eyesight. The only reason I have a Mac is the speech. It may be enough to keep me from going back to the dark side. We shall see. Microsoft often has a name for the new OS in progress too. Most never hear of it. Maybe Apple could go domestic and name the next one Maine Coon. Grin! My understanding is pretty much hit and miss with HDMI. Apple TV has it. I can see where the iMac would not use HDMI, but the mini is perfect for Home Theater. I may have to rethink my negative feelings about the iPad. It may be perfect for my visual needs most of the time. But it isn't a real computer. Since Snow Leopard was nothing huge, I would think Apple is going to have to razzle dazzle us with the next one. I do believe in the Mac versus Windows thing. Windows looks better on my iMac. That matters.
BertP ... Thanks for the information. I am familiar with lioncourt and screenless switchers. I have used screens readers to test them. Jaws for Windows is a resource hog, but fairly easy to use. Window Eyes is just the opposite. By far, VoiceOver is the best. While zoom works for others, resolution independence sounds like something many others would like too. Not everyone has razor sharp eyesight. The only reason I have a Mac is the speech. It may be enough to keep me from going back to the dark side. We shall see. Microsoft often has a name for the new OS in progress too. Most never hear of it. Maybe Apple could go domestic and name the next one Maine Coon. Grin! My understanding is pretty much hit and miss with HDMI. Apple TV has it. I can see where the iMac would not use HDMI, but the mini is perfect for Home Theater. I may have to rethink my negative feelings about the iPad. It may be perfect for my visual needs most of the time. But it isn't a real computer. Since Snow Leopard was nothing huge, I would think Apple is going to have to razzle dazzle us with the next one. I do believe in the Mac versus Windows thing. Windows looks better on my iMac. That matters.
I see you are well informed, and that is great. Let me add a little more of what I know. The issue of resolution independence is not really an issue for the visually impaired, but the effect of displays having higher resolutions and thus the subsequent shrinking of the desktop menu, icons, etc. Even for sharp eyed people, that is becoming a problem. Many icons are hard coded for 72 dots per inch. So, even if you increase the font size (not talking about Zoom here), the hard coded icons cannot follow along.
So, basically, resolution independence is about keeping a so-called standard desktop that is readable for those with good vision intact proportionally even when the displays vary in dots per inch. As I understand it, most of the resolution independence work is already in place since Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). There is speculation about what is the cause of the hold-up. Some say it is about getting third parties to let go of their hard-coded icons. There may be other technical reasons that is not in the public domain.
Sorry I cannot help out regarding Mac to TV displays. I don't have any mobile devices such as the iPhone 3GS, and I don't expect to get an iPad either.
The fundamental reason I am on the Mac platform is that it is a Unix variant with a high quality user interface. I can fall back on VoiceOver in the future if my vision gets worse. I can go to Terminal and continue learning how to program in Ruby 1.8.7. I can use the Safari Online web site to access technical books that I cannot read in print. But at the same time, I am not a partisan regarding the merits of the various computer platforms.
Snow Leopard was important from a system perspective to prepare for the future. My guess is that Mac OS X 10.7 will have the razzle-dazzle for users since the necessary under-the-hood work such as Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL is now implemented. The software development focus can now shift back to the end user.
I think we can expect additional enhancements to VoiceOver, although I am not privy as to what they will be. To me, the great thing about VoiceOver is that it is an integrated alternative interface that also crosses device boundaries via the Mac OS and the iPhone OS. That is an enormous technical achievement worthy of respect.
