Apple's Web Browser Operating System?

coscos
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Is Apple following the same OS in a browser business model that Netscape built but never executed? Apple has the OS (OS X), the Browser (Safari), Power 4/5 970/980 (eventually) and iTunes: (the necessary Windows software to bundle the browser with).

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    jaredjared Posts: 639member
    I would switch to a PC if Mac OS 10 became a browser OS.



    Oh, and if he does not sound like a nerd I do not know what one sounds like. No offense to the guy.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    coscos Posts: 99member
    I kindof like the nerdy voice...



    It makes the site kindof sound like NPR
  • Reply 3 of 19
    This was a stupid idea in 1998, and it remains a stupid idea today.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    I kindof like the nerdy voice...



    It makes the site kindof sound like NPR




    'Kindof'? (raised eyebrows)



    By the way, you sound like Ira Glass (that sonofobitch that hosts a show about nothing worth talking about), and Ira is on NPR...
  • Reply 5 of 19
    coscos Posts: 99member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    By the way, you sound like Ira Glass (that sonofobitch that hosts a show about nothing worth talking about), and Ira is on NPR... [/B]



    First of all, what do you mean, "you sound like"



    I think I'll quote the infamous words of Eddie Murphy: "It wasn't me."

    Ira Glass on the other hand, is a public radio orginal.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    inkheadinkhead Posts: 155member
    Granted the way windows 2000 handles this sucks. If you have seen (on a new computer not your 300mhz machine) the cool preview options for images and some other things you can do in the file browser with XP it's really cool.



    Think about apple making something more elegant that this? I'd love more options when browsing photo directories, or mp3 directories or other types of files. Hopefully the BeOS file system they hacked up will allow for this as well.





    I'm not sure what the big deal is. If you don't like this feature, just TURN it OFF. I'm sure apple will do something similar, that way both parties will be happy. I get to take advantage of cool features, apple gets to keep up with windows XP (and what windows switches would want) and you get to have your plain standard file system the way you like it.





    Can't we all just get along?
  • Reply 7 of 19
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kymermosst

    This was a stupid idea in 1998, and it remains a stupid idea today.



    You're the Mountain of the Four Winds? No way!
  • Reply 8 of 19
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Apple's Web Browser Operating System?



    No, no, PLEASE no.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Why switch to a PC if Apple does this? Windows already has browser-like file navigation.



    There are some things about Windows I really like. For example, I like how you can cut and paste items to move them, making it super easy to move files around while using single-window file browsing. OS X only has copy + paste, so you must find the original file and delete it. When you cut and paste in Windows, it makes the cut file transparent, and if you put something else in the clipboard, it just restores that file back to normal. When you paste the file somewhere else, though, it automatically removes it from the original location. That's real nice.



    The other thing I like is the way it handles folders full of pictures. A row of previews along the bottom, with a big picture in the middle. It's exactly how picture navigation should be... on the Mac, you have a number of mediocre options. One is to use 128x128 icons with previews on them within a folder in order to get a good preview, then open what you want. But the previews are just a bit too small, and there's too much clicking around, and you have to wait FOREVER for all the previews to generate. Also, scrolling is horrendously slow when there are lots of items, especially ones with large preview icons. Another option is to select a bunch of pictures and open them in Preview, but for some reason Preview puts them all in the wrong order when you open them, and it can take ages to open if there are lots (like over 30). Final option is perfect, just use Graphic Converter's "Browse Folder" option. Main problem with that is that Graphic Converter is a $35 third-party solution. Something similar to the Browse Folder function should be built into OS X.



    My two biggest gripes with Windows are the Search function and the fact that it's so controlling over where you put your files. It's much more restrictive than OS X. Many times, I have trouble knowing where to put applications... if they're not automatically installed into the Start menu, it's nearly impossible to find them. And because they're nearly impossible to find on your own, you must use the Search function, which is like OS 9's terrible Sherlock 2 except ten times slower and crappier.



    Anyway, to get back on the subject, perhaps Apple shouldn't use a browser-like OS complete with back, forward, reload and stop buttons, and a location bar or whatever, but it would be nice if it could automatically adjust the view a folder gives you based on the types of files in it. Some would hate this and others might like it. Having a nice preview mode for Picture folders, and perhaps something similar for Movie folders, while having list views for long lists of files like MP3s, would be nice. You could of course turn this off.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    coscos Posts: 99member
    I don't think the article is talking about the way Windows uses a web browser for file navigation, but rather, something totally different...



    a remotely hosted operating system.



    Something not unlike what Sun was also proposing.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    Quote:

    I'm not sure what the big deal is. If you don't like this feature, just TURN it OFF.



    Have you tried KDE? That's quite configurable.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Wow. That guy misses the point, and how.



