I sent this to apple feedback just a minute ago. I think it would be a great idea personally.
I am going to keep this brief for the sake of the people who have to read these emails. I have a 20" monitor, yet I often seem to run out of room when working on papers and end up pushing safari windows etc off the side of the screen in order to copy information from one window to another etc. However, I then have to select the window and drag it fully back onto the screen in order to see the part that was off the screen. I often end up doing this many times. Expose will bring all windows onto the screen, yet I can not type while it is being used. Plus, expose makes all the words smaller and somewhat hard to read. So here it is, my idea:
Why not create an added expose function that, using some cool graphics, moves all windows over when the mouse (or key command) is directed towards the edge of an area of the screen in which a window is hiding. I am not talking about merely sliding the specific window off the edge over but rather sliding all windows over such that one can see the area that used to be off the screen and still write or interface with the other window. I realize that some of the window previously on the screen may slide off the screen; however, a good typer does not have to see everything he is typing. He does need to see what he is reading though.
In other words, the screen will sort of virtually slide over to reveal what used to be off the edge. In this way one can go back and forth quickly and easily between showing one window or another on the screen without having to constantly drag the window back and forth. This expose feature would work for left, right, and bottom portions of the screen thus allowing one to work with far more information much easier.
In short I'm sure a ton of people would find such a function useful, specially college students who often have to read and write at the same time. It would be even more useful for students who own laptops i.e. smaller screens.
I realize the legal implications here, and I would be willing to sign something giving Apple Computer full rights to the above idea. But for now, I relinquish all rights to my idea by selecting the "send us your feedback" button. Anyway, I'm not greedy; I would just love to have this feature in 10.5
I sent this to apple feedback just a minute ago. I think it would be a great idea personally.
I am going to keep this brief for the sake of the people who have to read these emails. I have a 20" monitor, yet I often seem to run out of room when working on papers and end up pushing safari windows etc off the side of the screen in order to copy information from one window to another etc. However, I then have to select the window and drag it fully back onto the screen in order to see the part that was off the screen. I often end up doing this many times. Expose will bring all windows onto the screen, yet I can not type while it is being used. Plus, expose makes all the words smaller and somewhat hard to read. So here it is, my idea:
Why not create an added expose function that, using some cool graphics, moves all windows over when the mouse (or key command) is directed towards the edge of an area of the screen in which a window is hiding. I am not talking about merely sliding the specific window off the edge over but rather sliding all windows over such that one can see the area that used to be off the screen and still write or interface with the other window. I realize that some of the window previously on the screen may slide off the screen; however, a good typer does not have to see everything he is typing. He does need to see what he is reading though.
In other words, the screen will sort of virtually slide over to reveal what used to be off the edge. In this way one can go back and forth quickly and easily between showing one window or another on the screen without having to constantly drag the window back and forth. This expose feature would work for left, right, and bottom portions of the screen thus allowing one to work with far more information much easier.
In short I'm sure a ton of people would find such a function useful, specially college students who often have to read and write at the same time. It would be even more useful for students who own laptops i.e. smaller screens.
I realize the legal implications here, and I would be willing to sign something giving Apple Computer full rights to the above idea. But for now, I relinquish all rights to my idea by selecting the "send us your feedback" button. Anyway, I'm not greedy; I would just love to have this feature in 10.5
With a 12" PowerBook...I like. Exposé was really great for me. I am getting more frustrated by the day as the amount of information I am managing this semester with two grad papers skyrockets. 12"...ugh. I gotta get a 15" PB or 14" MacBook if it has a higher resolution, unless before this summer they come out with some sort of OLED screen that folds up. That'd be great.
I almost fell out of my seat. Apple perhaps got XP rights and has been brewing up an XP API for 10.5?
It just makes too much sense. That AAPL looks so tempting now...I have Scottrade set up and I'm waiting for small slip up and then I'm going to pounce, like a leopard.
I've never read an Apple prediction article that got me so excited.
I almost fell out of my seat. Apple perhaps got XP rights and has been brewing up an XP API for 10.5?
Normally, I don't do this kind of thing, but it has to be said:
No Way.