Great post BertP. If zoom worked for me, I'd never even speak of Windows. It is easier for me to view a Windows screen. I am familiar with how to make my mouse pointer larger in Universal Access. It is jagged looking and less accurate. Without buying extras, Windows is more visually friendly for me. Can also get away without a mouse more frequently. On the other side of the coin, Apple is killer for speech. It comes with the OS. Huge. The included speech with Windows is a joke, and only Orca for Linux is more antiquated. Purchasing speech for Windows is the equivalent of buying the lowest priced iMac. Guess I should count my blessings and shut my mouth. On the other hand, I can see the screen better on my iMac running Ubuntu with VirtualBox. Can't use it natively, since Ubuntu can't find my bluetooth keyboard or mouse. If I had good skills in Terminal, Ubuntu might be my primary OS. I understand why Apple created BootCamp. Some people just have to use Windows sometimes. I would like to see Apple create their own virtualization software. Then it would stand a better chance of working correctly. I would be all over the iPad if it could dual boot, the proprietary OS and my favorite version of Linux with a bluetooth keyboard. The iMac could be the number one machine on the planet if Apple could get the same quality of touch as the iPad.
Great post BertP. If zoom worked for me, I'd never even speak of Windows. It is easier for me to view a Windows screen. I am familiar with how to make my mouse pointer larger in Universal Access. It is jagged looking and less accurate. Without buying extras, Windows is more visually friendly for me. Can also get away without a mouse more frequently. On the other side of the coin, Apple is killer for speech. It comes with the OS. Huge. The included speech with Windows is a joke, and only Orca for Linux is more antiquated. Purchasing speech for Windows is the equivalent of buying the lowest priced iMac. Guess I should count my blessings and shut my mouth. On the other hand, I can see the screen better on my iMac running Ubuntu with VirtualBox. Can't use it natively, since Ubuntu can't find my bluetooth keyboard or mouse. If I had good skills in Terminal, Ubuntu might be my primary OS. I understand why Apple created BootCamp. Some people just have to use Windows sometimes. I would like to see Apple create their own virtualization software. Then it would stand a better chance of working correctly. I would be all over the iPad if it could dual boot, the proprietary OS and my favorite version of Linux with a bluetooth keyboard. The iMac could be the number one machine on the planet if Apple could get the same quality of touch as the iPad.
WPLJ42, I opened a new thread called 'Visual Impairment solutions' under 'Mac OS'. I have a reply for you there. It has some technical stuff on VoiceOver.
Regarding this thread, one VoiceOver enhancement in Mac OS 10.7 could be adding support for HTML5. Just guessing here.
Bert. Don't know anything about Ruby. Did notice I could get it for Ubuntu though. Works with Windows too. What is the Safari Online website?
I should have said 'Safari Books Online'. This is a commercial website for viewing computer books online. Do a Google on the term to find the website.
As for Ruby, I was interested in it as a possible replacement for AppleScript. I came across this article by Matt Neuburg that expressed his frustration with AppleScript:
On Snow Leopard, Ruby 1.8.7 is already installed. Leopard has the previous version at 1.8.6.
I installed 'rb-appscript' and got it to work. Big problem: I do not know Ruby. Thus, I been studying an introductory book on the language via Safari Books Online.
This blog has some interesting articles on Ruby and MacRuby:
So, Apple has MacRuby in development (open-source). I do not know if MacRuby 1.0 will be ready to be included with Mac OS X 10.7. I plan to try it out after I have some Ruby proficiency. It sounds very exciting because it can directly access the Cocoa frameworks. and can be compiled via Clang and LLVM. The latter two are also open source Apple projects. Here are some links to MacRuby:
I want to make it clear I am not a developer. For myself, I like the conciseness of Ruby as opposed the verboseness of AppleScript. I like the idea of not learning Objective C, but rather using MacRuby along with HotCocoa to access Cocoa frameworks. The creator of Ruby, Yukihiro Matsumoto, did the original development on Linux. I am not familiar with Linux, but you could start here:
You are so over my head. I would love to understand Terminal, so Ubuntu and I can get along better. One thing Apple hasn't done much with is text to speech. I tried it when my Mac was new. It is awful. That would be handy for a lot of people, if it worked well. Another reason for another voice like Alex, one that is female. One voice for VoiceOver, and another for text to speech. I think you would enjoy Linux. Even without much of a working knowledge, I find it very flexible.
