Apple doesn't believe that, in the future, cars and airplanes will eventually become the same thing.
If "touch OSX = iOS", then it's already here.
That's pretty much true.
I just hope that Apple makes iOS more like OS X. It's nice seeing features move from iOS to OS X but when will we see more foundational practical features move from OS X to iOS?
I just hope that Apple makes iOS more like OS X. It's nice seeing features move from iOS to OS X but when will we see more foundational practical features move from OS X to iOS?
What feature in particular do you want? It thought iOS was a pretty complete operating system.
With XP (and the NT it was based upon), they essentially started from scratch and built a new system from the ground up. It took longer than they probably expected for it to become mainstream, but when you look at its longevity, it was clearly one of their most successful products ever. Unfortunately, they didn't go far enough. XP isn't modular enough (too many things can affect other things) and as they've piled more crap on top of it, it has become less viable.
NT4 was the only version I could stand. It wasn't intrusive, and once configured correctly and leaving the OS alone it was pretty stable. Very stable, actually. Ok, no IR and other things, though there were 3rd party options available. Undocumented features like hitting F6 at the right moment during setup in order to install SCSI drivers was, well, all in the past now, but yes, they didn't go far enough.
With the added nonsense later versions gained the user only gained misery.
I both agree and disagree. I don't think the traditional Windows UI necessarily dooms a tablet to failure, much to the contrary, I think if you're vastly exceeding the cost of a full-on notebook, the full capabilities of Windows (the full desktop and the ability to run all you're x86 applications) is very important. I know iPads sell like hotcakes, but I, and a lot of others, simply aren't willing to spend upwards of $800 for a glorified smartphone. Which is why, despite some of their decisions, I think Microsoft is on the right track with Windows 8 - provide a tablet friendly UI for basic and on-the-go tasks, and the full desktop for when you need to be productive with the "real" applications you need to use. I know there's some overlap between "apps" and traditional "applications", but there's no denying that when real work needs to be done, there's no replacement for full desktop applications.
Clearly what's dooming Windows RT is that it's essentially nearly all the cost of a full Windows Pro system with none of the benefits - unlike iOS or Android tablets, the available app selection is extremely limited and limiting. So you don't have access to your traditional applications, you don't have access to much in the way of apps, and the whole Metro UI is essentially barely out of beta status.
On the other hand, give it a generation or two, and I think Windows RT will be gone and Windows Pro will make a very compelling OS for truly dual-purpose tablets - a touch friendly UI when it's used as a tablet, drop it into a dock and you have a full desktop OS for when you need those capabilities.
I think you have it almost exactly backwards here.
If you think an iOS tablet is a "glorified smartphone" then you aren't really in the market for a tablet at all. You are the part of the market that doesn't actually see much value in the new mobile computing paradigm, and would really prefer a laptop, which is essentially what Microsoft Surface Pro is, a hybrid laptop.
Neither Windows Surface RT, nor Windows Surface Pro, are really tablets at all, they are convertible/hybrid laptops. In the case of RT however, it runs on a different processor, and while it *looks* like Windows, it doesn't actually run any Windows apps on it's Windows desktop. What should have happened, is the Surface RT should have launched *without* the fake, confusing, copy of a Windows desktop in the background. This would actually make it closer to being a true tablet. If it also ran in portrait mode, it would actually *be* a tablet.
This would have had poorer sales, but at least people wouldn't be confused, feel ripped off, and be taking them back to the store for a refund by the truckload. It would also have made the Surface Pro look a lot better because the Surface Pro would actually be a great little laptop, but with the added benefit of having the tablet OS laying on top if you want to use that too.
All Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is thoroughly confuse their entire market. People (average people who buy Microsoft computers), don't even really understand what "Windows 8" is. Is it the Metro deal? Is it both together? Is the underlying "regular" Windows, "Windows 8"? Who knows? And next year, when they start selling "Windows RT" tablets without the desktop mode, will that still be "Windows 8"? If they change the name to something else for clarification, isn't that actually going to be more confusing?