There is way too much to lose if they do this. Yes, they have gotten the APIs straight from the beast. Yes, they probably could do this, if they wanted. However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
Then there is the fact that it could dry up development for the Mac almost all together. That is definitely something that we don't want. And then the possibility of acquiring the worms/virii/trojans that the Windows world has.
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
I think what they are talking about is more of an Extended Desktop kind of idea. There are some applications that already do this for the Mac, but it really took off in the Linux world. There are times in which this can be very good to have, and then other times in which it is a royal pain in the butt.
However, if Apple were to do it, I have to believe that they would get it right.
Normally, I don't do this kind of thing, but it has to be said:
No Way.
There is way too much to lose if they do this. Yes, they have gotten the APIs straight from the beast. Yes, they probably could do this, if they wanted. However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
Then there is the fact that it could dry up development for the Mac almost all together. That is definitely something that we don't want. And then the possibility of acquiring the worms/virii/trojans that the Windows world has.
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
Normally I'd be right there with you on this, but consider...
Windows development is going to be targeted mostly at Vista from now on.
This provides support for XP apps. No .NET, etc, etc, etc. No Aero, no new searching, etc. A Windows dev who wants to tell Mac users 'use the Windows version' *can't*... unless they don't deliver a Vista-targeted solution, and stick with XP APIs only. Interesting conundrum.
OTOH, for millions of users of XP, it gives them the most brain-dead migration path you can imagine.
Oh, and obviously this wouldn't be for PPC machines at all, just Intel machines.
Curious. This is one scenario I had *not* imagined... it's intriguing.
The viruses I am not worried about, Apple could figure that out, plus it'd be a small target.
PPC Macs? Not applicable.
No Mac developers? I don't buy it anymore. There is already Parallels. VPC has been around for ages and on modern hardware is of decent speed and excellent compatibility. As he said, compare XP apps to Cocoa/Carbon apps. They will get the job done but look fugly and be much harder to use.
I think this...is a real possibility. One that would benefit most of us here, most switchers, so, thus, diehard Mac Addicts and newbs, PLUS...here is the kicker Mike: developers. Why? Flocks of Switchers buying Macs and realizing native apps are better. Marketshare will surely increase. And mindshare.
This i$ good for Apple. Gates is probably crapping in his pants now. This could probably be out before Vista even, at least as beta. This is big folks.
Yes. It's a dangerous game. Apple is playing a very dangerous game with Boot Camp. It must be a tremendous war inside Apple between selling Macs with Windows - it could be billions of dollars - and being a Mac OS X exclusive shop.
Quote:
However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
This isn't a problem. It's a feature.
What Cringely is suggesting is essentially a Carbon-style technology where Apple did the near impossible task of moving Mac OS 8/9 applications into a protected memory environment. It was a brilliant strategy and made Mac OS X successful compared to Copeland.
They can implement that same sort of strategy for Windows Win32/.NET apps. Support 90% of the API source code and reduce the porting for the developer. They don't lose their source code, and Mac OS X gets a native application just like Carbon apps.
Quote:
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
If it is a Carbon-like strategy, they are huge gains. Gigantic gains. Lots of risk, but the payoff would be big.
Cringely is off his rocker about the Mac OS X kernel though. It uses Mach yes, but going all the way back to NeXTStep 0.8, it has always been a monolithic kernel with portions of BSD Unix integrated into it to increase speed.
What Cringely is suggesting is essentially a Carbon-style technology where Apple did the near impossible task of moving Mac OS 8/9 applications into a protected memory environment. It was a brilliant strategy and made Mac OS X successful compared to Copeland.
They can implement that same sort of strategy for Windows Win32/.NET apps. Support 90% of the API source code and reduce the porting for the developer. They don't lose their source code, and Mac OS X gets a native application just like Carbon apps.
While I agree, if they could pull it off in the sense of a "Carbon"-like mode, then you are absolutely correct. However, I really see Apple alienating a lot of their installed base by saying that this massive feature is only for the newest machines out there, on a hardware platform that has little Mac Market share.
