MobileMe and iWork.com were built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And will work just fine with any standards based browsers, which pretty much means all modern browsers and you won't need to download or install anything extra for it to work.
"Download and install the latest version of iTunes. iTunes is required to set up MobileMe on your PC."
And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
The point being made in the article is that Apple is promoting the use of web standards and Microsoft is not. Regardless of what Apple forces you to install to set up your account, the article is correct.
Of course it has to install things to run in the background! How the hell else is it going to auto-sync if it doesn't? The whole point of MobileMe is to keep your data sync'ed across multiple devices and the internet.
That's a much better article than the others! More impartial. But I can't follow your arguments about the public beta. Sure, Apple (and MS) do not want the competitor to adopt the best ideas of their products but on the other hand Apple says there will not be a lot of new end-user features in it. At least they could disable them in a public beta (as MS has done in the pre-betas of Windows 7).
Don't you see concerns about the quality of the final product if there is not a (more or less) public beta of Snow Leopard with such a large variety of software and hardware out there and major changes to the kernel and sub-systems?
I would also like to hear more about what Apple will do about security. With Microsoft now delivering much more secure code because of their new concepts of designing/coding and thereby negotiating the major problems from XP-era, what will Apple do to be prepared for a larger market share?
And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
Absolutely! QuickTime and iTunes are really bad on Windows. It feels like they are running in a virtual machine/emulator. Very slow, buggy and with ads at the installation process. And Safari has major security issues on Windows. They definitely have to fix all this if they want more users to switch.
With Microsoft now delivering much more secure code because of their new concepts of designing/coding and thereby negotiating the major problems from XP-era, what will Apple do to be prepared for a larger market share?
All introduced with Leopard around 15 months ago. Snow Leopard will probably step up measures as well on the security front.
You can never be blasé about security, but despite seeing massive gains in market share, Apple's been good at keeping real world exploits at bay whilst not impacting the user experience.
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?
Silverlight = Microsoft Proprietary
Flash = Adobe Proprietary
Javascript, HTML 5, CSS 3 = Open Standards
Apple is making a strategic play on the later.
RIAs may offer advantages over the open way at the moment, but they put too much power in the hands of one vendor. Cause they then get to decide which devices and platforms RIAs written using their tools get to work on and which ones don't. That's scary for Apple but also bad for us all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokuwaomar
You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.
That's making all sorts of assumptions.
It may be very difficult, only Apple know, no one else has seen the code.
Most applications will have a 64-bit version for windows 7. Certainly all microsoft products will and game developers have been making 64-bit binaries for years. If there are a few apps that are still 32 that's only because Windows has 500x the software firm development as Mac. Mac is at an advantage because they are so proprietary with their hardware but Windows 7 comes in 64-bit. period.
Only drivers have to be in 64bit code. The 64bit versions of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 all run 32bit software perfectly.
Since Vista 64bit, a lot of hardware developers have delivered 64bit drivers. Vista has change the 64bit game for MS. It is a slower adaption as for the Mac, sure, but Windows 7 will mostly be sold at 64bit versions.
All introduced with Leopard around 15 months ago. Snow Leopard will probably step up measures as well on the security front.
You can never be blasé about security, but despite seeing massive gains in market share, Apple's been good at keeping real world exploits at bay whilst not impacting the user experience.
Thx a lot. But I was wondering what they will do at the code creation level of development. But other then MS they may never talk about such things in the public.
Only drivers have to be in 64bit code. The 64bit versions of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 all run 32bit software perfectly.
Since Vista 64bit, a lot of hardware developers have delivered 64bit drivers. Vista has change the 64bit game for MS. It is a slower adaption as for the Mac, sure, but Windows 7 will mostly be sold at 64bit versions.
How much do you want to bet that the version of Windows 7 offered by all the major OEMs will still be the 32-bit version?
Windows 16-bit and 32-bit didn't take off until they were pre-installed by OEMs.
Hey, what about OpenGL 3.0? Are they EVER going to upgrade the graphics stack with a new API? I know OpenGL 3 has kind of been a let down, but the thing was ratified in 2007. Apple would gain a lot of performance improvements by adding in even the miniscule improvements to the API.