It's all a big pile of poo and there seems little that can be done to fix it. It's likely that they even know this at MS headquarters and know how confusing Windows RT is, but they still did it anyway because the only alternative is having Windows RT "stand alone," and they probably know that it can't actually do that.
Microsoft is absolutely f*cked. In a few years they will be retreating into the business market and giving up on phones and tablets altogether, as they should be already.
They got nothing. They fired their best shot and it landed with a thud.
What are they going to do, make a whole new third mobile OS and see if that flies? And will they tie the Windows boat anchor to that effort as well?
I am glad to go over appleinsider to read about samsung and microsoft... What is your point?
It's apparently about inflating Apple fan's egos. At their very core most Apple fans have grave fears about the future of the company. This may partly be because of the constant drumbeat of negative articles about Apple's ultimate failure being inevitable. We are bombarded by speculation about Apple without Jobs. "Steve would never have done this" laments are common even among the so-called faithful. There's a lot of hate out there for Apple simply because it has been so successful. So any story about possible failure on the part of a rival soothes the deep seated fears and reinforces the positive.
You can't go to any Apple centric site these days without articles about Samsung, Google, Microsoft potentially killing off Apple.
Jon was COO of MS from 1983-1990.. 7 years,,,,. The formative years where MS gained market domination.
Like Mike Markkula at Apple,, Jon Shirley brought the skill and perspective of a "businessman" to MS.
Gates was "wet behind the ears"... or "wet under the arms"... while Shirley brought legitimacy trust/respect and stability To MS.
The Shirley years were the apex... It has been downhill ever since.
Gates and Ballmer are posers.
I don't often agree with you but this is so true. Thanks for the reminder.
One of the enduring mysteries (to me) of the tech world, is why Bill Gates especially, gets so many kudos as some kind of visionary or great leader, or even as a good businessman. The facts have always shouted the exact reverse of this. His "predictions" of the future of tech have always been the worst in the industry. I think only Eric Schmidt gets more future trends wrong than Gates. Everything they have was copied or ripped off from someone else. The man hasn't even coded since Basic. Neither he nor Balmer have any "vision" or taste or understanding of what real consumers want at all. What's more, every action they take and every statement they make shows that they don't even care.
They just want to sell product. Period.
Gates is possibly the biggest poseur of the whole tech industry IMO, and you just know that when he kicks off there will be a big bronze statue of him somewhere and the kids of the future will be told (incorrectly) about what a tech giant he was.
In reality, Bill Gates is just another shyster businessman who happened to operate in the field of technology, instead of oil, gas, or whatever. Balmer is just a guy who was lucky enough to be friends with him at the time. Neither of them are anything that any techie should admire or hold up as some kind of example. They are both also horrible human beings besides (read up on Gates early family life sometime, quite the shocker).
Why should Samsung bother when they can leave it a few months, some hacker will put Windows RT on a Galaxy Tab and Samsung can just copy that.
Steve Ballmer is good news for Apple. The guy is clown's shoes, makes bad decisions and is probably the number 1 reason why the PC market is going down as people are pushed over the silky smooth infrastructure of Apple.
Windows users (and the tech elite) give Microsoft a lot of leeway when it comes to making mistakes. You know the saying, "it takes Microsoft three versions to get anything right?" or "they just rush a product out to market and iterate until they defeat the market leader"? Vista wasn't the end of Windows. The Office Ribbon wasn't the end of Microsoft Office. Users just swallow hard and ask "thank you, Microsoft, may have please have another?" And complicit tech elite sites don't even bother to put the suffix "-gate" at the end of a Microsoft failure, because it's expected. No, I predict that Windows will never die, so long as people are willing to put up with Microsoft's failures.