Now, I understand that they will start making things "Intel Only", and I know that my machine will become out of date. However, it is way too soon for Apple to be making these kind of almost brash decisions, which will only target a small group of their installed base.
On the SAME TOKEN, there would be a huge advantage if they were able to convert the Win APIs in such a way that it could also be on their installed PPC base. That would be a huge advance, and might make me sway the other way on this issue.
"Stay hungry, stay foolish". Not my words, Steve's. If anybody is capable of taking risks, it's Steve. Intel was a risk. Making a Hi-Fi was a risk. Making a Phone will be a risk. And alienating some of your fans could be a risk too!
If what Cringley is saying is true and apple can do it, and do. Then I've a funny feeling we could see another one of the best risks apple will ever take. With the potential rewards too big to pass up.
Simple put: if you can put a disk in your Mac, meant for Windows "that just works" this will be huge for Mac market share, and Mac growth. No more excuses SWITCH.
p.s. some might say this could end Mac development. The opposite would be through. With much more Mac users, any Mac developers would be laughing all the way to the bank. Selling more copies of their software than before, thus more developers.
Mike I don't think Apple would be concerned about PPC users. I mean, you're asking the impossible. Just buy Virtual PC or something. That would not be one of Apple's concerns. At least IMO. Apple isn't usually afraid of that sort of thing.
However, I really see Apple alienating a lot of their installed base by saying that this massive feature is only for the newest machines out there, on a hardware platform that has little Mac Market share.
I agree, but what are those alienated folks going to do?
1. Switch to PC, which can only run Windows
2. Buy a new Mac, which can run everything
3. Keep their current Mac
From Steve's point of view, I don't see a lot of customers choosing #1 over #2.
Exactly. There are basically three groups of people that we're talking about here. And remember, the goal is to get people on a Mac.
1) Intel Mac owners. They're good, they can run the random Windows app if they want to, but *they're already on a Mac*.
2) PPC Mac owners. They can't run a Windows app, but... they're *already on a Mac*. If they have need for a Windows app, their choices have *expanded* from Virtual PC or buying a Windows PC, to include upgrading their Mac to an Intel unit. Chances are they're going to look seriously at that last option, *retaining* them on a Mac. Let's face it, VPC works, but not well if you need speed at all. Previously, if you needed speed, you had to buy that PC. Now you can upgrade, *keep* your Mac, and get that speed for WIndows apps.
3) Windows users looking to switch. This is the potential goldmine, and the entire reason for doing this. Windows users looking to upgrade their machine can try the Mac *and* run their usual apps (no big initial software crossgrade cost). If they really, really want to, they can BootCamp into a full Windows if they decide they just can't stand MacOS X.
So PPC owners, remember *this isn't a feature aimed at you*... but it *does* give you more options on solving the issue of how to run the odd Windows app.
I don't know bout that. Everyone I know already said if the did one right, they'd buy it in a heartbeat. And there are lots more online who said the same. It's a space for the taking. Are they smart enough to take it? It's a billion dollar industy awaiting their arrival, and it's further penetration for the brand we've all grown to love. Can't be a bad thing. And it's a shit load of money!
Exactly. There are basically three groups of people that we're talking about here. And remember, the goal is to get people on a Mac.
1) Intel Mac owners. They're good, they can run the random Windows app if they want to, but *they're already on a Mac*.
2) PPC Mac owners. They can't run a Windows app, but... they're *already on a Mac*. If they have need for a Windows app, their choices have *expanded* from Virtual PC or buying a Windows PC, to include upgrading their Mac to an Intel unit. Chances are they're going to look seriously at that last option, *retaining* them on a Mac. Let's face it, VPC works, but not well if you need speed at all. Previously, if you needed speed, you had to buy that PC. Now you can upgrade, *keep* your Mac, and get that speed for WIndows apps.
3) Windows users looking to switch. This is the potential goldmine, and the entire reason for doing this. Windows users looking to upgrade their machine can try the Mac *and* run their usual apps (no big initial software crossgrade cost). If they really, really want to, they can BootCamp into a full Windows if they decide they just can't stand MacOS X.
