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.
I didn't say you weren't. The comment, and link I provided, was in support.
I'm really intrigued by the idea that Leopard might begin to explicitly decouple "OS X" from "Mac".
What if that was one of the cool top secret features: Leopard comes in multiple, purpose built flavors?
Instead of the MS path of Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile, which has a different code base from Windows per se but attempts to replicate the Windows desktop experience as much as possible, Apple can have one code base but tailor the attributes and UI to the device at hand, and all of it is "really" OS X.
Well I think it's obvious that even amongst the Macophiles, there's a lot of confusion over the specifics, and even the general ramifications of it all... and you expect journalists to figure it out? Pfft.
And the press isn't talking about it. Isn't that just absurd?
Because, it isn't news yet.
MS has many different implimentations of Windows. So far, Apple has two. Even though Apple says that this is OS X, we don't have a sample anywhere.
If Apple does open it up, as jobs has strongly hinted they will do, under Apple's sharp eye of supervision and approval, then we will get some idea. Until then, it's just intended for this phone, and Apple's software, except for widgets, and that's not really big news.
Well, to add something that I just though of as I pressed the reply button, a big deal is the stated intent to upgrade this like the MacOS. Right now, most phones, at least, do not have upgradable OS's. What you get is, well, what you get.
MS has many different implimentations of Windows. So far, Apple has two. Even though Apple says that this is OS X, we don't have a sample anywhere.
If Apple does open it up, as jobs has strongly hinted they will do, under Apple's sharp eye of supervision and approval, then we will get some idea. Until then, it's just intended for this phone, and Apple's software, except for widgets, and that's not really big news.
Is it true that MS had many different implementations of Windows? Aside from server and desktop, there are many pieces of software with "Windows" in the name, but are they by any stretch Windows itself?
Asking, don't know, but it looks like what Apple is doing is actually recasting OS X to a specific piece of hardware, and that that suggests they could do that some more, and that any of those recastings would have much more of a right to call themselves OS X than, say, Windows embedded or Windows Mobile would have a right to call themselves Windows.
I've been asking around with some folks I know who have been at MS at various times, and from what I've been able to piece together... Windows Embedded is the *FIRST* version of 'Windows Anything-Smaller-Than-A-Laptop' that has shared *ANY* real amount of code with the OS running on consumer computers. All the rest has been UI similarities.
Which means that most of the time through it's history, the desktop, server, and handheld OSs have been three distinct codebases that they tried to keep somewhat looking the same. Wrong way to do it, if you ask me. Instead, share the code, optimize the UIs.
I've been asking around with some folks I know who have been at MS at various times, and from what I've been able to piece together... Windows Embedded is the *FIRST* version of 'Windows Anything-Smaller-Than-A-Laptop' that has shared *ANY* real amount of code with the OS running on consumer computers. All the rest has been UI similarities.
Which means that most of the time through it's history, the desktop, server, and handheld OSs have been three distinct codebases that they tried to keep somewhat looking the same. Wrong way to do it, if you ask me. Instead, share the code, optimize the UIs.
Yep, Windows CE (and therefore Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, etc.) has a completely different codebase, much of which is licensable and customizable.
Isn't it ironic? Mac OS X vs. iPhone's OS X shares the code, but adjusts the UI according to the device's specifics. Windows NT vs. Windows CE have completely different code, yet try hard to establish one and the same standard for the sake of "familiarity".
Is it true that MS had many different implementations of Windows? Aside from server and desktop, there are many pieces of software with "Windows" in the name, but are they by any stretch Windows itself?
Asking, don't know, but it looks like what Apple is doing is actually recasting OS X to a specific piece of hardware, and that that suggests they could do that some more, and that any of those recastings would have much more of a right to call themselves OS X than, say, Windows embedded or Windows Mobile would have a right to call themselves Windows.
They have several server versions, several desktop versions. As here, they call the mobile OS's, and there are several, Windows, something or other, depending on where they go.
Yes, it's true that these mobile OS's are not even close to Windows in code, and won't run any Windows programs, but they are still Windows, because they LOOK like Windows, and MS says they are.
This is OS X, because it shares the codebase, even though it has been changed to fit into a mobile device using a different cpu.
Smaller programs might work with a re-compile, and fixing for the device itself.
But, that would still leave Apple with three versions, not MS's Dozen, or so.
But, that would still leave Apple with three versions, not MS's Dozen, or so.
If we go by codebase, we have:
OS X:
Mac OS X: client Macs
Mac OS X Server: server Macs
OS X for iPhone (and tv?): embedded devices
Windows NT:
Windows XP: client PCs, OMPCs, tablet PCs
Windows Server 2003: server PCs
Windows Embedded: embedded devices, including Xbox
Doesn't look so different now, does it? These share a codebase, each.
But, then Microsoft isn't all that content with Windows Embedded's scalability, and therefore has Windows CE, and therein lies the huge difference.