I both agree and disagree. I don't think the traditional Windows UI necessarily dooms a tablet to failure, much to the contrary, I think if you're vastly exceeding the cost of a full-on notebook, the full capabilities of Windows (the full desktop and the ability to run all you're x86 applications) is very important. I know iPads sell like hotcakes, but I, and a lot of others, simply aren't willing to spend upwards of $800 for a glorified smartphone. Which is why, despite some of their decisions, I think Microsoft is on the right track with Windows 8 - provide a tablet friendly UI for basic and on-the-go tasks, and the full desktop for when you need to be productive with the "real" applications you need to use. I know there's some overlap between "apps" and traditional "applications", but there's no denying that when real work needs to be done, there's no replacement for full desktop applications.
Clearly what's dooming Windows RT is that it's essentially nearly all the cost of a full Windows Pro system with none of the benefits - unlike iOS or Android tablets, the available app selection is extremely limited and limiting. So you don't have access to your traditional applications, you don't have access to much in the way of apps, and the whole Metro UI is essentially barely out of beta status.
On the other hand, give it a generation or two, and I think Windows RT will be gone and Windows Pro will make a very compelling OS for truly dual-purpose tablets - a touch friendly UI when it's used as a tablet, drop it into a dock and you have a full desktop OS for when you need those capabilities.
I think you have it almost exactly backwards here.
If you think an iOS tablet is a "glorified smartphone" then you aren't really in the market for a tablet at all. You are the part of the market that doesn't actually see much value in the new mobile computing paradigm, and would really prefer a laptop, which is essentially what Microsoft Surface Pro is, a hybrid laptop.
Neither Windows Surface RT, nor Windows Surface Pro, are really tablets at all, they are convertible/hybrid laptops. In the case of RT however, it runs on a different processor, and while it *looks* like Windows, it doesn't actually run any Windows apps on it's Windows desktop. What should have happened, is the Surface RT should have launched *without* the fake, confusing, copy of a Windows desktop in the background. This would actually make it closer to being a true tablet. If it also ran in portrait mode, it would actually *be* a tablet.
This would have had poorer sales, but at least people wouldn't be confused, feel ripped off, and be taking them back to the store for a refund by the truckload. It would also have made the Surface Pro look a lot better because the Surface Pro would actually be a great little laptop, but with the added benefit of having the tablet OS laying on top if you want to use that too.
All Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is thoroughly confuse their entire market. People (average people who buy Microsoft computers), don't even really understand what "Windows 8" is. Is it the Metro deal? Is it both together? Is the underlying "regular" Windows, "Windows 8"? Who knows? And next year, when they start selling "Windows RT" tablets without the desktop mode, will that still be "Windows 8"? If they change the name to something else for clarification, isn't that actually going to be more confusing?
It's all a big pile of poo and there seems little that can be done to fix it. It's likely that they even know this at MS headquarters and know how confusing Windows RT is, but they still did it anyway because the only alternative is having Windows RT "stand alone," and they probably know that it can't actually do that.
Microsoft is absolutely f*cked. In a few years they will be retreating into the business market and giving up on phones and tablets altogether, as they should be already.
They got nothing. They fired their best shot and it landed with a thud.
What are they going to do, make a whole new third mobile OS and see if that flies? And will they tie the Windows boat anchor to that effort as well?
What feature in particular do you want? It thought iOS was a pretty complete operating system.
As I said in another thread accessing settings is a pain in the arse in iOS even though its very intuitive in OS X. And mission control is a much better multitasking manager than the app tray. The app tray is sufficient for the iPhone but the iPad could use a bit more.
At times when I'm on an iPad I want to view 2 apps at once (safari and pages) but of course I can't currently. More file export options and more options for opening files or photos. A lot of formats especially professional ones aren't recognized by the iPad or iPhone.
As I said in another thread accessing settings is a pain in the arse in iOS even though its very intuitive in OS X. And mission control is a much better multitasking manager than the app tray. The app tray is sufficient for the iPhone but the iPad could use a bit more.
