The run on sentence you speak of was contained within these things called "quotes." You may have heard of them. They're an essential part of this English language that you speak of.
Besides, Addabox is probably one of the most elegant speakers on this board.
Why, thank you , gregmightdothat.
For the, um, grammarians: using a lengthy descriptive phrase within quotes as the putative title of a phenomena is by way of being droll.
I have a question. This multi-touch technology. Is it a hardware or a software innovation?
MultiTouch was invented and patented by a company called Fingerworks. Apple acquired this company and it's patents.
Here is some information from their FAQ:
Quote:
Q: Isn't the MultiTouch Surface just an oversize touchpad?
A: No. The technology used in our MultiTouch surface produces images of the hands and fingers as they approach the surface. In effect, a video is created that records the complete motion of all fingers and the other parts of the hands. Furthermore, our MultiTouch software can track and interpret the motion of many hands (and their corresponding fingers) at a time. Touchpads can only sense the position of one finger, or if more than one finger is touching the surface the touchpad senses their centroid.
Good point, Kickaha; thanks for the link. I'm definitely in the camp that says the iPhone is OS X, but if anything, I think it's more important than people understand. I think Andy Ihnatko got it right when he used words like "perfect" and "liquid". Jobs has been aiming for perfection in his software since he was NeXT. So it was a long-term investment that is now paying off in spades. OS X is modular and portable whereas Vista is not.
From what I hear, Vista's Aero is visually comparable to OS X; I'm willing to believe it. But look at the misery M$ endured getting to to work on high-end PCs. Any bets as to how long it'll take them to get the Aero look on cell phones? Any doubt as to whether or not they've already started the effort?
It'd be marvelous to see many of these touch features on a compact, 12-inch MacBook. Enlarging, shrinking, selecting, and scrolling all done with fingers rather than a clumsy track pad.
Not everyone knows the QWERTY layout though and even those who do don't necessarily consciously know where keys are. Apple needs to allow an alphabetical keyboard as an optional layout.
And they really should consider letting users input letters by writing them as large letters on the screen. It'd be faster for some.
Do you know the English language and did you ever hear of the phrase run-on sentence?
Ironically, the quote above is a type of run-on sentence, because there's no comma between the two independent clauses. (It should be "...language, and did you..."). By contrast, the sentence being criticized is *not* a run-on sentence. It may be long, but it's (mostly) grammatically correct, and the errors it does contain have nothing to do with its length...
Hardware. It works completely different than the stuff they have on ATM machines.
Ok. That's what I thought, but when someone mentioned bringing this technology to the trackpad I got my hopes up. The demos of multi-touch on YouTube are incredible to watch. I can't wait for this to be exploited to it's full potential.
I'm one kilometre from the Eiffel Tower, keepin' it real guys. See you all soon, in the spiritual sense of course. You're all lookin' great! Amsterdam here I come, the story continues..
MultiTouch was invented and patented by a company called Fingerworks. Apple acquired this company and it's patents.
Here is some information from their FAQ:
Pretty cool stuff, so does that mean the fingers don't actually have to touch the screen? I guess that's how Steveo did the gestures to move through the address book when doing the iPhone demo. It was hard to tell if he was actually touching the screen or waving his fingers close to its surface.
I'm one kilometre from the Eiffel Tower, keepin' it real guys. See you all soon, in the spiritual sense of course. You're all lookin' great! Amsterdam here I come, the story continues..
Pictures. If you're going to give us a running tour, let us in on some of the fun as well.
OS X is modular and portable whereas Vista is not.
Yep. And if it weren't for the fact that most the world is cosy buying hardware with OEM Windows (NT 5.X) and OEM Office preinstalled, Microsoft would be in the most serious sh!t you can easily imagine.
I think the two really sweet things which underly the iPhone furore are:
Multi touch technology *finally* being elegantly used
The maddening portability of OS X coupled with Apple's ability to reinvent the GUI for item 1!
If someone had said something like that would be unveiled as the new full screen video iPod / phone / internet appliance that it is, we would all have rolled our eyes and said "nice dream you have there", but it's true! The iPhone is looking to be a real tour de force and it's only because Apple have such a serious inner capability to weild such technologies as one single force.
MS will keep ticking over and dominating the OS stakes for a decade or two yet with no need for innovation whatsoever as long as Apple stays Apple and refuses to aim for the bargain basement bin of the market and so long as Linux remains a mess from the desktop standpoint. But goodness me if MS haven't the heinous task on their hands of one day having to truly redo Windows from scratch. They are late 1996 Apple without Be yet alone NeXT on their shopping list. If only the world weren't so accomodating for them!
The day IBM hired MS to make PC-DOS was the day their future was guaranteed for a generation. But it won't last longer than that.
