Inside Apple's iPad: iPhone OS vs Mac OS X

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 147
    This is an excellent article and enjoyable video.



    Looking back over Apple's history, one of the things that differentiates them from the others is: what they are willing to leave behind in order to move forward.



    Each time Apple creates a "new" solution it boldly eliminates anything that doesn't contribute to that solution.



    Apple removes the shackles of legacy design, bloated apps, clumsy UIs and traditional thinking.



    By doing so, Apple creates a solution so compelling that we are forced to accept it or be left behind.



    It is almost as if Apple is telling us:



    "We are going to change the world... come with us"



    and



    "In order to change the world, you must be willing to change".





    Finally, I don't know the origin of the following, but it says it all:





    "The iPad isn?t the future of computing; it?s a replacement for computing."



    *
  • Reply 22 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx View Post


    Mac OS X rules. Mac OS X touch is what the iPad should have. And the reason that it does not have it is simple: Intel could not deliver a chip with a TDP as low as ARM. Simply that. A shame! Now, bring Microsoft Office to the iPad and specifically PowerPoint to the iPad and it will make it.



    Attually you are totally wrong about Intel chips and the Thermal Design Power as this is completly irrelevant. First iPhones run the same core OS as Mac OS X, hence they also share the same higher level APIs. Second nature of Mac OS and it's Unix underpinnings makes it easly possible for Apple to port the OS to run on any chip, which they have clearly done on a number of occations: PowerPC, x86, ARM it's about choosing the best architecture and chips for the job. 3rd Intel do make low power x86 chips in the form of the Atom range. In the case of the iPad, experance with the iPhone. Apple's ownership of PI Semi and lots of other factors would have made the ARM platform the best choice.



    However non of that really maters as Apple choose the best OS for the device which happens to be touch based and not mouse based. There are also other key advantages with the OS over OS X, including, lighter footprint, powersaving, secuity, stablity, controlled app distibution, easier to pickup etc.



    I'm sure Apple will bring Keynote to the iPad, this with video output which it does have would be really great.
  • Reply 23 of 147
    The problem here is that there is a misconception regarding the intended position the iPad will be in re the overall digital ecosystem. This device is not meant to flat-out replace a fully functioning computer, be it a laptop or desktop. It's intended to compliment such as system. There are functions that require a more portable, less powerful solution with the advantage that you have a device that is easier to handle and with much better battery life. Your typical laptop is a compromised product in certain situations in that it has capabilities built in that have no value for certain activities yet those capabilities are needed to ensure that other situations can be handled. It's like using a sedan to commute to work. You don't need a back seat, a trunk, or even a front passenger seat. But most of us can't afford to keep an additional vehicle for a specific situation. With computers, this doesn't apply. You can afford to have a second computing device designed for specific uses because the cost of purchasing such a device is not daunting.
  • Reply 24 of 147
    shadowshadow Posts: 373member
    Most of the comments against iPhone OS on iPad and iPhone OS in general imply that there is substantial difference between the two.



    It is important to understand that the main difference between iPhone OS and the Mac OS is the framework used for the user interface. ALL the underpinnings below are fundamentally the same, including the kernel and the multitasking capabilities. Apple left out some of the frameworks and libraries, as well as some third party open-source additions out of iPhone OS, but the primary motivation here was that there is no reason to have them on the iPhone in the first place.

    Apple's development tools, documentation and sample code strongly encourages separating the view layer from the application logic (the MVC- model, view, controller - paradigm).



    If you keep the above in mind, the complains that the iPad does not use Mac OS basically translate to the following question:
    • Why does multitouch capabale device with no keyboard and trackpad use a multitouch user interface layer istead of using a "superior" desktop interface desined for keyboard and mouse in mind?

    The article answers this question, as stupid as it is.
  • Reply 25 of 147
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx View Post


    Now, bring Microsoft Office to the iPad and specifically PowerPoint to the iPad and it will make it.



    nothing stopping Microsoft from doing so
  • Reply 26 of 147
    I just wanted an OSX tiny netbook with keyboard.



    Sure, no great leap in innovation -- but very useful for helping me get things done.



    I'm not getting an iPad.



    Plus, I do not want to type on glass when doing serious work for lengthy periods -- and likewise, when creating content, I don't like a keyboard that takes up half the screen.



    If I want something portable to consume information, the iPhone does that, and it fits in my pocket.
  • Reply 27 of 147
    icyfogicyfog Posts: 338member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post


    nothing stopping Microsoft from doing so



    That's very true. If iWorks can be ported to the iPad then there's no reason why Microsoft can't write Office apps for the iPad too. Oh wait, that would require innovation on Microsoft's part. Probably not likely then.
  • Reply 28 of 147
    nkhmnkhm Posts: 928member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4miler View Post


    I just wanted an OSX tiny netbook with keyboard.



    Sure, no great leap in innovation -- but very useful for helping me get things done.



    I'm not getting an iPad.



    Plus, I do not want to type on glass when doing serious work for lengthy periods -- and likewise, when creating content, I don't like a keyboard that takes up half the screen.



    If I want something portable to consume information, the iPhone does that, and it fits in my pocket.



    You really don't get it, do you?
  • Reply 29 of 147
    I want the ipad because it's going to do what it says it's going to do, I want to do those things, and it does it extremely well. What else is there to say? Oh yes: I don't want tiny UI elements that are found on a laptop/desktop computer. I want a finger friendly OS, aka what we have on the ipad.
  • Reply 30 of 147
    Good article, but kinda assumes that everyone that wanted Mac OS X on the iPAD, want's it exactly as it is rather than an iPAD version, which I think is kinda obvious that they do.