You are so over my head. I would love to understand Terminal, so Ubuntu and I can get along better. One thing Apple hasn't done much with is text to speech. I tried it when my Mac was new. It is awful. That would be handy for a lot of people, if it worked well. Another reason for another voice like Alex, one that is female. One voice for VoiceOver, and another for text to speech. I think you would enjoy Linux. Even without much of a working knowledge, I find it very flexible.
Please find my response in the 'Visual Impairment solutions' thread. This thread is about '10.7 Predictions'.
Comments
cool ideas. Perhaps "Sky Leopard" would be a good name too.
good one
Currently, not all 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPUs with 64-bit EFI are enabled to load a 64-bit kernel. I know, because my iMac 7,1 (mid 2007) is in this situation. It seems that Apple has enabled a subset of machines with a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit EFI and I've never been able to clarify exactly why. Penryn (about early 2008) is enabled but not any CPUs before that (as I understand it). Given this situation, I would think that 10.7 could support 32-bit kernels, and perhaps that support will be dropped in 10.8. On second thought, if 10.7 came out in 8/11, the aforementioned iMac would be 4 years old, and it is not unheard of for Apple to start dropping support for machines of about that age.
Then there is the situation like im in where we have Late 2008 Unibody Macbooks. We are in desperate need of a new firmware update to come out because atm we are having issues adding more than 4gb ram, Booting into 64bit and some minor fan control issues.
Otherwise the few of us that updated back then will not be able to boot 64bit only kernel os's.
As distasteful as it seems (to me anyway)...
Looking into my crystal ball...
Expect to see subtle underpinnings being discovered in early developer builds of OS X 10.7 that will bring into question Apples eventual intention to migrate OS X into the same AppStore type system that the iPhone and iPod Touch are constrained by.
You heard it here first...
I believe you are absolutely correct...
Currently, not all 64-bit Core 2 Duo CPUs with 64-bit EFI are enabled to load a 64-bit kernel. I know, because my iMac 7,1 (mid 2007) is in this situation. It seems that Apple has enabled a subset of machines with a 64-bit CPU and 64-bit EFI and I've never been able to clarify exactly why. Penryn (about early 2008) is enabled but not any CPUs before that (as I understand it). Given this situation, I would think that 10.7 could support 32-bit kernels, and perhaps that support will be dropped in 10.8. On second thought, if 10.7 came out in 8/11, the aforementioned iMac would be 4 years old, and it is not unheard of for Apple to start dropping support for machines of about that age.
I don't think there is any significant chance that Apple would drop 32-bit kernels from 10.7. I'm confident that, like 10.6, 10.7 will ship with both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. I think the open question is which kernels 10.7 will boot by default. Since Xserves already boot 64-bit kernels by default, I think it's likely that 10.7 will boot 64-bit kernels by default whenever possible, with the user having the option to boot a 32-bit kernel if necessary for compatibility with old hardware accessories.
10.8 would seem to be the most likely opportunity for Apple to drop 32-bit kernels completely. That would mean dropping support (perhaps in 2013) for hardware lacking 64-bit EFI. If we ask what Apple could logically do with 10.7 to drop support for some but not all of the 32-bit EFI machines that can run 10.6, then I can find only one answer: Drop support for machines without a 64-bit processor. (I compiled a list of the specific hardware early in this thread.) Dropping support for 32-bit processors from 10.7 would give Apple the opportunity to ship 64-bit only, rather than fat, binaries for all the user apps in 10.7 which would allow 10.7 to be smaller than 10.6, which is a nice feature -- especially from a marketing perspective.
The more I think about it, the more surprised I would be if 10.7 supports Core Solo and Core Duo processor-based machines. I think only Core 2 Duo and later hardware will support 10.7.