MS will keep ticking over and dominating the OS stakes for a decade or two yet with no need for innovation whatsoever as long as Apple stays Apple and refuses to aim for the bargain basement bin of the market and so long as Linux remains a mess from the desktop standpoint. But goodness me if MS haven't the heinous task on their hands of one day having to truly redo Windows from scratch. They are late 1996 Apple without Be yet alone NeXT on their shopping list. If only the world weren't so accomodating for them!
Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista is fine. From a technological standpoint, it's comparable to Linux, OS-X, and other PC/Server class operating systems. There are tradeoffs, but it can do the job.
In fact, there is even a embedded version of XP designed to run on ATMs, set top boxes, any sort of box with limited hardware. All those DVD rental boxes in grocery stores and McDonalds could be running NT for all we know.
As had been said before, MS has the technology, is able to do the tech, but they are boring and rather industrial or corporate. Apple on the other hand tries to exciting and consumerish.
Instead of cramming an OS built for the desktop into a 3.5" screen. Apple completely redesigned a UI that made sense for a 3.5" screen.
People cannot wrap their mind around a full OS X if there is no dock, finder, and desktop folders.
No I mean it is not Mac OS X as it is not open to developers and is basically a stripped down OS. I don't think it should be a fully-able OS by any means it just seems futile to state that it is Mac OS X.
Incidentally, Windows Mobile is a very different version of Windows and has been optimised for those small screens. It is also open to developers, similar to Palm. No-one suggests that WindowsMobile is XP.
The only people saying that the iPhone OS is MacOS X are folks outside of Apple who are just misinformed. Apple has been VERY VERY CAREFUL to always refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X". No "Mac". The distinction? The OS on your Mac is, officially, "MacOS X".
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
I agree it is OS X, my original dispute was the OS being called Leopard. It is just that the connotations of this make little sense. I'm sure they're using the technologies Leopard has improved on over Tiger but calling it Leopard is meaningless.
In my opinion iPhone is not analogous to Windows Mobile or Palm, iPhone is analogous to Origami Ultra Mobile PC. Origami is literally a desktop PC scaled down to miniature. You run any XP software on its tiny screen.
Origami likely has not been successful because there has been no coherence between software and hardware fully utilizes the advantages of the device. Microsoft and partners made it without much thought for what would people actually do with it in the real world. Because its essentially XP on a tiny screen with XP apps on a tiny screen there is little incentive to use it.
As far as we can see the iPhone is spirit the same device as the Origami. Only Apple has a plan for how to make it successful. The touch screen interface brings an entirely new paradigm to software development. Apart of that plan is for Apple to have full control of the user experience with the iPhone.
The tight control is likely from Apple wanting to insure third party software adheres to Apple's own guidelines of how they should work on the device. Apple surely does not want software designed for the desktop on the iPhone. They want software on the iPhone designed for a 3.5" touch screen.
Which is a more comprehensive plan to maxmize the real world usability and success of the device.
I agree it is OS X, my original dispute was the OS being called Leopard. It is just that the connotations of this make little sense. I'm sure they're using the technologies Leopard has improved on over Tiger but calling it Leopard is meaningless.
Well that depends... does Leopard refer to MacOS X, or OS X? To date, we've just assumed it meant MacOS X, but if you think about it, if the iPhone uses the kernel and other pieces from the OS X 10.5 bundle (and I think it's safe to assume it does), then the iPhone *IS* running the iPhone build of the Leopard version of OS X.
But not MacOS X.
Which means that the headline is wrong, of course...
The only people saying that the iPhone OS is MacOS X are folks outside of Apple who are just misinformed. Apple has been VERY VERY CAREFUL to always refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X". No "Mac". The distinction? The OS on your Mac is, officially, "MacOS X".
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
The only people saying that the iPhone OS is MacOS X are folks outside of Apple who are just misinformed. Apple has been VERY VERY CAREFUL to always refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X". No "Mac". The distinction? The OS on your Mac is, officially, "MacOS X".
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
It can't be the MAC OS X because the supporting hardware isn't there. different chip, different form factor, different purpose,
But tha t doesn't mean that it isn't OS X as Apple says it is, ported over to this hardware, but with modifications required to make it run on theiPhone..
Er, mel... are you reading my post through the Bizarro Filter or something? Read what I said again. I am *ALSO* going with what Apple says... iPhone runs OS X. Not MacOS X. People who are assuming that it runs the *same* set of technologies as the Mac version of OS X are simply wrong.
Now, if you're taking that quote from Joswiak to mean that also included are items such as the drivers for Mac hardware, then I'd say you're reading far more into that quote than is believable. There would be no point. Note that 'core technologies' is the phrase used - I'd agree. I don't believe that add-on items such as voice recognition are a core technology. Furthermore, I don't believe that what will ship on the iPhone has *every single bit* of functionality as MacOS X. A lot of the legacy items that ship on a Mac have no need to be on that phone.