    The iTunes Music Store is an example of an approach utterly unlike what he's proposing. What he wants, and what Netscape was (stupidly) aiming for, is the idea of a browser as a single portal into a whole platform. He imagines that the browser that could handle this would be lean and fast and stable, which is absolutely hilarious given what the mere business of rendering static web pages has done to the poor web browser. It was supposed to be really simple to parse HTML, too, but then the dimwits took charge.



    What iTMS is, is an application augmented by a narrowly purposed web service. It's an extension of the philosophy that applications should be designed to do one thing and do it well, which is not even close to Netscape's (or MIcrosoft's) vision.



    Besides, he's asking Apple to solve a problem that's already been solved countless times, and done better besides: X11 was a capable stab at the problem in its day, and NeXTStep did even better. I could easily imagine a Java application that could translate instructions from a server into a Swing UI, and send any relevant events and data back to the server. (Heck, Python could do it too - or Perl, or Ruby, even AppleScript!) The best part is that none of these are stuck in a browser window, and none of them require the already hopelessly overburdened browser to do anything more than it's already required to do. The Java solution could even work within the local window server, mingling the remote OS with the local one if you didn't want it to take over the whole screen.



    I do think that iTMS points to a future with a web-enhanced OS. However, it points to a move away from the idea of a browser as gateway. And thank God for that.
  • Reply 13 of 19
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Apple brings the internet to their applications, they don't bring the world wide web to their applications. Browser = www for the most part. The internet is much more flexible, powerful and interesting outside of that narrow domain.



    I should add that bringing the internet to apps is much more desiralbe than forcing apps into a browser paradigm, and like I said above, it's more powerful, flexible and specific this way.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    inkheadinkhead Posts: 155member
    Even microsofts "browser" like file explorer is alot more than just the Internet explorer web browser. Of course we don't want just an HTML web browser. It would hav eto be beyond that. XML? I don't know anything about this, other than I know the features in XP are awesome with the photo browsing.



    And yes you can turn it off (more of a pain in windows) but apple is known for elegant solutions. They wouldn't do something that would make it more slow or more cumbersome. And of course there would be an option to turn it off. Just like there is in windows (except windows makes it difficult)



    Lets all keep our pants on.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    inkheadinkhead Posts: 155member
    Here's a bad example because I couldn't find any good ones



    XP Image Browser



    [edit by Amorph: URLized the large image]
  • Reply 16 of 19
    spartspart Posts: 2,060member
    Mind posting a link to a big image rather than embedding the image itself next time?



    Thanks.
  • Reply 17 of 19
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by inkhead

    Even microsofts "browser" like file explorer is alot more than just the Internet explorer web browser. Of course we don't want just an HTML web browser. It would hav eto be beyond that. XML? I don't know anything about this, other than I know the features in XP are awesome with the photo browsing.



    XML is more likely. Look no further than iTunes, but it's specifically linked to a WebObjects app on the other end of the internet.



    I guess there are two main questions:



    1. Why use a browser UI?

    2. Why put your tools in the rendered document window instead of independently (palettes, drawers, toolbars, in a different app, etc.)?



    I think a lot of people equate internet, network, and web with one another, and conclude that they all appear as a browser when there is no such inherent link. Also, as a more "philosphical" point, I prefer many different tools that do specific things than one tool that tries to do many different things. The browser falls into the latter category, while Apple's, NeXT's and most *nix tools fall into the former camp.
  • Reply 18 of 19
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    ...

    What iTMS is, is an application augmented by a narrowly purposed web service. It's an extension of the philosophy that applications should be designed to do one thing and do it well, which is not even close to Netscape's (or MIcrosoft's) vision.

    ...

    I do think that iTMS points to a future with a web-enhanced OS. However, it points to a move away from the idea of a browser as gateway. And thank God for that.




    Extending on this idea...



    While iTMS isn't accessed through a web-browser, it still uses a web interface. I can see this philosophy being used extensively in the future, apps that use a web-style GUI, perhaps via webcore. Some but not all of these may be server-side, relying on XML for data trasmission.



    The question is: Are embedded, web-based GUIs and their associated layout, widgets, and navigation schema, an improvement over OS X's native windowing system and widgets? Better for developer bottom lines? Better for users?
  • Reply 19 of 19
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    Are embedded, web-based GUIs and their associated layout, widgets, and navigation schema, an improvement over OS X's native windowing system and widgets?



    No. They're much worse. A "web-based GUI" is basically a cross-platform GUI, and we know how awful they are. They do not respect any native properties, i.e. they would not work together with Dock features, with the global menubar, with Services, NSToolbar, basically ANYTHING that makes a native GUI special, and good.
Sign In or Register to comment.