The thing is that up to now they have chosen names for animals that actually exist ... not too sure about "Clouded Leopard" or " Sky Leopard", but what about Cheetah? ... The fastest cat of them all!
clouded leopard is a real cat don't know if it true I wouldn't be surprised It makes since with the Google OS coming out . but I hope it will run like leopard or snow just with extra bite with integrated cloud support
Window buttons will be more square.
Indeed. the "stoplights" went well with the extreme and playfully rounded courners up until tiger, but when Leopard adopted the more mature (and better looking IMHO) style with sharper edges only slightly rounded, the perfectly round window buttons look quite out of place. they should be slightly rounded squares, like the arrow buttons.
Res. independence is long overdue.
I have not upgraded to SL from Leopard. No need. If Resolution Independence does not come, I will have to return to Windows. Last chance Apple. Us low vision folk need this. I could dig a new voice too. Alex is so much better than all the others. Need a girl voice with the same quality as Alex.
I agree about having a new female voice with the quality of Alex.
Have you tried Zoom? Go to System Preferences > Universal Access. Select the Seeing pane, and then 'Options' for Zoom. There, you can set the defaults you prefer. I use a 5 factor.
Here are some useful short-cut keys:
⌘⌥8 to toggle Zoom on/off
⌘⌥+ to enlarge
⌘⌥- to diminish
⌃⌘⌥ to toggle white-on-black and black-on-white
Setting the desktop background to 'medium gray' helps as well.
You can set your mouse to Zoom as well.
Otherwise, it is highly unlikely you have the bargaining chips to move Apple or Windows software development. Resolution independence would be great, and I've got my fingers crossed for it in Mac OS X 10.7. You are talking about a very challenging technical achievement.
Apple needs resolution independence because of the every higher resolution displays. The new 27" iMac 2560-by-1440 resolution is a good example.
Snow Leopard is great for me.
Not sure I get it when it comes to names. Safari? Then again, Firefox is a critter too. Will Apple continue with 10.7 then 8, then 9? Then what ... 11? Would it be OS 11 or OS XI? If Apple were to release the next OS in late 2011, then OS 11 is a perfect name. I like the simplicity of Ubuntu. The OS is number by year and month. Done. Perhaps the next Mac OS will have a pet name from another part of the jungle.
I am familiar with Zoom. Unfortunately, all magnification (Mac or Windows) results in a blurry/fuzzy situation for me. Pretty much the same result as altering my iMac resolution. Apple seems to have a very decent desire to create tools for blind and low vision. I have an iMac 20 inch. I have to get very close to the screen. Alex is a mandatory feature for my situation. I hope, by the time 10.7 arrives, the mini will have true HDMI. That would allow me to buy a TV and run a larger screen in 1366 x 768 resolution. While I am in a huge minority, it wouldn't be that hard for Apple to do. Many machines on the Windows side are including HDMI.
Not sure I get it when it comes to names. Safari? Then again, Firefox is a critter too. Will Apple continue with 10.7 then 8, then 9? Then what ... 11? Would it be OS 11 or OS XI? If Apple were to release the next OS in late 2011, then OS 11 is a perfect name. I like the simplicity of Ubuntu. The OS is number by year and month. Done. Perhaps the next Mac OS will have a pet name from another part of the jungle.
OK, sounds like you are well-informed about your options. So, I take it that you see the blurry screen and augment the screen with text-to-speech.
For myself, I can get by with Zoom on a 24 inch iMac. I don't know whether to presume that a 27 inch iMac at 2560 x 1440 would be workable or too expensive. You could do a try out at an Apple Store. From my experience, Apple Store employees know about 'accessibility', but not how to use the VoiceOver tool. If you want to check out Zoom, just ask them to Zoom to the maximum for you on the 27 inch iMac.
Check out this web site for additional info on the Mac platform about accessibility:
http://www.lioncourt.com/
This web site is VoiceOver orientated. I tried that tool, but found that I really don't need it; Zoom is adequate. Besides, I have both a visual and hearing impairment.
