iPhone OS=Mac OS XI?

Coleco said:

...

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

You are one OS X release too late. The iPhone runs on a version of Leopard. So too does the MacBook Air. Leopard is not the end of an era in the development of MacOS X. It is the beginning of a new era.

I believe when OS X was announced they stated that it would be the basis of the Mac OS for the next TWO decades. We still have a long way to go until we see OS 11.

So you want it to be like YUM in Linux? Just pick the .rpm you want from the list? I don't know, I don't think the system (OS X) is convoluted, I think it has matured wonderfully. The whole 'point and click' approach is just so archaic, so beginner, and as generations grow with computers around them they will not need to be so dumbed down. At the moment a majority of programs are installed by simply opening a .DMG and dragging the application bundle to the Apps folder. How is that confusing or difficult?

And what trojans exactly do you speak of? Cause there still has never been anything close to a widely distributed Mac OS trojan/virus/worm/etc. OS 11 would have to start approaching appliance simplicity, in a sense re-inventing what it is that people think of in a computer Operating System.

personally, i love just dragging a file from a self-contained folder to another folder or putting it basically anywhere i want. there is no installer to go through nor stress if the file is moved later on. macos has always been rather easy to navigate but i am so happy that even in 2008, despite how complicated code has become, we can still merely open the dmg file and slide the app to applications folder. nothing could be easier nor more straighforward.

once run, the app may install preference files but - elegance in simplicity and yet maintaining slight control. osx, you have done this so well.

Coleco said:

I know iPhone shares some elements of Leopard, but it's not Leopard. The way the user interacts with software and the way the software presents itself to the user is completely different. Yes, the foundation is the same, but it's not Leopard.

Click to expand...

I think when people say it runs on Leopard, they mean it runs on the same basic OS (Mach/BSD kernel + Darwin + MacOS stuff). It confused me too the first time I heard that. 😛

Jason S. said:

I believe when OS X was announced they stated that it would be the basis of the Mac OS for the next TWO decades. We still have a long way to go until we see OS 11.

Click to expand...

Just like how they said the G4 iMac would last for the next decade, right?

Coleco said:

I know iPhone shares some elements of Leopard, but it's not Leopard. The way the user interacts with software and the way the software presents itself to the user is completely different. Yes, the foundation is the same, but it's not Leopard.

Click to expand...

No offense intended, but your take on the situation is overly-simplistic, and completely glosses over what people actually *do* with computers. Sorry, but people don't just shop iTunes and do silly little things with their computers. Some of us actually attempt to do real work on them.

Your analysis of "OS 11" reminds me a lot of Jonathan Schwartz, who for years has been saying that the desktop computer is dead. A fanciful notion, but it takes for granted the realities of what people still do on their computers. It's probably why his company has been in a financial tarpit for almost a decade.

For composing music, designing art, writing web pages and documents, and developing software, an iPhone-like interface-on-your desktop simply will not do, and actually would prove to be more cumbersome in a number of ways. No, the iPhone interface is good for its purpose - to be an easy way to interact with a compact mobile device that augments but doesn't replace the desktop computer or its interfaces.

As for the trojan issue, I agree there has never been a legitimate threat in the wild, but that hardly means there won't be one.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make your argument any more valid. On the other hand, there already have been exploits in the iPhone interface, based on the same security exploit that affected a similar version of Safari on desktop and laptop Macs. And, the exploit for all affected systems was patched at the same time. So much for the iPhone being more secure than the desktop version of Leopard, and in fact this only reinforces that indeed, the iPhone and OS X are at the core one and the same.

From a consumer standpoint I think iTunes has shown how easy media and software (in the case of iPod games and software updates) installations can be. Let's face it, dragging a DMG file to a folder is not the way we should be installing apps in 2008. Is it hard? No. Is it something we shouldn't have to deal with? Yes.

Click to expand...

What a bold statement. So what exactly has iTunes brought to the table that makes it any different? You still have to select the object you want and organize it appropriately. You must still initiate an action to "install" the component to the device. And you must still drag and drop to rearrange object. In fact, the only thing iTunes does is in some cases restrict functionality, in that it makes itself the only de facto modification interface for the device and restrcts what a user can and cannot do with their device.

If iTunes were the holy grail, then there wouldn't be multitudes of iPhone users seeking to Jailbreak their iPhones and avoiding iTunes when possible. And what do they do with their jailbroken iPhones? Some add a Terminal. Others install some of the omitted OS X components. In short, they try to make their phones more Mac-like. Funny that. I guess the iPhone interface isn't what everyone wants.

Consumers win with an easier system. Developers win by making it easier to for customers to purchase their software while providing a consistent, easy-to-understand system for offering updates or upgrades.

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken. Too bad it's just a generalization and fails to apply to your paradigm. These fanciful notions you have seem to lack any basis in the concrete, and you completely gloss over how to implement this interface. Could it be because you don't know how it would work?

Don't get me wrong, I don't see OS X going away soon. I just think the iPhone SDK opens the door for the Adobes of the world to create new ways for their customers to interact with their software.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the LAST thing any user should want is for Adobe to step in and dictate interaction. I'm actually surprised you mentioned them. Adobe's interface philosophy has mutated toa ccept bloat and obfuscation. The utter antithesis of what the iPhone is supposed to be.

I guess my feeling is technology has finally reached the point where the good ideas of the 90s are more plausable and technologically feasible.

Click to expand...

The concepts of the 90s didn't fail because of lack of technology. The concepts failed because there was no concept. People waxed poetic about a techno-utopia without any firm knowledge in how it would be implemented, but as long as gullible VC firms would buy into it, no one had to produce. Then, people got wise when the utopia never came. And so the dot-com bubble burst.

And while I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, I submit that your treatise suffers from the same problem: long of grandiosity, short on reality.

Quillz said:

Just like how they said the G4 iMac would last for the next decade, right?

Click to expand...

You mean like the one I got in my office running leopard? Okay, well it's not 10 years. More like 6. That's still pretty good compared to its PC counterparts.

Or you can look at it another way: the stuff under the hood of OS X has been around in some shape or form for 39 years. It's older than Apple. And at the risk of sounding as grandiose as the OP, I wouldn't be surprised if it continued to exist in some shape or form long after anyone has forgotten there ever was an Apple.