So PPC owners, remember *this isn't a feature aimed at you*... but it *does* give you more options on solving the issue of how to run the odd Windows app.
It couldn't be said any better! Do you think it's possible technically?
Comments
I am going to keep this brief for the sake of the people who have to read these emails. I have a 20" monitor, yet I often seem to run out of room when working on papers and end up pushing safari windows etc off the side of the screen in order to copy information from one window to another etc. However, I then have to select the window and drag it fully back onto the screen in order to see the part that was off the screen. I often end up doing this many times. Expose will bring all windows onto the screen, yet I can not type while it is being used. Plus, expose makes all the words smaller and somewhat hard to read. So here it is, my idea:
Why not create an added expose function that, using some cool graphics, moves all windows over when the mouse (or key command) is directed towards the edge of an area of the screen in which a window is hiding. I am not talking about merely sliding the specific window off the edge over but rather sliding all windows over such that one can see the area that used to be off the screen and still write or interface with the other window. I realize that some of the window previously on the screen may slide off the screen; however, a good typer does not have to see everything he is typing. He does need to see what he is reading though.
In other words, the screen will sort of virtually slide over to reveal what used to be off the edge. In this way one can go back and forth quickly and easily between showing one window or another on the screen without having to constantly drag the window back and forth. This expose feature would work for left, right, and bottom portions of the screen thus allowing one to work with far more information much easier.
In short I'm sure a ton of people would find such a function useful, specially college students who often have to read and write at the same time. It would be even more useful for students who own laptops i.e. smaller screens.
I realize the legal implications here, and I would be willing to sign something giving Apple Computer full rights to the above idea. But for now, I relinquish all rights to my idea by selecting the "send us your feedback" button. Anyway, I'm not greedy; I would just love to have this feature in 10.5
Originally posted by Eugene
Ad hominem? I love corn!
Well played, sir.
Originally posted by Algol
I sent this to apple feedback just a minute ago. I think it would be a great idea personally.
I am going to keep this brief for the sake of the people who have to read these emails. I have a 20" monitor, yet I often seem to run out of room when working on papers and end up pushing safari windows etc off the side of the screen in order to copy information from one window to another etc. However, I then have to select the window and drag it fully back onto the screen in order to see the part that was off the screen. I often end up doing this many times. Expose will bring all windows onto the screen, yet I can not type while it is being used. Plus, expose makes all the words smaller and somewhat hard to read. So here it is, my idea:
Why not create an added expose function that, using some cool graphics, moves all windows over when the mouse (or key command) is directed towards the edge of an area of the screen in which a window is hiding. I am not talking about merely sliding the specific window off the edge over but rather sliding all windows over such that one can see the area that used to be off the screen and still write or interface with the other window. I realize that some of the window previously on the screen may slide off the screen; however, a good typer does not have to see everything he is typing. He does need to see what he is reading though.
In other words, the screen will sort of virtually slide over to reveal what used to be off the edge. In this way one can go back and forth quickly and easily between showing one window or another on the screen without having to constantly drag the window back and forth. This expose feature would work for left, right, and bottom portions of the screen thus allowing one to work with far more information much easier.
In short I'm sure a ton of people would find such a function useful, specially college students who often have to read and write at the same time. It would be even more useful for students who own laptops i.e. smaller screens.
I realize the legal implications here, and I would be willing to sign something giving Apple Computer full rights to the above idea. But for now, I relinquish all rights to my idea by selecting the "send us your feedback" button. Anyway, I'm not greedy; I would just love to have this feature in 10.5
Ever try the apple+tab keystroke?
NOW: my REAL main point.
Has anyone seen this Cringely article!?
I almost fell out of my seat. Apple perhaps got XP rights and has been brewing up an XP API for 10.5?
It just makes too much sense. That AAPL looks so tempting now...I have Scottrade set up and I'm waiting for small slip up and then I'm going to pounce, like a leopard.
I've never read an Apple prediction article that got me so excited.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Has anyone seen this Cringely article!?
I almost fell out of my seat. Apple perhaps got XP rights and has been brewing up an XP API for 10.5?
Normally, I don't do this kind of thing, but it has to be said:
No Way.