I thought that GCC technically stood for GNU Compiler Collection.
It does. Also, CUPS has been part of OS X since 10.4 and now that Apple owns CUPS they've continued it's openness while extending custom portions for Snow Leopard to make the Print System/Process flow easier on OS X 10.6.
You've been able to use it before 10.4. They integrated it into Tiger.
A compilation strategy designed to enable effective program optimization across the entire lifetime of a program. LLVM supports effective optimization at compile time, link-time (particularly interprocedural), run-time and offline (i.e., after software is installed), while remaining transparent to developers and maintaining compatibility with existing build scripts.
A virtual instruction set - LLVM is a low-level object code representation that uses simple RISC-like instructions, but provides rich, language-independent, type information and dataflow (SSA) information about operands. This combination enables sophisticated transformations on object code, while remaining light-weight enough to be attached to the executable. This combination is key to allowing link-time, run-time, and offline transformations.
A compiler infrastructure - LLVM is also a collection of source code that implements the language and compilation strategy. The primary components of the LLVM infrastructure are a GCC-based C & C++ front-end, a link-time optimization framework with a growing set of global and interprocedural analyses and transformations, static back-ends for the X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64, ARM, Thumb, IA-64, Alpha, SPARC, MIPS and CellSPU architectures, a back-end which emits portable C code, and a Just-In-Time compiler for X86, X86-64, PowerPC 32/64 processors, and an emitter for MSIL.
LLVM does not imply things that you would expect from a high-level virtual machine. It does not require garbage collection or run-time code generation (In fact, LLVM makes a great static compiler!). Note that optional LLVM components can be used to build high-level virtual machines and other systems that need these services.
Clang is the compiler project for LLVM that covers C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ front ends.
You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.
Unless of course I have my monitors stacked vertically instead of side-by-side. Then the menu bar at the top of the bottom screen is kind of in the way. I know that's a very rare arrangement, but I've seen even stranger ones. I'm just pointing out that the obvious solution (just put a menu bar at the top of every screen) may cause other problems because you are assuming that the tops of the monitors are all at the same height. They may not be. That's kind of thing a good designer needs to take into account. Sometimes it's best to just keep it simple.
This is the #1 reason I don't understand Open Source software. People on these projects (like khtml which became webkit) countless hours developing and then Apple can just swoop in and put on a propietary shell and charge for it making billions of dollars a year and the original KDE developers sit their with nothing.
And sure you could argue that thru webkit Apple is putting stuff back into the community. I would disagree because they aren't using khtml but creating a fork so it doesn't directly benifit KDE, khtml, or konquoror any longer and without hours or hard work of comparison it doesn't benifit the KDE team. Google for example is atleast giving more back with no making a propietary shell (like Apple does) and introducing revolutionary components like their new javascript engine.
You see I disagree that Apple is Open Source. I say Apple is cheap, doesn't want to start from the ground up on anything but will gladly take the work of others and put a propietary shell on it (weither it be OS X or Safari). And yes Apple does earn off Safari when you search on Google (which they require you to do so unless you hack the browser).
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Open source does not mean it's an open standard. Open source software indicates something is licensed under an open source license, open standards indicates something that is widely supported by the relevant industry or industries that can be licensed to anyone usually through a standards body like the IEEE or the ISO.
However if you're looking for standards that Apple does accept and promote, H.264 and AAC come to mind, as do web standards, PDF, and TextEdit in Leopard supports both OOXML and ODF word processor formats, while iWork can import OOXML.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateKylie
This is the #1 reason I don't understand Open Source software. People on these projects (like khtml which became webkit) countless hours developing and then Apple can just swoop in and put on a propietary shell and charge for it making billions of dollars a year and the original KDE developers sit their with nothing.
And sure you could argue that thru webkit Apple is putting stuff back into the community. I would disagree because they aren't using khtml but creating a fork so it doesn't directly benifit KDE, khtml, or konquoror any longer and without hours or hard work of comparison it doesn't benifit the KDE team. Google for example is atleast giving more back with no making a propietary shell (like Apple does) and introducing revolutionary components like their new javascript engine.