Here is the Apple introduction to the VoiceOver tool:
http://www.apple.com/voiceover/info/guide/
With regard to HDMI – as far as I know, Apple is not going that direction. They are favoring MiniDisplayPort. I just did a Google on MiniDisplayPort and came across this adapter:
http://www.startech.com/item/MDP2HDM...Converter.aspx
I am not an engineer; I am just pointing out a dubious option. Even after a connection, there could be functional problems. As far as I know, there is no route from a Mac to a TV with HDMI, even via an adapter.
Safari is a bundled web browser that comes with Mac OS X. Firefox can be installed on Mac OS X and used instead. But, Safari understands the VoiceOver tool.
As for the Mac OS naming convention. the 'X' is pronounced as 'Ten' and is an integral part of the OS name; 'Mac O S Ten'. The subsequent release number is conventional, such as 10.6.2. After that is a mascot name such as 'Snow Leopard' that is easy to remember. So, in this thread, we are speculating about what could be in a future Mac OS X 10.7 release, mascot name unknown, and perhaps it will be available sometime in 2011. There may be a preview of the unreleased OS at the upcoming Apple World Wide Developers Conference, perhaps this June. So, stay tuned.
Finally, I don't participate in the Mac versus Windows war.
BertP ... Thanks for the information. I am familiar with lioncourt and screenless switchers. I have used screens readers to test them. Jaws for Windows is a resource hog, but fairly easy to use. Window Eyes is just the opposite. By far, VoiceOver is the best. While zoom works for others, resolution independence sounds like something many others would like too. Not everyone has razor sharp eyesight. The only reason I have a Mac is the speech. It may be enough to keep me from going back to the dark side. We shall see. Microsoft often has a name for the new OS in progress too. Most never hear of it. Maybe Apple could go domestic and name the next one Maine Coon. Grin! My understanding is pretty much hit and miss with HDMI. Apple TV has it. I can see where the iMac would not use HDMI, but the mini is perfect for Home Theater. I may have to rethink my negative feelings about the iPad. It may be perfect for my visual needs most of the time. But it isn't a real computer. Since Snow Leopard was nothing huge, I would think Apple is going to have to razzle dazzle us with the next one. I do believe in the Mac versus Windows thing. Windows looks better on my iMac. That matters.
I see you are well informed, and that is great. Let me add a little more of what I know. The issue of resolution independence is not really an issue for the visually impaired, but the effect of displays having higher resolutions and thus the subsequent shrinking of the desktop menu, icons, etc. Even for sharp eyed people, that is becoming a problem. Many icons are hard coded for 72 dots per inch. So, even if you increase the font size (not talking about Zoom here), the hard coded icons cannot follow along.
So, basically, resolution independence is about keeping a so-called standard desktop that is readable for those with good vision intact proportionally even when the displays vary in dots per inch. As I understand it, most of the resolution independence work is already in place since Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). There is speculation about what is the cause of the hold-up. Some say it is about getting third parties to let go of their hard-coded icons. There may be other technical reasons that is not in the public domain.
Sorry I cannot help out regarding Mac to TV displays. I don't have any mobile devices such as the iPhone 3GS, and I don't expect to get an iPad either.
The fundamental reason I am on the Mac platform is that it is a Unix variant with a high quality user interface. I can fall back on VoiceOver in the future if my vision gets worse. I can go to Terminal and continue learning how to program in Ruby 1.8.7. I can use the Safari Online web site to access technical books that I cannot read in print. But at the same time, I am not a partisan regarding the merits of the various computer platforms.
Snow Leopard was important from a system perspective to prepare for the future. My guess is that Mac OS X 10.7 will have the razzle-dazzle for users since the necessary under-the-hood work such as Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL is now implemented. The software development focus can now shift back to the end user.
