I think this would be a big, big mistake. One of the key reason I finally moved over to the Mac was the fact that it ran on Intel. I gave me a lot of comfort, coming from the Windows world
Plus, Intel is on a tear improving the performance of its microprocessors. Just look at the massive improvements in the latest MBAs. It is all Intel driven. And, Intel has the Tri-gate 3D technology in the wings which are going to rock in the next 12 months
As an AAPL investor, I'd really hate to see this change. Perhaps they are using it as leverage to negotiate some incredibly awesome terms with Intel. Now, that would be very smart
If they do this they will lose a very large portion of their customers. Like many people, I HAVE to run VMWare ( or Parallels ) virtual windows machines on my box because the software that my company sells will not ever run on OSX/iOS.
That means that I would never be able to buy another Apple PC.....PERIOD..... because I HAVE to be able to run windows on the computer.....
It might work for the Air Computers ( basically iPad with keyboard), but I would never buy one for that reason....
2) Your last sentence refers to a universal application. That's different than a Universal OS that will have the drivers, frameworks, and UIs for all devices. Mac OS is already over 3.5GB just for Macs if you were to add it for all iDevices consider at least another 1GB. But for argument sake lets ignore that and just consider the 3.5GB of Mac OS and assume it also contains all the needed files for the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and AppleTV models. Does it really make sense for, say, an iPod Touch user to download 3.5GB just to update their iPod? Not in the least!
The rest of your comment was correct. However, this need not be true. OS X is extremely modular right from the kernel level. It has a micro-kernel architecture which allows only needed features to be plugged in. Apple could easily release the same OS on all platforms, but only with the needed plugins.
The timeline this article states for the merger is 2016. By then 3.5 Gigs will be a joke, in terms of storage space. It might be annoying to download that large an OS, however, with iOS5 Apple is already issuing Delta OS updates. What do you think is more likely? That the merged OS would keep the iOS delta update structure, or retain the Mac OS X whole OS replacement structure?
In short, the size of the OS will not be a meaningful impediment at all in 2016.
The big upside would be compatibility. Having tried to work on Keynote and Papers documents on my iPad and mac, to date its a fail. iCloud integration will be a huge step forward. But I don't want the ability to work on the same document in iOS and Lion to mean we have to have lowest common denominator features and functionality. So, yes, I would like Lion and iOS to move closer together in many respects.
In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
...when Steve Jobs explained a couple of months ago why we would not be seeing a touch-screen iMac. Arm fatigue sets in rapidly when using a vertically-oriented screen which makes heavy use of it almost impossible.
I may be talking about of my butt here, but I don't think Rosetta had as much to do. To run Windows, an emulator has to emulate an entire machine in order to provide a guest OS access to virtual hardware. Rosetta simply had to translate some instructions.
Virtualization platforms already have to do much of that. The big performance killer in the past has been instruction translation.
Well that and a hardware issue as iOS devices have serious issues with RAM space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube
The big upside would be compatibility. Having tried to work on Keynote and Papers documents on my iPad and mac, to date its a fail. iCloud integration will be a huge step forward. But I don't want the ability to work on the same document in iOS and Lion to mean we have to have lowest common denominator features and functionality. So, yes, I would like Lion and iOS to move closer together in many respects.
In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
You're implying there won't be X86 emulators for ARM processors in 2016 when they exist now.
Emulating a different CPU architecture takes a major speed hit, though, so an A6 MacBook Air running x86 software under emulation would feel really slow.
Does Apple really want to ship a Mac that is incompatible with all the software the other Macs are using? I agree with what someone else said; if Apple is going to use the A6 in Macs, they'll transition ALL Macs over to it. But, I don't see that happening. Being able to run Windows x86 software on your Mac at native speeds is just too valuable in the current market.
Apple could still make software available to both platforms without needing to merge the entire OS. They already have the technology in place to do this; universal binary support and specific UI for appropriate devices and views.
They could create one version of Pages or Numbers that would work across all their devices. There is absolutely no need to merge iOS and Mac OS X to do this.
I think Apple's idea is to give iPad and iPhone users the same experience their already familiar with --- and put it on the desktop. Were seeing this. Eventually i expect the OS experience and iCloud services will render a nearly ubiquitous interface across hand held, TV, and desktop devices. Thus the walled garden will be complete.
The visible file system is a design choice...much like changing the look of the scrollbars.
Merging the 2 OS'es would basically involve merging almost all the code below the UI. They might even try merging the APIs (which are already very similar). This would mean that the same 3rd Party codebase would function across Mac, iPad, iPhone with only the UI needing to be changed.
This would be a dramatic improvement for both devs and customers.
The merge WILL happen, as long as Apple is technically capable of actually doing it. The only remaining question is when will they start.
The under-the-hood stuff would make a lot of sense; having similar API's and similar file systems.
I don't ever see Apple offering users the option of installing iOS on their MacBook Air, though. Not gonna happen. Unlike Windows 8, the two interfaces will remain completely separate. Apple is taking some of the best ideas from their iOS research and merging them into OS X, but it won't go beyond that.