They will include the bits and pieces that make sense, and leave out those that don't. Pretty simple, and obvious from how modular OS X is.
Comments
The run on sentence you speak of was contained within these things called "quotes." You may have heard of them. They're an essential part of this English language that you speak of.
Besides, Addabox is probably one of the most elegant speakers on this board.
Why, thank you , gregmightdothat.
For the, um, grammarians: using a lengthy descriptive phrase within quotes as the putative title of a phenomena is by way of being droll.
I have a question. This multi-touch technology. Is it a hardware or a software innovation?
MultiTouch was invented and patented by a company called Fingerworks. Apple acquired this company and it's patents.
Here is some information from their FAQ:
Q: Isn't the MultiTouch Surface just an oversize touchpad?
A: No. The technology used in our MultiTouch surface produces images of the hands and fingers as they approach the surface. In effect, a video is created that records the complete motion of all fingers and the other parts of the hands. Furthermore, our MultiTouch software can track and interpret the motion of many hands (and their corresponding fingers) at a time. Touchpads can only sense the position of one finger, or if more than one finger is touching the surface the touchpad senses their centroid.
Well as it isn't really running OS X, just a mobile version, they could attach any name to it! Calling it Leopard is pretty irrelevant.
Apple took a different route than Windows did.
Instead of cramming an OS built for the desktop into a 3.5" screen. Apple completely redesigned a UI that made sense for a 3.5" screen.
People cannot wrap their mind around a full OS X if there is no dock, finder, and desktop folders.
No, we've been over this: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=25
Good point, Kickaha; thanks for the link. I'm definitely in the camp that says the iPhone is OS X, but if anything, I think it's more important than people understand. I think Andy Ihnatko got it right when he used words like "perfect" and "liquid". Jobs has been aiming for perfection in his software since he was NeXT. So it was a long-term investment that is now paying off in spades. OS X is modular and portable whereas Vista is not.
From what I hear, Vista's Aero is visually comparable to OS X; I'm willing to believe it. But look at the misery M$ endured getting to to work on high-end PCs. Any bets as to how long it'll take them to get the Aero look on cell phones? Any doubt as to whether or not they've already started the effort?
Not everyone knows the QWERTY layout though and even those who do don't necessarily consciously know where keys are. Apple needs to allow an alphabetical keyboard as an optional layout.
And they really should consider letting users input letters by writing them as large letters on the screen. It'd be faster for some.
Do you know the English language and did you ever hear of the phrase run-on sentence?
Ironically, the quote above is a type of run-on sentence, because there's no comma between the two independent clauses. (It should be "...language, and did you..."). By contrast, the sentence being criticized is *not* a run-on sentence. It may be long, but it's (mostly) grammatically correct, and the errors it does contain have nothing to do with its length...
Hardware. It works completely different than the stuff they have on ATM machines.
Ok. That's what I thought, but when someone mentioned bringing this technology to the trackpad I got my hopes up. The demos of multi-touch on YouTube are incredible to watch. I can't wait for this to be exploited to it's full potential.
MultiTouch was invented and patented by a company called Fingerworks. Apple acquired this company and it's patents.
Here is some information from their FAQ:
Pretty cool stuff, so does that mean the fingers don't actually have to touch the screen? I guess that's how Steveo did the gestures to move through the address book when doing the iPhone demo. It was hard to tell if he was actually touching the screen or waving his fingers close to its surface.
I'm one kilometre from the Eiffel Tower, keepin' it real guys. See you all soon, in the spiritual sense of course. You're all lookin' great!
Pictures. If you're going to give us a running tour, let us in on some of the fun as well.
OS X is modular and portable whereas Vista is not.
Yep. And if it weren't for the fact that most the world is cosy buying hardware with OEM Windows (NT 5.X) and OEM Office preinstalled, Microsoft would be in the most serious sh!t you can easily imagine.
I think the two really sweet things which underly the iPhone furore are:
- Multi touch technology *finally* being elegantly used
- The maddening portability of OS X coupled with Apple's ability to reinvent the GUI for item 1!
If someone had said something like that would be unveiled as the new full screen video iPod / phone / internet appliance that it is, we would all have rolled our eyes and said "nice dream you have there", but it's true! The iPhone is looking to be a real tour de force and it's only because Apple have such a serious inner capability to weild such technologies as one single force.MS will keep ticking over and dominating the OS stakes for a decade or two yet with no need for innovation whatsoever as long as Apple stays Apple and refuses to aim for the bargain basement bin of the market and so long as Linux remains a mess from the desktop standpoint. But goodness me if MS haven't the heinous task on their hands of one day having to truly redo Windows from scratch. They are late 1996 Apple without Be yet alone NeXT on their shopping list. If only the world weren't so accomodating for them!
The day IBM hired MS to make PC-DOS was the day their future was guaranteed for a generation. But it won't last longer than that.