I think we can expect additional enhancements to VoiceOver, although I am not privy as to what they will be. To me, the great thing about VoiceOver is that it is an integrated alternative interface that also crosses device boundaries via the Mac OS and the iPhone OS. That is an enormous technical achievement worthy of respect.
Great post BertP. If zoom worked for me, I'd never even speak of Windows. It is easier for me to view a Windows screen. I am familiar with how to make my mouse pointer larger in Universal Access. It is jagged looking and less accurate. Without buying extras, Windows is more visually friendly for me. Can also get away without a mouse more frequently. On the other side of the coin, Apple is killer for speech. It comes with the OS. Huge. The included speech with Windows is a joke, and only Orca for Linux is more antiquated. Purchasing speech for Windows is the equivalent of buying the lowest priced iMac. Guess I should count my blessings and shut my mouth. On the other hand, I can see the screen better on my iMac running Ubuntu with VirtualBox. Can't use it natively, since Ubuntu can't find my bluetooth keyboard or mouse. If I had good skills in Terminal, Ubuntu might be my primary OS. I understand why Apple created BootCamp. Some people just have to use Windows sometimes. I would like to see Apple create their own virtualization software. Then it would stand a better chance of working correctly. I would be all over the iPad if it could dual boot, the proprietary OS and my favorite version of Linux with a bluetooth keyboard. The iMac could be the number one machine on the planet if Apple could get the same quality of touch as the iPad.
WPLJ42, I opened a new thread called 'Visual Impairment solutions' under 'Mac OS'. I have a reply for you there. It has some technical stuff on VoiceOver.
Regarding this thread, one VoiceOver enhancement in Mac OS 10.7 could be adding support for HTML5. Just guessing here.
Bert. Don't know anything about Ruby. Did notice I could get it for Ubuntu though. Works with Windows too. What is the Safari Online website?
I should have said 'Safari Books Online'. This is a commercial website for viewing computer books online. Do a Google on the term to find the website.
As for Ruby, I was interested in it as a possible replacement for AppleScript. I came across this article by Matt Neuburg that expressed his frustration with AppleScript:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/mac/...with-ruby.html
http://appscript.sourceforge.net/
On Snow Leopard, Ruby 1.8.7 is already installed. Leopard has the previous version at 1.8.6.
I installed 'rb-appscript' and got it to work. Big problem: I do not know Ruby. Thus, I been studying an introductory book on the language via Safari Books Online.
This blog has some interesting articles on Ruby and MacRuby:
http://antoniocangiano.com/ruby-and-...mmended-books/
http://antoniocangiano.com/2009/08/1...ruby-on-linux/
http://antoniocangiano.com/2009/03/2...cruby-matters/
So, Apple has MacRuby in development (open-source). I do not know if MacRuby 1.0 will be ready to be included with Mac OS X 10.7. I plan to try it out after I have some Ruby proficiency. It sounds very exciting because it can directly access the Cocoa frameworks. and can be compiled via Clang and LLVM. The latter two are also open source Apple projects. Here are some links to MacRuby:
http://www.macruby.org/
http://www.macruby.org/blog/2009/03/...al-branch.html
I want to make it clear I am not a developer. For myself, I like the conciseness of Ruby as opposed the verboseness of AppleScript. I like the idea of not learning Objective C, but rather using MacRuby along with HotCocoa to access Cocoa frameworks. The creator of Ruby, Yukihiro Matsumoto, did the original development on Linux. I am not familiar with Linux, but you could start here:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
You are so over my head. I would love to understand Terminal, so Ubuntu and I can get along better. One thing Apple hasn't done much with is text to speech. I tried it when my Mac was new. It is awful. That would be handy for a lot of people, if it worked well. Another reason for another voice like Alex, one that is female. One voice for VoiceOver, and another for text to speech. I think you would enjoy Linux. Even without much of a working knowledge, I find it very flexible.
Please find my response in the 'Visual Impairment solutions' thread. This thread is about '10.7 Predictions'.