At times when I'm on an iPad I want to view 2 apps at once (safari and pages) but of course I can't currently. More file export options and more options for opening files or photos. A lot of formats especially professional ones aren't recognized by the iPad or iPhone.
How to propose culd be changed in iOS? I think it's easy to access as you can type System Preferences in Spotlight in Mac OS or Settings in Search on iOS to bring it up. The only real difference is that System Preferences is always the 4th item under the ? logo in the upper-lefthand corner but I wouldn't want the Settings app to be permanently placed on any home screen.
One thing I dislike is that when you swipe right to get to search that page is empty. I'd like buttons there for many quick access functions. The search area still up top and the buttons instantly vanish when you start to type.
I think multiple pages might be something that will come to the iPad in some form but I think this is a very tough puzzle to work out properly. Apple could make APIs so that developers can have their apps auto adjust to set changes in the width but is that practical?
One thing I use a lot is the five-finger pinch to get back to the desktop but I wonder if it would be better to have, from an app, the five-finger pinch show the same Show All Tabs layout that Safari 6 on Mac OS. This would be more inline with WebOS's Cards and big enough that the detail could be useful as well fast. In that view a 2nd five-finger pinch would then get you to the home screen.
1) How to propose culd be changed in iOS? I think it's easy to access as you can type System Preferences in Spotlight in Mac OS or Settings in Search on iOS to bring it up. The only real difference is that System Preferences is always the 4th item under the ? logo in the upper-lefthand corner but I wouldn't want the Settings app to be permanently placed on any home screen.
One thing I dislike is that when you swipe right to get to search that page is empty. I'd like buttons there for many quick access functions. The search area still up top and the buttons instantly vanish when you start to type.
I think multiple pages might be something that will come to the iPad in some form but I think this is a very tough puzzle to work out properly. Apple could make APIs so that developers can have their apps auto adjust to set changes in the width but is that practical?
One thing I use a lot is the five-finger pinch to get back to the desktop but I wonder if it would be better to have, from an app, the five-finger pinch show the same Show All Tabs layout that Safari 6 on Mac OS. This would be more inline with WebOS's Cards and big enough that the detail could be useful as well fast. In that view a 2nd five-finger pinch would then get you to the home screen.
Apple should hire you haha.
But I'm not talking about system settings but app settings which are easy to access in OS X because its always under the same tab no matter what app you're in, even 3rd party apps. In iOS app settings are hidden in the settings app which you have to first switch to, leaving the app you were in, in order to get to anything.
But I'm not talking about system settings but app settings which are easy to access in OS X because its always under the same tab no matter what app you're in, even 3rd party apps. In iOS app settings are hidden in the settings app which you have to first switch to, leaving the app you were in, in order to get to anything.
I see, and I agree that it can be a pain as there are in-app settings with no standardization and app settings in Settings that seem to be used less and less. It's certainly not intuitive but that could be even tougher to tackle because we have no Menu Bar in which to put an item called Preferences under the app name.
Any idea how to make a windowless OS have a universal, finger-sized button for whatever app you're in that has more pros than cons? I'm drawing a blank.
Personally, I hope more of the efficiency of iOS filters back into Mac OS X to help buoy their desktop operating system and Mac sales... so maybe you don't want me working for Apple after all.
I see, and I agree that it can be a pain as there are in-app settings with no standardization and app settings in Settings that seem to be used less and less. It's certainly not intuitive but that could be even tougher to tackle because we have no Menu Bar in which to put an item called Preferences under the app name.
Any idea how to make a windowless OS have a universal, finger-sized button for whatever app you're in that has more pros than cons? I'm drawing a blank.
Personally, I hope more of the efficiency of iOS filters back into Mac OS X to help buoy their desktop operating system and Mac sales... so maybe you don't want me working for Apple after all.