MS will keep ticking over and dominating the OS stakes for a decade or two yet with no need for innovation whatsoever as long as Apple stays Apple and refuses to aim for the bargain basement bin of the market and so long as Linux remains a mess from the desktop standpoint. But goodness me if MS haven't the heinous task on their hands of one day having to truly redo Windows from scratch. They are late 1996 Apple without Be yet alone NeXT on their shopping list. If only the world weren't so accomodating for them!
Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista is fine. From a technological standpoint, it's comparable to Linux, OS-X, and other PC/Server class operating systems. There are tradeoffs, but it can do the job.
In fact, there is even a embedded version of XP designed to run on ATMs, set top boxes, any sort of box with limited hardware. All those DVD rental boxes in grocery stores and McDonalds could be running NT for all we know.
As had been said before, MS has the technology, is able to do the tech, but they are boring and rather industrial or corporate. Apple on the other hand tries to exciting and consumerish.
Apple took a different route than Windows did.
Instead of cramming an OS built for the desktop into a 3.5" screen. Apple completely redesigned a UI that made sense for a 3.5" screen.
People cannot wrap their mind around a full OS X if there is no dock, finder, and desktop folders.
No I mean it is not Mac OS X as it is not open to developers and is basically a stripped down OS. I don't think it should be a fully-able OS by any means it just seems futile to state that it is Mac OS X.
Incidentally, Windows Mobile is a very different version of Windows and has been optimised for those small screens. It is also open to developers, similar to Palm. No-one suggests that WindowsMobile is XP.
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
Origami likely has not been successful because there has been no coherence between software and hardware fully utilizes the advantages of the device. Microsoft and partners made it without much thought for what would people actually do with it in the real world. Because its essentially XP on a tiny screen with XP apps on a tiny screen there is little incentive to use it.
As far as we can see the iPhone is spirit the same device as the Origami. Only Apple has a plan for how to make it successful. The touch screen interface brings an entirely new paradigm to software development. Apart of that plan is for Apple to have full control of the user experience with the iPhone.
The tight control is likely from Apple wanting to insure third party software adheres to Apple's own guidelines of how they should work on the device. Apple surely does not want software designed for the desktop on the iPhone. They want software on the iPhone designed for a 3.5" touch screen.
Which is a more comprehensive plan to maxmize the real world usability and success of the device.
I agree it is OS X, my original dispute was the OS being called Leopard. It is just that the connotations of this make little sense. I'm sure they're using the technologies Leopard has improved on over Tiger but calling it Leopard is meaningless.
Well that depends... does Leopard refer to MacOS X, or OS X? To date, we've just assumed it meant MacOS X, but if you think about it, if the iPhone uses the kernel and other pieces from the OS X 10.5 bundle (and I think it's safe to assume it does), then the iPhone *IS* running the iPhone build of the Leopard version of OS X.
But not MacOS X.
Which means that the headline is wrong, of course...
The only people saying that the iPhone OS is MacOS X are folks outside of Apple who are just misinformed. Apple has been VERY VERY CAREFUL to always refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X". No "Mac". The distinction? The OS on your Mac is, officially, "MacOS X".
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
Not according to Apple.
http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itune...m?newsid=16927
The only people saying that the iPhone OS is MacOS X are folks outside of Apple who are just misinformed. Apple has been VERY VERY CAREFUL to always refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X". No "Mac". The distinction? The OS on your Mac is, officially, "MacOS X".
The iPhone runs a suite of technologies from the OS X toolbox. The kernel, almost certainly, WebKit, QuickTime, CoreAnimation, Cocoa, etc... plus some specific items for that hardware, such as touch screen drivers, etc. It's not MacOS X, but it *IS* OS X. OS X just became the new branding for a family of technologies that can run on a variety of hardware platforms. *One* of those is the Macintosh. Another is the iPhone. It wouldn't surprise me in the least bit to see the iPod come under the umbrella, or the Apple TV, etc, etc.
It can't be the MAC OS X because the supporting hardware isn't there. different chip, different form factor, different purpose,
But tha t doesn't mean that it isn't OS X as Apple says it is, ported over to this hardware, but with modifications required to make it run on theiPhone..
I'll go by what Apple says onthis.
Now, if you're taking that quote from Joswiak to mean that also included are items such as the drivers for Mac hardware, then I'd say you're reading far more into that quote than is believable. There would be no point. Note that 'core technologies' is the phrase used - I'd agree. I don't believe that add-on items such as voice recognition are a core technology. Furthermore, I don't believe that what will ship on the iPhone has *every single bit* of functionality as MacOS X. A lot of the legacy items that ship on a Mac have no need to be on that phone.
They will include the bits and pieces that make sense, and leave out those that don't. Pretty simple, and obvious from how modular OS X is.