You see I disagree that Apple is Open Source. I say Apple is cheap, doesn't want to start from the ground up on anything but will gladly take the work of others and put a propietary shell on it (weither it be OS X or Safari). And yes Apple does earn off Safari when you search on Google (which they require you to do so unless you hack the browser).
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Apple re-contributed WebKit to the community with their own improvements after the fork and the people at KDE have switched to it (and probably merged a metric assload of changes from KHTML/KJS/KSVG into WebKit) and now use it in their latest software. Apple sponsors the development of llvm and has hired the lead developer, they released launchd to the community, and continue to make Darwin available under an OSS license (they don't have to, it is rather costly to do so because they host it and have to strip out any code they don't want to release to the community).
However, not all of their software is made available under an open source license which is sad, I mean I can understand that with iLife, iWork, and the ProApps which are separate and commercial projects, I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits, and if they were to fully open source it, development would be much more rapid and they could sell support contracts for the software, adoption would improve, more open source software would be made available to Mac OS X at a faster rate, there would be a decent package manager, drivers would improve, etc. They do make their money on hardware, and wider support of OS X wouldn't be a bad thing although it would be one less of a reason to buy Apple hardware, since they control their hardware already they could always choose which parts of the source to include, polish, and support in their support contracts and there would be a wider base of developers actively working on the OS.
Comments
MobileMe and iWork.com were built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. And will work just fine with any standards based browsers, which pretty much means all modern browsers and you won't need to download or install anything extra for it to work.
MobileMe requires the installation of a control panel on Windows. Not only that, but you're required to install iTunes as well.
"Download and install the latest version of iTunes. iTunes is required to set up MobileMe on your PC."
And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
MobileMe requires the installation of a control panel on Windows. Not only that, but you're required to install iTunes as well.
"Download and install the latest version of iTunes. iTunes is required to set up MobileMe on your PC."
And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
The point being made in the article is that Apple is promoting the use of web standards and Microsoft is not. Regardless of what Apple forces you to install to set up your account, the article is correct.
Of course it has to install things to run in the background! How the hell else is it going to auto-sync if it doesn't? The whole point of MobileMe is to keep your data sync'ed across multiple devices and the internet.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
I've heard that Office runs better on pcs with windows than the OSX version on macs.
Who'd thunk it.
Don't you see concerns about the quality of the final product if there is not a (more or less) public beta of Snow Leopard with such a large variety of software and hardware out there and major changes to the kernel and sub-systems?
I would also like to hear more about what Apple will do about security. With Microsoft now delivering much more secure code because of their new concepts of designing/coding and thereby negotiating the major problems from XP-era, what will Apple do to be prepared for a larger market share?
And iTunes installs services that launch transparently with the OS and run in the background, whether or not you even use iTunes.
Apple sucks hard at software that isn't running on their computers.
Absolutely! QuickTime and iTunes are really bad on Windows. It feels like they are running in a virtual machine/emulator. Very slow, buggy and with ads at the installation process. And Safari has major security issues on Windows. They definitely have to fix all this if they want more users to switch.
With Microsoft now delivering much more secure code because of their new concepts of designing/coding and thereby negotiating the major problems from XP-era, what will Apple do to be prepared for a larger market share?
http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa08/...bbard_talk.pdf
- File Quarantine
- Digital Sandbox
- Package Signing
- Code Signing
- Application Firewall
- Non-Executable (NX) Data
- Address Space Layout Randomization
All introduced with Leopard around 15 months ago. Snow Leopard will probably step up measures as well on the security front.
You can never be blasé about security, but despite seeing massive gains in market share, Apple's been good at keeping real world exploits at bay whilst not impacting the user experience.
How is Microsoft's use of "proprietary platform" different from Apple's MobileME and iWork? What "open standards" is Apple trying to promote? Or are you saying because they are working on a java engine that they are promoting open standards indirectly?
Silverlight = Microsoft Proprietary
Flash = Adobe Proprietary
Javascript, HTML 5, CSS 3 = Open Standards
Apple is making a strategic play on the later.