I like that they have put some of iOS's simplicity back in to OS X so that wouldn't be so bad
I imagine if they add a quick access settings widget to the notification center they could allow the system to adjust the settings widget to add safari settings if you're currently using safari, Facebook settings of you're currently using Facebook, etc. So essentially a settings widget in the notifications center could take the place of the same actions that would be in a menu bar.
Another option would be to utilize the multitasking tray for some quick access settings or app settings. Instead of always having the iPod controls and the orientation lock there, they could put relevant settings to the app you're currently using or even make that part of the multitasking tray customizable instead of it always being useless iPod controls.
This did this once - with Windows XP (I don't count Windows 95 because too much of it was simply built on top of earlier versions). With XP (and the NT it was based upon), they essentially started from scratch and built a new system from the ground up.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure [Microsoft has] the time to do that again, at least as far as RT is concerned. Throwing out the whole mess and starting with a clean sheet of paper as Apple did with OS X would take years (just as it took Apple years to get to the point where the platform was stable and efficient enough to spin off iOS).
Actually, Windows NT started life as "Portable OS/2". OS/2, the operating system that IBM and Microsoft worked on together was also the source of their falling out. IBM wanted it to be married closely to their hardware architecture (e.g. 386, PS/2), while Microsoft wanted it to be portable across many hardware platforms. When they split up on this, each took their code base and went with it in their own direction. Microsoft never succeeded in making it truly portable, because they wanted to remain backward compatible with their older Windows code base. Technically, Windows NT was portable (it ran on Alpha for instance), but other than NeXT, they were never for instance able to make it portable acrosss big-endian versus little-endian CPU architectures. That tells you there was a lot of non-portable bit-wise mucking going on inside (and maybe still is on the Windows API side). It even led to a little status bit on the HPPA CPU architecture that enabled it to switch form its native big-endian to NT's required little-endian architecture. ARM is bi-endian, so they won't run in to trouble there. Maybe the classic old Windows stuff is just too terrible to contemplate porting and testing.
When Apple bought NeXT, they not only got all the goodies like the object oriented frameworks etc. But these frameworks and the underlying Mach kernel were also already fully portable. NeXTSTEP ran on x86, m68k, hppa and SPARC (and in the lab on m88k and ppc according to rumors). This enabled for instance the relatively fast port to PPC and later the relatively easy switch from PPC to x86 and also running it (as iOS) on ARM.
I expect that Apple has OS X running on more than just x86 platforms in the lab and that they keep it up to date on those platforms. Not just to be able to move, but it is a very effective practice to help make sure your programmers don't create nonportable hacks.
Actually, Windows NT started life as "Portable OS/2". OS/2, the operating system that IBM and Microsoft worked on together was also the source of their falling out. IBM wanted it to be married closely to their hardware architecture (e.g. 386, PS/2), while Microsoft wanted it to be portable across many hardware platforms. When they split up on this, each took their code base and went with it in their own direction. Microsoft never succeeded in making it truly portable, because they wanted to remain backward compatible with their older Windows code base. Technically, Windows NT was portable (it ran on Alpha for instance), but other than NeXT, they were never for instance able to make it portable acrosss big-endian versus little-endian CPU architectures.
There were versions of NT for Alpha, Sun, x86 (both 32 and 64 bit, I believe), and PPC. Not all of them made it to market, but the reports at the time indicated that they were ready to go. How much more portable do you want?
There were versions of NT for Alpha, Sun, x86 (both 32 and 64 bit, I believe), and PPC. Not all of them made it to market, but the reports at the time indicated that they were ready to go. How much more portable do you want?
When I think of portable I think of ARM. Only now at the end of 2012 has MS been able to make NT efficient enough to be viable for truly portable devices.
Comments
That's pretty much true.
I just hope that Apple makes iOS more like OS X. It's nice seeing features move from iOS to OS X but when will we see more foundational practical features move from OS X to iOS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I just hope that Apple makes iOS more like OS X. It's nice seeing features move from iOS to OS X but when will we see more foundational practical features move from OS X to iOS?
What feature in particular do you want? It thought iOS was a pretty complete operating system.