Windows CE:
CE itself (discontinued)
Pocket PC: PDAs (merged into Windows Mobile)
Handheld PC: HPCs (discontinued)
CE for Automotive: cars (rebranded)
Smartphone: smartphones (merged into Windows Mobile)
Windows Mobile: smartphones and PDAs
Windows Automotive: cars
etc.pp.
And then, of course, there's the minor stuff like WebTV.
I don't think there's much of a chance of Windows Embedded being scaled down to supersede Windows CE, nor one of them merging the codebases somehow. They've gotten themselves into a mess where two completely different operating systems are supposed to pretend they're quite similar.
Yep, Windows CE (and therefore Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, etc.) has a completely different codebase, much of which is licensable and customizable.
Isn't it ironic? Mac OS X vs. iPhone's OS X shares the code, but adjusts the UI according to the device's specifics. Windows NT vs. Windows CE have completely different code, yet try hard to establish one and the same standard for the sake of "familiarity".
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Instead of the MS path of Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile, which has a different code base from Windows per se but attempts to replicate the Windows desktop experience as much as possible, Apple can have one code base but tailor the attributes and UI to the device at hand, and all of it is "really" OS X.
Windows Embedded: embedded devices, including Xbox
Doesn't look so different now, does it? These share a codebase, each.
But, then Microsoft isn't all that content with Windows Embedded's scalability, and therefore has Windows CE, and therein lies the huge difference.
Windows CE:
CE itself (discontinued)
Pocket PC: PDAs (merged into Windows Mobile)
Handheld PC: HPCs (discontinued)
CE for Automotive: cars (rebranded)
Smartphone: smartphones (merged into Windows Mobile)
Windows Mobile: smartphones and PDAs
Windows Automotive: cars
etc.pp.
And then, of course, there's the minor stuff like WebTV.
I don't think there's much of a chance of Windows Embedded being scaled down to supersede Windows CE, nor one of them merging the codebases somehow. They've gotten themselves into a mess where two completely different operating systems are supposed to pretend they're quite similar.
It's not just the first three that matter. Those are just the divisions the OS's are written for. It's your later information that shows what I was saying.
It's not just the first three that matter. Those are just the divisions the OS's are written for. It's your later information that shows what I was saying.
Apple still has only three.
What my comparison shows is that the low-level design of OS X is far superior to that of Windows NT.
Comments
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.
I didn't say you weren't. The comment, and link I provided, was in support.
Not to say that your posts AREN't Bizarro.
What if that was one of the cool top secret features: Leopard comes in multiple, purpose built flavors?
Instead of the MS path of Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile, which has a different code base from Windows per se but attempts to replicate the Windows desktop experience as much as possible, Apple can have one code base but tailor the attributes and UI to the device at hand, and all of it is "really" OS X.
Ayup. I think it's probably the most exciting (possible) news out of MWSF.
And the press isn't talking about it. Isn't that just absurd?
And the press isn't talking about it. Isn't that just absurd?
Because, it isn't news yet.
MS has many different implimentations of Windows. So far, Apple has two. Even though Apple says that this is OS X, we don't have a sample anywhere.
If Apple does open it up, as jobs has strongly hinted they will do, under Apple's sharp eye of supervision and approval, then we will get some idea. Until then, it's just intended for this phone, and Apple's software, except for widgets, and that's not really big news.
Because, it isn't news yet.
MS has many different implimentations of Windows. So far, Apple has two. Even though Apple says that this is OS X, we don't have a sample anywhere.
If Apple does open it up, as jobs has strongly hinted they will do, under Apple's sharp eye of supervision and approval, then we will get some idea. Until then, it's just intended for this phone, and Apple's software, except for widgets, and that's not really big news.
Is it true that MS had many different implementations of Windows? Aside from server and desktop, there are many pieces of software with "Windows" in the name, but are they by any stretch Windows itself?
Asking, don't know, but it looks like what Apple is doing is actually recasting OS X to a specific piece of hardware, and that that suggests they could do that some more, and that any of those recastings would have much more of a right to call themselves OS X than, say, Windows embedded or Windows Mobile would have a right to call themselves Windows.
Which means that most of the time through it's history, the desktop, server, and handheld OSs have been three distinct codebases that they tried to keep somewhat looking the same. Wrong way to do it, if you ask me. Instead, share the code, optimize the UIs.
I've been asking around with some folks I know who have been at MS at various times, and from what I've been able to piece together... Windows Embedded is the *FIRST* version of 'Windows Anything-Smaller-Than-A-Laptop' that has shared *ANY* real amount of code with the OS running on consumer computers. All the rest has been UI similarities.
Which means that most of the time through it's history, the desktop, server, and handheld OSs have been three distinct codebases that they tried to keep somewhat looking the same. Wrong way to do it, if you ask me. Instead, share the code, optimize the UIs.