RIAs may offer advantages over the open way at the moment, but they put too much power in the hands of one vendor. Cause they then get to decide which devices and platforms RIAs written using their tools get to work on and which ones don't. That's scary for Apple but also bad for us all.
You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.
That's making all sorts of assumptions.
It may be very difficult, only Apple know, no one else has seen the code.
Most applications will have a 64-bit version for windows 7. Certainly all microsoft products will and game developers have been making 64-bit binaries for years. If there are a few apps that are still 32 that's only because Windows has 500x the software firm development as Mac. Mac is at an advantage because they are so proprietary with their hardware but Windows 7 comes in 64-bit. period.
Only drivers have to be in 64bit code. The 64bit versions of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 all run 32bit software perfectly.
Since Vista 64bit, a lot of hardware developers have delivered 64bit drivers. Vista has change the 64bit game for MS. It is a slower adaption as for the Mac, sure, but Windows 7 will mostly be sold at 64bit versions.
Silverlight = Microsoft Proprietary
Flash = Adobe Proprietary
Javascript, HTML 5, CSS 3 = Open Standards
Apple is making a strategic play on the later.
RIAs may offer advantages over the open way at the moment, but they put too much power in the hands of one vendor.
You forgot about JavaFX, which is partially open-source (compiler and tools) and will be fully open source (graphics libraries) in the future.
Since Java is open source, Java could potentially be included within Firefox itself in a future version, as opposed to being installed as a plugin.
http://www.usenix.org/events/lisa08/...bbard_talk.pdf
- File Quarantine
- Digital Sandbox
- Package Signing
- Code Signing
- Application Firewall
- Non-Executable (NX) Data
- Address Space Layout Randomization
All introduced with Leopard around 15 months ago. Snow Leopard will probably step up measures as well on the security front.
You can never be blasé about security, but despite seeing massive gains in market share, Apple's been good at keeping real world exploits at bay whilst not impacting the user experience.
Thx a lot. But I was wondering what they will do at the code creation level of development. But other then MS they may never talk about such things in the public.
Only drivers have to be in 64bit code. The 64bit versions of Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 all run 32bit software perfectly.
Since Vista 64bit, a lot of hardware developers have delivered 64bit drivers. Vista has change the 64bit game for MS. It is a slower adaption as for the Mac, sure, but Windows 7 will mostly be sold at 64bit versions.
How much do you want to bet that the version of Windows 7 offered by all the major OEMs will still be the 32-bit version?
Windows 16-bit and 32-bit didn't take off until they were pre-installed by OEMs.
i thought cups was already supported . i seem to remember a big deal being made about it when leopard came out
mrfish
hi there
i thought cups was already supported . i seem to remember a big deal being made about it when leopard came out
mrfish
http://localhost:631/ ? On your Mac.
CUPS has been there since 10.3, maybe 10.2. I'll look it up in a minute
I thought that GCC technically stood for GNU Compiler Collection.
It does. Also, CUPS has been part of OS X since 10.4 and now that Apple owns CUPS they've continued it's openness while extending custom portions for Snow Leopard to make the Print System/Process flow easier on OS X 10.6.
You've been able to use it before 10.4. They integrated it into Tiger.
Right on the front page:
http://www.llvm.org
Low Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) is:
Clang is the compiler project for LLVM that covers C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ front ends.
http://clang.llvm.org/
You know, adding a menu bar to the top of each screen isn't exactly difficult, and it would make a lot of people's lives easier.
Unless of course I have my monitors stacked vertically instead of side-by-side. Then the menu bar at the top of the bottom screen is kind of in the way. I know that's a very rare arrangement, but I've seen even stranger ones. I'm just pointing out that the obvious solution (just put a menu bar at the top of every screen) may cause other problems because you are assuming that the tops of the monitors are all at the same height. They may not be. That's kind of thing a good designer needs to take into account. Sometimes it's best to just keep it simple.
I can already predict the context in the next installation, but I am open for surprises. While it may not be
clear cut as good or bad, but the gists are there.