    Wouldn't need to be huge changes just enough to make OS suit a touch screen device. Using the argument of current programs might not be that great to determine you need to move to a much scaled down OS that is highly restrictive and makes the device more comparable to a Nintendo DS rather than a computer is insane. Developers still need to produce an iPAD version as well as an OS X version, in the same way they would have to write iPAD skins into their OS X app. Which if the developers used a good architecture separating out their interface which is usually the case with OS X apps, isn't going to be a whole lot of work.
  • Reply 31 of 147
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    There does not exist a single individual with a purpose beyond total troll, who ever thought or suggested the iPad would run Mac OSX.



    The only actual debate was between whether the iPhone OS or a modified iPhone OS would be used, ad clearly both were correct.



    There was never a realistic chance in hell that Mac OSX would be anywhere near a touch device ( a touch mac ). And no one actually seriously considered it.



    AI lends far too much creedence to "observers". What a joke.
  • Reply 32 of 147
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 4miler View Post


    I just wanted an OSX tiny netbook with keyboard.



    Sure, no great leap in innovation -- but very useful for helping me get things done.



    I'm not getting an iPad.



    Plus, I do not want to type on glass when doing serious work for lengthy periods -- and likewise, when creating content, I don't like a keyboard that takes up half the screen.



    If I want something portable to consume information, the iPhone does that, and it fits in my pocket.



    No, what you wanted was Mac, for cheap. Nobody wants a netbook, they just can't afford anything else.
  • Reply 33 of 147
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,739moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    This means that in order to be usable, interface elements such as buttons, the menu bar, and window frames all have to be drawn larger than they would be on a conventional desktop computer at the same resolution.



    Not overly large and they could have reworked the menu system entirely. A former Apple engineer said that this task would be difficult though:



    http://www.cultofmac.com/former-appl...-version/31762



    One suggestion made is what I was saying, they could have made a Front-Row type container to run on top of OS X x86 and have x86 compatibility.



    This makes more sense on the desktop as the problem on the slate is that you'd mostly use the touch-optimized part so why even bother with the x86 stuff? The x86 stuff certainly wasn't necessary. It does cut out a lot of functionality like being able to run Photoshop or Call of Duty 4 but the battery wouldn't last long doing the latter and there are some decent games native to the iphone OS (they're even porting Street Fighter 4 next month).



    The baggage that comes with iphone OS is the real problem. OS X x86 has no limitations. Remove or rework the important limitations of iphone OS and it's a much better platform for users and publishers.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    Cocoa Touch: no mouse pointer



    The hover vs tap issue is significant - the way they get round it with Flash is that it opens the flash context full-screen so it overrides touch gestures. This still makes sites that use Flash navigation and controls difficult to use - although Adobe could just add a step so that tap means hover and tap again means click.



    The problem with Flash is video. Youtube jumping to HTML 5 is a good move but all the other sites that use Flash have to change too like tutorial/education sites.



    It's not a big deal though, it will change over time and I like the move to HTML 5.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz


    There does not exist a single individual with a purpose beyond total troll, who ever thought or suggested the iPad would run Mac OSX.



    It's not an unrealistic opinion and certainly not trolling. The HP Slate runs Windows so it has netbook hardware. OS X runs on netbooks just fine and Trolltouch make touch screens for OS X. I don't see what the problem is with this. With some GUI reworking, it could have happened.
  • Reply 34 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iBill View Post


    I nominate Khara Cara for the official spokeswoman for Apple's multitouch OS.



    Hear! Hear!
  • Reply 35 of 147
    All this blabber about the iPad is going to fall away once it's in the public's hands and once iPad-specific apps appear.



    Look at that curving up graph of # of iPhone OS downloads over time. That slope's going to get steeper with iPad apps.
  • Reply 36 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post


    All this blabber about the iPad is going to fall away once it's in the public's hands and once iPad-specific apps appear.



    Look at that curving up graph of # of iPhone OS downloads over time. That slope's going to get steeper with iPad apps.



    This is true. Though I think you mean "iPhone OS downloads" in terms of apps, correct?
  • Reply 37 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post


    All this blabber about the iPad is going to fall away once it's in the public's hands and once iPad-specific apps appear.



    Look at that curving up graph of # of iPhone OS downloads over time. That slope's going to get steeper with iPad apps.



    Exactly....how are we ever going to get to the Minority Report interface if we don't start with the iPad...Sheez!



    Edit: I fully support the iPad and think it will a resounding hit! Unlike the 'small' iPhone and iPod where most of the time the only visible sign of them was the ubiquitous white iBuds. Imagine someone using an iPad while sitting on a commuter train, bus, plane or sitting in a Starbucks. It will be liking have millions of 10" full page Time magazine ads 'talking' to everyone that passes by or is sitting next to them. Again just like Minority Report!
  • Reply 38 of 147
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    It's not an unrealistic opinion and certainly not trolling. The HP Slate runs Windows so it has netbook hardware. OS X runs on netbooks just fine and Trolltouch make touch screens for OS X. I don't see what the problem is with this. With some GUI reworking, it could have happened.



    I have to disagree. Windows on touch tablets is terrible. Plain and simple. Its 3rd, perhaps 4th-rate product. There is no innovation or design, its idea A scotch taped to idea B. Apple does not design products this way,



    And to say OSX runs fine on netbooks is the same as saying Windows runs fine on netbooks. Based on no other experience? Maybe.



    If you've used even a cheap Mac or cheap PC running Mac or Windows, however, No it does run "fine" from that perspective. It is in fact "slow" and "frustrating" and "purposeless".



    You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.
  • Reply 39 of 147
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post




    You don't gain anything by have a slow clunky device that can theoretically do "more". The entire netbook community thrives on this concept, and its doomed to failure.



    Well said....netbooks.....can theoretically do "more".
  • Reply 40 of 147
    Lucky Man
Sign In or Register to comment.