There is way too much to lose if they do this. Yes, they have gotten the APIs straight from the beast. Yes, they probably could do this, if they wanted. However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
Then there is the fact that it could dry up development for the Mac almost all together. That is definitely something that we don't want. And then the possibility of acquiring the worms/virii/trojans that the Windows world has.
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
Originally posted by staudte
Ever try the apple+tab keystroke?
I think what they are talking about is more of an Extended Desktop kind of idea. There are some applications that already do this for the Mac, but it really took off in the Linux world. There are times in which this can be very good to have, and then other times in which it is a royal pain in the butt.
However, if Apple were to do it, I have to believe that they would get it right.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
Normally, I don't do this kind of thing, but it has to be said:
No Way.
There is way too much to lose if they do this. Yes, they have gotten the APIs straight from the beast. Yes, they probably could do this, if they wanted. However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
Then there is the fact that it could dry up development for the Mac almost all together. That is definitely something that we don't want. And then the possibility of acquiring the worms/virii/trojans that the Windows world has.
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
Normally I'd be right there with you on this, but consider...
Windows development is going to be targeted mostly at Vista from now on.
This provides support for XP apps. No .NET, etc, etc, etc. No Aero, no new searching, etc. A Windows dev who wants to tell Mac users 'use the Windows version' *can't*... unless they don't deliver a Vista-targeted solution, and stick with XP APIs only. Interesting conundrum.
OTOH, for millions of users of XP, it gives them the most brain-dead migration path you can imagine.
Oh, and obviously this wouldn't be for PPC machines at all, just Intel machines.
Curious. This is one scenario I had *not* imagined... it's intriguing.
PPC Macs? Not applicable.
No Mac developers? I don't buy it anymore. There is already Parallels. VPC has been around for ages and on modern hardware is of decent speed and excellent compatibility. As he said, compare XP apps to Cocoa/Carbon apps. They will get the job done but look fugly and be much harder to use.
I think this...is a real possibility. One that would benefit most of us here, most switchers, so, thus, diehard Mac Addicts and newbs, PLUS...here is the kicker Mike: developers. Why? Flocks of Switchers buying Macs and realizing native apps are better. Marketshare will surely increase. And mindshare.
This i$ good for Apple. Gates is probably crapping in his pants now. This could probably be out before Vista even, at least as beta. This is big folks.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
There is way too much to lose if they do this.
Yes. It's a dangerous game. Apple is playing a very dangerous game with Boot Camp. It must be a tremendous war inside Apple between selling Macs with Windows - it could be billions of dollars - and being a Mac OS X exclusive shop.
However, the real problem is with the fact that we have PPC and Intel chips. With the Intel, it won't be a problem, PPC on the other hand will have a major problem.
This isn't a problem. It's a feature.
What Cringely is suggesting is essentially a Carbon-style technology where Apple did the near impossible task of moving Mac OS 8/9 applications into a protected memory environment. It was a brilliant strategy and made Mac OS X successful compared to Copeland.
They can implement that same sort of strategy for Windows Win32/.NET apps. Support 90% of the API source code and reduce the porting for the developer. They don't lose their source code, and Mac OS X gets a native application just like Carbon apps.
To me, there is too much risk in doing that, and very little to be gained.
If it is a Carbon-like strategy, they are huge gains. Gigantic gains. Lots of risk, but the payoff would be big.
Cringely is off his rocker about the Mac OS X kernel though. It uses Mach yes, but going all the way back to NeXTStep 0.8, it has always been a monolithic kernel with portions of BSD Unix integrated into it to increase speed.
Originally posted by THT
What Cringely is suggesting is essentially a Carbon-style technology where Apple did the near impossible task of moving Mac OS 8/9 applications into a protected memory environment. It was a brilliant strategy and made Mac OS X successful compared to Copeland.
They can implement that same sort of strategy for Windows Win32/.NET apps. Support 90% of the API source code and reduce the porting for the developer. They don't lose their source code, and Mac OS X gets a native application just like Carbon apps.