Yep, Windows CE (and therefore Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, etc.) has a completely different codebase, much of which is licensable and customizable.
Isn't it ironic? Mac OS X vs. iPhone's OS X shares the code, but adjusts the UI according to the device's specifics. Windows NT vs. Windows CE have completely different code, yet try hard to establish one and the same standard for the sake of "familiarity".
Is it true that MS had many different implementations of Windows? Aside from server and desktop, there are many pieces of software with "Windows" in the name, but are they by any stretch Windows itself?
Asking, don't know, but it looks like what Apple is doing is actually recasting OS X to a specific piece of hardware, and that that suggests they could do that some more, and that any of those recastings would have much more of a right to call themselves OS X than, say, Windows embedded or Windows Mobile would have a right to call themselves Windows.
They have several server versions, several desktop versions. As here, they call the mobile OS's, and there are several, Windows, something or other, depending on where they go.
Yes, it's true that these mobile OS's are not even close to Windows in code, and won't run any Windows programs, but they are still Windows, because they LOOK like Windows, and MS says they are.
This is OS X, because it shares the codebase, even though it has been changed to fit into a mobile device using a different cpu.
Smaller programs might work with a re-compile, and fixing for the device itself.
But, that would still leave Apple with three versions, not MS's Dozen, or so.
But, that would still leave Apple with three versions, not MS's Dozen, or so.
If we go by codebase, we have:
OS X:
- Mac OS X: client Macs
- Mac OS X Server: server Macs
- OS X for iPhone (and tv?): embedded devices
Windows NT:- Windows XP: client PCs, OMPCs, tablet PCs
- Windows Server 2003: server PCs
- Windows Embedded: embedded devices, including Xbox
Doesn't look so different now, does it? These share a codebase, each.But, then Microsoft isn't all that content with Windows Embedded's scalability, and therefore has Windows CE, and therein lies the huge difference.
Windows CE:
- CE itself (discontinued)
- Pocket PC: PDAs (merged into Windows Mobile)
- Handheld PC: HPCs (discontinued)
- CE for Automotive: cars (rebranded)
- Smartphone: smartphones (merged into Windows Mobile)
- Windows Mobile: smartphones and PDAs
- Windows Automotive: cars
- etc.pp.
And then, of course, there's the minor stuff like WebTV.I don't think there's much of a chance of Windows Embedded being scaled down to supersede Windows CE, nor one of them merging the codebases somehow. They've gotten themselves into a mess where two completely different operating systems are supposed to pretend they're quite similar.
Yep, Windows CE (and therefore Pocket PC, Windows Mobile, etc.) has a completely different codebase, much of which is licensable and customizable.
Isn't it ironic? Mac OS X vs. iPhone's OS X shares the code, but adjusts the UI according to the device's specifics. Windows NT vs. Windows CE have completely different code, yet try hard to establish one and the same standard for the sake of "familiarity".
Instead of the MS path of Windows CE/Pocket PC/Mobile, which has a different code base from Windows per se but attempts to replicate the Windows desktop experience as much as possible, Apple can have one code base but tailor the attributes and UI to the device at hand, and all of it is "really" OS X.
I demand royalties!
If we go by codebase, we have:
OS X:
- Mac OS X: client Macs
- Mac OS X Server: server Macs
- OS X for iPhone (and ?tv?): embedded devices
Windows NT:- Windows XP: client PCs, OMPCs, tablet PCs
- Windows Server 2003: server PCs
- Windows Embedded: embedded devices, including Xbox
Doesn't look so different now, does it? These share a codebase, each.But, then Microsoft isn't all that content with Windows Embedded's scalability, and therefore has Windows CE, and therein lies the huge difference.
Windows CE:
- CE itself (discontinued)
- Pocket PC: PDAs (merged into Windows Mobile)
- Handheld PC: HPCs (discontinued)
- CE for Automotive: cars (rebranded)
- Smartphone: smartphones (merged into Windows Mobile)
- Windows Mobile: smartphones and PDAs
- Windows Automotive: cars
- etc.pp.
And then, of course, there's the minor stuff like WebTV.I don't think there's much of a chance of Windows Embedded being scaled down to supersede Windows CE, nor one of them merging the codebases somehow. They've gotten themselves into a mess where two completely different operating systems are supposed to pretend they're quite similar.
It's not just the first three that matter. Those are just the divisions the OS's are written for. It's your later information that shows what I was saying.
Apple still has only three.
It's not just the first three that matter. Those are just the divisions the OS's are written for. It's your later information that shows what I was saying.
Apple still has only three.
What my comparison shows is that the low-level design of OS X is far superior to that of Windows NT.
I demand royalties!
Oh, like you'd survive a lawsuit against me.
What my comparison shows is that the low-level design of OS X is far superior to that of Windows NT.
Oh, yeah.
Oh, like you'd survive a lawsuit against me.
Damn. It's always the little guy that gets squeezed.