Silverlight works okay on Linux with the Mono project, and it's being ported for OS X:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macos...lverlight.html
Microsoft = bad
Apple = good
Windows = bad
OS X = good
Proprietary = bad
Open Source = good
Read: http://www.apple.com/opensource/
They are very different.
This is the #1 reason I don't understand Open Source software. People on these projects (like khtml which became webkit) countless hours developing and then Apple can just swoop in and put on a propietary shell and charge for it making billions of dollars a year and the original KDE developers sit their with nothing.
And sure you could argue that thru webkit Apple is putting stuff back into the community. I would disagree because they aren't using khtml but creating a fork so it doesn't directly benifit KDE, khtml, or konquoror any longer and without hours or hard work of comparison it doesn't benifit the KDE team. Google for example is atleast giving more back with no making a propietary shell (like Apple does) and introducing revolutionary components like their new javascript engine.
You see I disagree that Apple is Open Source. I say Apple is cheap, doesn't want to start from the ground up on anything but will gladly take the work of others and put a propietary shell on it (weither it be OS X or Safari). And yes Apple does earn off Safari when you search on Google (which they require you to do so unless you hack the browser).
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Read: http://www.apple.com/opensource/
They are very different.
Open source does not mean it's an open standard. Open source software indicates something is licensed under an open source license, open standards indicates something that is widely supported by the relevant industry or industries that can be licensed to anyone usually through a standards body like the IEEE or the ISO.
However if you're looking for standards that Apple does accept and promote, H.264 and AAC come to mind, as do web standards, PDF, and TextEdit in Leopard supports both OOXML and ODF word processor formats, while iWork can import OOXML.
This is the #1 reason I don't understand Open Source software. People on these projects (like khtml which became webkit) countless hours developing and then Apple can just swoop in and put on a propietary shell and charge for it making billions of dollars a year and the original KDE developers sit their with nothing.
And sure you could argue that thru webkit Apple is putting stuff back into the community. I would disagree because they aren't using khtml but creating a fork so it doesn't directly benifit KDE, khtml, or konquoror any longer and without hours or hard work of comparison it doesn't benifit the KDE team. Google for example is atleast giving more back with no making a propietary shell (like Apple does) and introducing revolutionary components like their new javascript engine.
You see I disagree that Apple is Open Source. I say Apple is cheap, doesn't want to start from the ground up on anything but will gladly take the work of others and put a propietary shell on it (weither it be OS X or Safari). And yes Apple does earn off Safari when you search on Google (which they require you to do so unless you hack the browser).
So while I like my MacBook alot, I don't think you could ever prove to me that Apple really stands behind Open Source. If they did they would open more of their sources because in my honest opinion its their beautiful hardware that sells. They have well thought out designs, when I bought mine I priced between a Macbook and Dell XPS M1330 and basically they were the same price at the same features (2.4Ghz, Intel X3100 etc). I doubt Hackintosh would change the volume for Apple Hardware.
Apple re-contributed WebKit to the community with their own improvements after the fork and the people at KDE have switched to it (and probably merged a metric assload of changes from KHTML/KJS/KSVG into WebKit) and now use it in their latest software. Apple sponsors the development of llvm and has hired the lead developer, they released launchd to the community, and continue to make Darwin available under an OSS license (they don't have to, it is rather costly to do so because they host it and have to strip out any code they don't want to release to the community).
However, not all of their software is made available under an open source license which is sad, I mean I can understand that with iLife, iWork, and the ProApps which are separate and commercial projects, I just can't think of any decent reason to keep the rest of Mac OS X closed, none that would outweigh the benefits, and if they were to fully open source it, development would be much more rapid and they could sell support contracts for the software, adoption would improve, more open source software would be made available to Mac OS X at a faster rate, there would be a decent package manager, drivers would improve, etc. They do make their money on hardware, and wider support of OS X wouldn't be a bad thing although it would be one less of a reason to buy Apple hardware, since they control their hardware already they could always choose which parts of the source to include, polish, and support in their support contracts and there would be a wider base of developers actively working on the OS.
Ah well, didn't mean to ramble off topic there.
Sebastian