While I agree, if they could pull it off in the sense of a "Carbon"-like mode, then you are absolutely correct. However, I really see Apple alienating a lot of their installed base by saying that this massive feature is only for the newest machines out there, on a hardware platform that has little Mac Market share.
Now, I understand that they will start making things "Intel Only", and I know that my machine will become out of date. However, it is way too soon for Apple to be making these kind of almost brash decisions, which will only target a small group of their installed base.
On the SAME TOKEN, there would be a huge advantage if they were able to convert the Win APIs in such a way that it could also be on their installed PPC base. That would be a huge advance, and might make me sway the other way on this issue.
I still think it is a big risk though.
If what Cringley is saying is true and apple can do it, and do. Then I've a funny feeling we could see another one of the best risks apple will ever take. With the potential rewards too big to pass up.
Simple put: if you can put a disk in your Mac, meant for Windows "that just works" this will be huge for Mac market share, and Mac growth. No more excuses SWITCH.
p.s. some might say this could end Mac development. The opposite would be through. With much more Mac users, any Mac developers would be laughing all the way to the bank. Selling more copies of their software than before, thus more developers.
Originally posted by Ireland
Making a Phone will be a risk.
Won´t happen.
However, I really see Apple alienating a lot of their installed base by saying that this massive feature is only for the newest machines out there, on a hardware platform that has little Mac Market share.
I agree, but what are those alienated folks going to do?
1. Switch to PC, which can only run Windows
2. Buy a new Mac, which can run everything
3. Keep their current Mac
From Steve's point of view, I don't see a lot of customers choosing #1 over #2.
1) Intel Mac owners. They're good, they can run the random Windows app if they want to, but *they're already on a Mac*.
2) PPC Mac owners. They can't run a Windows app, but... they're *already on a Mac*. If they have need for a Windows app, their choices have *expanded* from Virtual PC or buying a Windows PC, to include upgrading their Mac to an Intel unit. Chances are they're going to look seriously at that last option, *retaining* them on a Mac. Let's face it, VPC works, but not well if you need speed at all. Previously, if you needed speed, you had to buy that PC. Now you can upgrade, *keep* your Mac, and get that speed for WIndows apps.
3) Windows users looking to switch. This is the potential goldmine, and the entire reason for doing this. Windows users looking to upgrade their machine can try the Mac *and* run their usual apps (no big initial software crossgrade cost). If they really, really want to, they can BootCamp into a full Windows if they decide they just can't stand MacOS X.
So PPC owners, remember *this isn't a feature aimed at you*... but it *does* give you more options on solving the issue of how to run the odd Windows app.
Originally posted by Anders
Won´t happen.
I don't know bout that. Everyone I know already said if the did one right, they'd buy it in a heartbeat. And there are lots more online who said the same. It's a space for the taking. Are they smart enough to take it? It's a billion dollar industy awaiting their arrival, and it's further penetration for the brand we've all grown to love. Can't be a bad thing. And it's a shit load of money!
Originally posted by Kickaha
Exactly. There are basically three groups of people that we're talking about here. And remember, the goal is to get people on a Mac.
1) Intel Mac owners. They're good, they can run the random Windows app if they want to, but *they're already on a Mac*.
2) PPC Mac owners. They can't run a Windows app, but... they're *already on a Mac*. If they have need for a Windows app, their choices have *expanded* from Virtual PC or buying a Windows PC, to include upgrading their Mac to an Intel unit. Chances are they're going to look seriously at that last option, *retaining* them on a Mac. Let's face it, VPC works, but not well if you need speed at all. Previously, if you needed speed, you had to buy that PC. Now you can upgrade, *keep* your Mac, and get that speed for WIndows apps.
3) Windows users looking to switch. This is the potential goldmine, and the entire reason for doing this. Windows users looking to upgrade their machine can try the Mac *and* run their usual apps (no big initial software crossgrade cost). If they really, really want to, they can BootCamp into a full Windows if they decide they just can't stand MacOS X.
So PPC owners, remember *this isn't a feature aimed at you*... but it *does* give you more options on solving the issue of how to run the odd Windows app.
It couldn't be said any better! Do you think it's possible technically?