I predict that the next mobile Windows OS will have a brand new UI. Something that moves away from the "familiar" Start button and movies to something that works with a small mobile device. Id est, something akin to the iPhone's UI.
Or, I could be wrong. It's not like MS has ever set a precedent by coping Apple's UI before. \
I predict that the next mobile Windows OS will have a brand new UI. Something that moves away from the "familiar" Start button and movies to something that works with a small mobile device. Id est, something akin to the iPhone's UI.
Or, I could be wrong. It's not like MS has ever set a precedent by coping Apple's UI before. \
Maybe, but MS seems pretty committed to extending the Windows "brand" by maintaining UI cues across every platform. Humorously, that's exactly what makes something like Windows Mobile so cumbersome.
I almost shudder to think what MS would come up with if they decided to "rethink" how they do small screen optimization, with one eye on Vista and one eye on the iPhone.
A really good article about FingerWorks, and how MultiTouch works.
It appears MultiTouch knows where your hand and fingers are before you even touch the surface. Sounds as though they have put a lot of thought into making up for not having tactile feel.
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.
But it is news...would Apple have traveled this route if the Intel transition never happened? Jobs stated that the iPhone was 2 years in the making. I wonder if this (the iPhone and embedded OS X) came after the internal decision to go Intel or if the iPhone was already under development sans OS X and then Apple decides to go Intel -- opening up new avenues for Apple engineers to explore.
There's a story here: Did Apple switch to Intel because they were not happy with the PPC roadmap? Or did Apple have a roadmap (iPhone and other devices) which didn't fit the PPC?
You're forgetting... MacOS X had been running on Intel since day one. In fact, MacOS X used to be NeXTstep (or was that NEXTSTEP? OPENstep? I can't recall which the last one was...) which ran on *four* hardware platforms: PowerPC, Intel, Sparc, and... er, I think it was Alpha.
When Apple bought NeXT, they dumped two of them, secreted away the Intel build, and only shipped the PowerPC until the Intel switch, at which point they revealed that they'd never stopped making it internally.
Whether Apple went Intel or not on the Macs, they could have moved to a number of platforms by just continuing to maintain the portability of OS X... which, obviously, they did. The iPhone without OS X just doesn't make sense, IMO.
But it is news...would Apple have traveled this route if the Intel transition never happened? Jobs stated that the iPhone was 2 years in the making. I wonder if this (the iPhone and embedded OS X) came after the internal decision to go Intel or if the iPhone was already under development sans OS X and then Apple decides to go Intel -- opening up new avenues for Apple engineers to explore.
There's a story here: Did Apple switch to Intel because they were not happy with the PPC roadmap? Or did Apple have a roadmap (iPhone and other devices) which didn't fit the PPC?
What does this have to do with Intel? Apple's iPod chips always were a separate line from its computers anyway.
It's not news, because it's not here yet. It's rumor, which is not news.
When it is on the street, and is being taken apart, and the software analyzed, then it will be news.
Comments
Or, I could be wrong. It's not like MS has ever set a precedent by coping Apple's UI before.
I predict that the next mobile Windows OS will have a brand new UI. Something that moves away from the "familiar" Start button and movies to something that works with a small mobile device. Id est, something akin to the iPhone's UI.
Or, I could be wrong. It's not like MS has ever set a precedent by coping Apple's UI before.
Maybe, but MS seems pretty committed to extending the Windows "brand" by maintaining UI cues across every platform. Humorously, that's exactly what makes something like Windows Mobile so cumbersome.
I almost shudder to think what MS would come up with if they decided to "rethink" how they do small screen optimization, with one eye on Vista and one eye on the iPhone.
It appears MultiTouch knows where your hand and fingers are before you even touch the surface. Sounds as though they have put a lot of thought into making up for not having tactile feel.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...0357/-1/NEWS01
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.
But it is news...would Apple have traveled this route if the Intel transition never happened? Jobs stated that the iPhone was 2 years in the making. I wonder if this (the iPhone and embedded OS X) came after the internal decision to go Intel or if the iPhone was already under development sans OS X and then Apple decides to go Intel -- opening up new avenues for Apple engineers to explore.
There's a story here: Did Apple switch to Intel because they were not happy with the PPC roadmap? Or did Apple have a roadmap (iPhone and other devices) which didn't fit the PPC?
When Apple bought NeXT, they dumped two of them, secreted away the Intel build, and only shipped the PowerPC until the Intel switch, at which point they revealed that they'd never stopped making it internally.
Whether Apple went Intel or not on the Macs, they could have moved to a number of platforms by just continuing to maintain the portability of OS X... which, obviously, they did. The iPhone without OS X just doesn't make sense, IMO.
But it is news...would Apple have traveled this route if the Intel transition never happened? Jobs stated that the iPhone was 2 years in the making. I wonder if this (the iPhone and embedded OS X) came after the internal decision to go Intel or if the iPhone was already under development sans OS X and then Apple decides to go Intel -- opening up new avenues for Apple engineers to explore.
There's a story here: Did Apple switch to Intel because they were not happy with the PPC roadmap? Or did Apple have a roadmap (iPhone and other devices) which didn't fit the PPC?
What does this have to do with Intel? Apple's iPod chips always were a separate line from its computers anyway.
It's not news, because it's not here yet. It's rumor, which is not news.
When it is on the street, and is being taken apart, and the software analyzed, then it will be news.