NT4 was the only version I could stand. It wasn't intrusive, and once configured correctly and leaving the OS alone it was pretty stable. Very stable, actually. Ok, no IR and other things, though there were 3rd party options available. Undocumented features like hitting F6 at the right moment during setup in order to install SCSI drivers was, well, all in the past now, but yes, they didn't go far enough.
With the added nonsense later versions gained the user only gained misery.
Originally Posted by Mark Dodel
Aren't they running out of room at the Redmond city dump for all these MSFT failures yet?
Plenty of desert left. ET on Atari didn't take it all up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Connell
I both agree and disagree. I don't think the traditional Windows UI necessarily dooms a tablet to failure, much to the contrary, I think if you're vastly exceeding the cost of a full-on notebook, the full capabilities of Windows (the full desktop and the ability to run all you're x86 applications) is very important. I know iPads sell like hotcakes, but I, and a lot of others, simply aren't willing to spend upwards of $800 for a glorified smartphone. Which is why, despite some of their decisions, I think Microsoft is on the right track with Windows 8 - provide a tablet friendly UI for basic and on-the-go tasks, and the full desktop for when you need to be productive with the "real" applications you need to use. I know there's some overlap between "apps" and traditional "applications", but there's no denying that when real work needs to be done, there's no replacement for full desktop applications.
Clearly what's dooming Windows RT is that it's essentially nearly all the cost of a full Windows Pro system with none of the benefits - unlike iOS or Android tablets, the available app selection is extremely limited and limiting. So you don't have access to your traditional applications, you don't have access to much in the way of apps, and the whole Metro UI is essentially barely out of beta status.
On the other hand, give it a generation or two, and I think Windows RT will be gone and Windows Pro will make a very compelling OS for truly dual-purpose tablets - a touch friendly UI when it's used as a tablet, drop it into a dock and you have a full desktop OS for when you need those capabilities.
I think you have it almost exactly backwards here.
If you think an iOS tablet is a "glorified smartphone" then you aren't really in the market for a tablet at all. You are the part of the market that doesn't actually see much value in the new mobile computing paradigm, and would really prefer a laptop, which is essentially what Microsoft Surface Pro is, a hybrid laptop.
Neither Windows Surface RT, nor Windows Surface Pro, are really tablets at all, they are convertible/hybrid laptops. In the case of RT however, it runs on a different processor, and while it *looks* like Windows, it doesn't actually run any Windows apps on it's Windows desktop. What should have happened, is the Surface RT should have launched *without* the fake, confusing, copy of a Windows desktop in the background. This would actually make it closer to being a true tablet. If it also ran in portrait mode, it would actually *be* a tablet.
This would have had poorer sales, but at least people wouldn't be confused, feel ripped off, and be taking them back to the store for a refund by the truckload. It would also have made the Surface Pro look a lot better because the Surface Pro would actually be a great little laptop, but with the added benefit of having the tablet OS laying on top if you want to use that too.
All Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is thoroughly confuse their entire market. People (average people who buy Microsoft computers), don't even really understand what "Windows 8" is. Is it the Metro deal? Is it both together? Is the underlying "regular" Windows, "Windows 8"? Who knows? And next year, when they start selling "Windows RT" tablets without the desktop mode, will that still be "Windows 8"? If they change the name to something else for clarification, isn't that actually going to be more confusing?
It's all a big pile of poo and there seems little that can be done to fix it. It's likely that they even know this at MS headquarters and know how confusing Windows RT is, but they still did it anyway because the only alternative is having Windows RT "stand alone," and they probably know that it can't actually do that.
Microsoft is absolutely f*cked. In a few years they will be retreating into the business market and giving up on phones and tablets altogether, as they should be already.
They got nothing. They fired their best shot and it landed with a thud.
What are they going to do, make a whole new third mobile OS and see if that flies? And will they tie the Windows boat anchor to that effort as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi
I am glad to go over appleinsider to read about samsung and microsoft... What is your point?