I really hope you weren't serios about this question. If you are I will just say good luck with that.
Just playing off his fear that ARM would take over the world (it won't). He wouldn't have accepted an out-of-universe answer, so I kept to the original statement.
That's not fair to people with autism. My son has it and can still apply logic and reason far better than this analyst.
No offence, but autism and retardation are not related to each other at all.
Also, "retarded" is a perfectly scientific word. There is a big push on lately to have it deleted from our collective lexicon for being offensive but it's not actually in and of itself a pejorative or even a negative remark. It's a shortened form of the technical term "developmentally retarded."
I do. The vast majority of people don't need anything except iOS. It makes perfect sense to trim the bloat from OSX. Only a very few people will miss anything, and it will be easier for most customers to use.
I've been using Lion for a week or two now and I love a lot of the changes in the GUI many of which are subtle and elegant. However some of the iOS implementation such as Launch pad has no place in my daily routine. I really don't find Launch pad a shortcut and more convenient way to my apps, a click on the Applications folder is not that difficult and it offers me more sorting options. Mission Control most likely has is fans but again I don't find myself having any need to run that many windows and apps at the same time. I never used Spaces in Snow Leopard either. I really enjoy my iOS devices but even using Pages and Numbers is a clumsy at best solution. If Apple intends on returning to a "one OS fits all" company I predict merging OSX with iOS will be a bigger challenge than the transition from Classic Mac to Mac OS X. As always it will be interesting to see what develops.
For your needs, it may not make sense.
But, consider a graphic artist, draftsman or other creative whose primary interface with the computer may be a graphics tablet, guitar fretboard, piano keyboard or even the spoken voice.
For these needs, the mouse/kb is a clumsy, but [currently] necessary, deterrent to make the computer device do what they want.
If you used an unusual device as your primary interface to a Mac, I think it would be much easier to tap-swipe-tap to bring up LaunchPad, navigate the OS, and select the app or file you want.
Comments
Plus, Intel is on a tear improving the performance of its microprocessors. Just look at the massive improvements in the latest MBAs. It is all Intel driven. And, Intel has the Tri-gate 3D technology in the wings which are going to rock in the next 12 months
As an AAPL investor, I'd really hate to see this change. Perhaps they are using it as leverage to negotiate some incredibly awesome terms with Intel. Now, that would be very smart
That means that I would never be able to buy another Apple PC.....PERIOD..... because I HAVE to be able to run windows on the computer.....
It might work for the Air Computers ( basically iPad with keyboard), but I would never buy one for that reason....
2) Your last sentence refers to a universal application. That's different than a Universal OS that will have the drivers, frameworks, and UIs for all devices. Mac OS is already over 3.5GB just for Macs if you were to add it for all iDevices consider at least another 1GB. But for argument sake lets ignore that and just consider the 3.5GB of Mac OS and assume it also contains all the needed files for the iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad and AppleTV models. Does it really make sense for, say, an iPod Touch user to download 3.5GB just to update their iPod? Not in the least!
The rest of your comment was correct. However, this need not be true. OS X is extremely modular right from the kernel level. It has a micro-kernel architecture which allows only needed features to be plugged in. Apple could easily release the same OS on all platforms, but only with the needed plugins.
The timeline this article states for the merger is 2016. By then 3.5 Gigs will be a joke, in terms of storage space. It might be annoying to download that large an OS, however, with iOS5 Apple is already issuing Delta OS updates. What do you think is more likely? That the merged OS would keep the iOS delta update structure, or retain the Mac OS X whole OS replacement structure?
In short, the size of the OS will not be a meaningful impediment at all in 2016.
In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
You're implying there won't be X86 emulators for ARM processors in 2016 when they exist now.
I really hope you weren't serios about this question. If you are I will just say good luck with that.
That's not fair to people with autism. My son has it and can still apply logic and reason far better than this analyst.
Yah... in the words of Stephen Colbert "Don't say retarded... it's gay!"
I may be talking about of my butt here, but I don't think Rosetta had as much to do. To run Windows, an emulator has to emulate an entire machine in order to provide a guest OS access to virtual hardware. Rosetta simply had to translate some instructions.
Virtualization platforms already have to do much of that. The big performance killer in the past has been instruction translation.
The big upside would be compatibility. Having tried to work on Keynote and Papers documents on my iPad and mac, to date its a fail. iCloud integration will be a huge step forward. But I don't want the ability to work on the same document in iOS and Lion to mean we have to have lowest common denominator features and functionality. So, yes, I would like Lion and iOS to move closer together in many respects.
In my mind the user interface can be different; but the core features of functionality, data structures and documents should match as closely as possible.
You're implying there won't be X86 emulators for ARM processors in 2016 when they exist now.
Emulating a different CPU architecture takes a major speed hit, though, so an A6 MacBook Air running x86 software under emulation would feel really slow.