It's apparently about inflating Apple fan's egos. At their very core most Apple fans have grave fears about the future of the company. This may partly be because of the constant drumbeat of negative articles about Apple's ultimate failure being inevitable. We are bombarded by speculation about Apple without Jobs. "Steve would never have done this" laments are common even among the so-called faithful. There's a lot of hate out there for Apple simply because it has been so successful. So any story about possible failure on the part of a rival soothes the deep seated fears and reinforces the positive.
You can't go to any Apple centric site these days without articles about Samsung, Google, Microsoft potentially killing off Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
...
Jon was COO of MS from 1983-1990.. 7 years,,,,. The formative years where MS gained market domination.
Like Mike Markkula at Apple,, Jon Shirley brought the skill and perspective of a "businessman" to MS.
Gates was "wet behind the ears"... or "wet under the arms"... while Shirley brought legitimacy trust/respect and stability To MS.
The Shirley years were the apex... It has been downhill ever since.
Gates and Ballmer are posers.
I don't often agree with you but this is so true. Thanks for the reminder.
One of the enduring mysteries (to me) of the tech world, is why Bill Gates especially, gets so many kudos as some kind of visionary or great leader, or even as a good businessman. The facts have always shouted the exact reverse of this. His "predictions" of the future of tech have always been the worst in the industry. I think only Eric Schmidt gets more future trends wrong than Gates. Everything they have was copied or ripped off from someone else. The man hasn't even coded since Basic. Neither he nor Balmer have any "vision" or taste or understanding of what real consumers want at all. What's more, every action they take and every statement they make shows that they don't even care.
They just want to sell product. Period.
Gates is possibly the biggest poseur of the whole tech industry IMO, and you just know that when he kicks off there will be a big bronze statue of him somewhere and the kids of the future will be told (incorrectly) about what a tech giant he was.
In reality, Bill Gates is just another shyster businessman who happened to operate in the field of technology, instead of oil, gas, or whatever. Balmer is just a guy who was lucky enough to be friends with him at the time. Neither of them are anything that any techie should admire or hold up as some kind of example. They are both also horrible human beings besides (read up on Gates early family life sometime, quite the shocker).
Why should Samsung bother when they can leave it a few months, some hacker will put Windows RT on a Galaxy Tab and Samsung can just copy that.
Steve Ballmer is good news for Apple. The guy is clown's shoes, makes bad decisions and is probably the number 1 reason why the PC market is going down as people are pushed over the silky smooth infrastructure of Apple.
Tech elite....lol! Try MSFT sales rep.
Nailed it!
As I said in another thread accessing settings is a pain in the arse in iOS even though its very intuitive in OS X. And mission control is a much better multitasking manager than the app tray. The app tray is sufficient for the iPhone but the iPad could use a bit more.
At times when I'm on an iPad I want to view 2 apps at once (safari and pages) but of course I can't currently. More file export options and more options for opening files or photos. A lot of formats especially professional ones aren't recognized by the iPad or iPhone.
How to propose culd be changed in iOS? I think it's easy to access as you can type System Preferences in Spotlight in Mac OS or Settings in Search on iOS to bring it up. The only real difference is that System Preferences is always the 4th item under the ? logo in the upper-lefthand corner but I wouldn't want the Settings app to be permanently placed on any home screen.
One thing I dislike is that when you swipe right to get to search that page is empty. I'd like buttons there for many quick access functions. The search area still up top and the buttons instantly vanish when you start to type.
I think multiple pages might be something that will come to the iPad in some form but I think this is a very tough puzzle to work out properly. Apple could make APIs so that developers can have their apps auto adjust to set changes in the width but is that practical?
One thing I use a lot is the five-finger pinch to get back to the desktop but I wonder if it would be better to have, from an app, the five-finger pinch show the same Show All Tabs layout that Safari 6 on Mac OS. This would be more inline with WebOS's Cards and big enough that the detail could be useful as well fast. In that view a 2nd five-finger pinch would then get you to the home screen.
Apple should hire you haha.
But I'm not talking about system settings but app settings which are easy to access in OS X because its always under the same tab no matter what app you're in, even 3rd party apps. In iOS app settings are hidden in the settings app which you have to first switch to, leaving the app you were in, in order to get to anything.
I see, and I agree that it can be a pain as there are in-app settings with no standardization and app settings in Settings that seem to be used less and less. It's certainly not intuitive but that could be even tougher to tackle because we have no Menu Bar in which to put an item called Preferences under the app name.
Any idea how to make a windowless OS have a universal, finger-sized button for whatever app you're in that has more pros than cons? I'm drawing a blank.
Personally, I hope more of the efficiency of iOS filters back into Mac OS X to help buoy their desktop operating system and Mac sales... so maybe you don't want me working for Apple after all.
I like that they have put some of iOS's simplicity back in to OS X so that wouldn't be so bad
I imagine if they add a quick access settings widget to the notification center they could allow the system to adjust the settings widget to add safari settings if you're currently using safari, Facebook settings of you're currently using Facebook, etc. So essentially a settings widget in the notifications center could take the place of the same actions that would be in a menu bar.
Another option would be to utilize the multitasking tray for some quick access settings or app settings. Instead of always having the iPod controls and the orientation lock there, they could put relevant settings to the app you're currently using or even make that part of the multitasking tray customizable instead of it always being useless iPod controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This did this once - with Windows XP (I don't count Windows 95 because too much of it was simply built on top of earlier versions). With XP (and the NT it was based upon), they essentially started from scratch and built a new system from the ground up.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure [Microsoft has] the time to do that again, at least as far as RT is concerned. Throwing out the whole mess and starting with a clean sheet of paper as Apple did with OS X would take years (just as it took Apple years to get to the point where the platform was stable and efficient enough to spin off iOS).
Actually, Windows NT started life as "Portable OS/2". OS/2, the operating system that IBM and Microsoft worked on together was also the source of their falling out. IBM wanted it to be married closely to their hardware architecture (e.g. 386, PS/2), while Microsoft wanted it to be portable across many hardware platforms. When they split up on this, each took their code base and went with it in their own direction. Microsoft never succeeded in making it truly portable, because they wanted to remain backward compatible with their older Windows code base. Technically, Windows NT was portable (it ran on Alpha for instance), but other than NeXT, they were never for instance able to make it portable acrosss big-endian versus little-endian CPU architectures. That tells you there was a lot of non-portable bit-wise mucking going on inside (and maybe still is on the Windows API side). It even led to a little status bit on the HPPA CPU architecture that enabled it to switch form its native big-endian to NT's required little-endian architecture. ARM is bi-endian, so they won't run in to trouble there. Maybe the classic old Windows stuff is just too terrible to contemplate porting and testing.
When Apple bought NeXT, they not only got all the goodies like the object oriented frameworks etc. But these frameworks and the underlying Mach kernel were also already fully portable. NeXTSTEP ran on x86, m68k, hppa and SPARC (and in the lab on m88k and ppc according to rumors). This enabled for instance the relatively fast port to PPC and later the relatively easy switch from PPC to x86 and also running it (as iOS) on ARM.
I expect that Apple has OS X running on more than just x86 platforms in the lab and that they keep it up to date on those platforms. Not just to be able to move, but it is a very effective practice to help make sure your programmers don't create nonportable hacks.
I prefer to think of it as Apple paid NeXT to take over and change their name to Apple.
There were versions of NT for Alpha, Sun, x86 (both 32 and 64 bit, I believe), and PPC. Not all of them made it to market, but the reports at the time indicated that they were ready to go. How much more portable do you want?
When I think of portable I think of ARM. Only now at the end of 2012 has MS been able to make NT efficient enough to be viable for truly portable devices.