Does Apple really want to ship a Mac that is incompatible with all the software the other Macs are using? I agree with what someone else said; if Apple is going to use the A6 in Macs, they'll transition ALL Macs over to it. But, I don't see that happening. Being able to run Windows x86 software on your Mac at native speeds is just too valuable in the current market.
Apple could still make software available to both platforms without needing to merge the entire OS. They already have the technology in place to do this; universal binary support and specific UI for appropriate devices and views.
They could create one version of Pages or Numbers that would work across all their devices. There is absolutely no need to merge iOS and Mac OS X to do this.
I think Apple's idea is to give iPad and iPhone users the same experience their already familiar with --- and put it on the desktop. Were seeing this. Eventually i expect the OS experience and iCloud services will render a nearly ubiquitous interface across hand held, TV, and desktop devices. Thus the walled garden will be complete.
The visible file system is a design choice...much like changing the look of the scrollbars.
Merging the 2 OS'es would basically involve merging almost all the code below the UI. They might even try merging the APIs (which are already very similar). This would mean that the same 3rd Party codebase would function across Mac, iPad, iPhone with only the UI needing to be changed.
This would be a dramatic improvement for both devs and customers.
The merge WILL happen, as long as Apple is technically capable of actually doing it. The only remaining question is when will they start.
The under-the-hood stuff would make a lot of sense; having similar API's and similar file systems.
I don't ever see Apple offering users the option of installing iOS on their MacBook Air, though. Not gonna happen. Unlike Windows 8, the two interfaces will remain completely separate. Apple is taking some of the best ideas from their iOS research and merging them into OS X, but it won't go beyond that.
I really hope you weren't serios about this question. If you are I will just say good luck with that.
Just playing off his fear that ARM would take over the world (it won't). He wouldn't have accepted an out-of-universe answer, so I kept to the original statement.
That's not fair to people with autism. My son has it and can still apply logic and reason far better than this analyst.
No offence, but autism and retardation are not related to each other at all.
Also, "retarded" is a perfectly scientific word. There is a big push on lately to have it deleted from our collective lexicon for being offensive
Don't like this iOS merging business!
I do. The vast majority of people don't need anything except iOS. It makes perfect sense to trim the bloat from OSX. Only a very few people will miss anything, and it will be easier for most customers to use.
More like 2020 for the culmination of these trends,...
And is it really worthwhile at all to speculate about something that might happen in the computer industry 10 years or more from now?
Ummmm.........You just did exactly that.
This is the most stupid thing I heard all day. I guess they have to come up with something to keep the laughter-of-the-day.
No, iOS won't "fuse" with Mac OS next year.
It's not period. And anyone who thinks otherwise is just being silly, ignorant or retarded.
Look at it this way:
1) a version of OS X was delayed to get the original iPhone out on time -- because Apple borrowed the OS X talent to work on iOS
2) most, if not all, OS X frameworks have been ported to iOS
3) many iOS-specific frameworks have been ported to OS X
4) many of the UI features are shared among the 2 OSes
5) many Apple apps have versions for both OSes (I suspect we will see FCP X on a tablet before too long)
So, basically, we have 2 OSes with a lot of common source code and UI features.
You could consider this as a single OS with 2 [major] variants (there is that whole AppleTV and/or Apple TV set thing).
I suspect that Apple will soon offer tablet-peripherals for Macs.
I do not think that putting an A6 (or whatever) chip into a Mac necessarily means that the Intel (whatever) chip need be removed.
Potentially, Thunderbolt offers Apple great flexibility into which devices they place CPUs, GPUs, RAM, HDDs, SSDs, etc.
Finally, it makes sense economically to maintain a single OS instead of Multiple OSes -- especially when much of the code is in common.
BTW, about 30 minutes ago, AAPL market cap was within $18 Billion of XOM.
Also, by 2089, computers will fly.
I've been using Lion for a week or two now and I love a lot of the changes in the GUI many of which are subtle and elegant. However some of the iOS implementation such as Launch pad has no place in my daily routine. I really don't find Launch pad a shortcut and more convenient way to my apps, a click on the Applications folder is not that difficult and it offers me more sorting options. Mission Control most likely has is fans but again I don't find myself having any need to run that many windows and apps at the same time. I never used Spaces in Snow Leopard either. I really enjoy my iOS devices but even using Pages and Numbers is a clumsy at best solution. If Apple intends on returning to a "one OS fits all" company I predict merging OSX with iOS will be a bigger challenge than the transition from Classic Mac to Mac OS X. As always it will be interesting to see what develops.
For your needs, it may not make sense.
But, consider a graphic artist, draftsman or other creative whose primary interface with the computer may be a graphics tablet, guitar fretboard, piano keyboard or even the spoken voice.
For these needs, the mouse/kb is a clumsy, but [currently] necessary, deterrent to make the computer device do what they want.
If you used an unusual device as your primary interface to a Mac, I think it would be much easier to tap-swipe-tap to bring up LaunchPad, navigate the OS, and select the app or file you want.