Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X Lion: Drops PowerPC Emulation, Adds QuickTime Pro Features, Much More

Magnus, I disagree ....

Apple's net revenue has nothing to do with the realities of software development. Microsoft had FAR more revenue than Apple to spend on software development (especially since they don't even sell computers themselves!), yet we see what all of those folks came up with; products like Windows Vista - which had to essentially be massaged and re-worked into Windows 7 to regain public acceptance.

As it's often been said, a cake that takes 1 hour to bake won't get done 10 times faster if you hire 10 bakers to make it instead of 1.

Now, I'd probably agree with you that Apple could stand to hire some more developers, now that they have to keep up with iOs AND OS X development. I assume they HAVE hired some more people for that, in fact. But obviously not as many as would be ideal when you see how one OS has been delayed whenever they need to meet a deadline for an upgrade to the other one.

But ultimately, Steve's business model works pretty well at ensuring the products that Apple *does* finally release meet a high standard. When you delegate too much authority out, you lose control over the end product. Most companies see that as an "acceptable loss" since like you say, it allows more profit generation by way of quicker turn-out of new products and/or services. IMHO, if Apple ever followed suit with that tactic? They'd quickly become another HP or Dell or Toshiba. They'd lose their edge.


MagnusVonMagnum said:
The argument falls completely and utterly flat given Apple's net revenue. Apple could easily afford to hire enough workers to make 10 operating systems viable (and help the economy at the same time). They certainly have demonstrated that they are wholly incapable of keeping OSX up-to-date while working on iOS, causing either or both to suffer as a result. This is purely caused by Steve's psychological problems talked about several months ago where he feels the need to keep a small group and tight control over everything rather than delegating more responsibility to other people so that multi-tasking becomes possible rather than Apple's narrow focus on one item at a time which causes other items to fall behind (e.g. the huge lag in Mac Pro updates, actual useful OSX features, etc.)
Click to expand...
 
kingtj said:
But ultimately, Steve's business model works pretty well at ensuring the products that Apple *does* finally release meet a high standard.
Click to expand...

If you're interested in Igadgets, and don't mind retraining yourself to hold them in ways approved by Cupertino.

If you want cutting edge, long-lasting *computers*, though - the Igadget model is a bit lame.

Or if you're making software for Apple computers, and want a clear roadmap about when APIs will be deprecated (but still supported and shipped) and when APIs will be dropped - it's not a good model.

For example, a certain OS seller from the northwest US has deprecated a number of supremely idiotic APIs from K&R C - functions that were trivial to launch buffer overrun attacks against.

When you recompile your app with the current tools, you may get a ton of warnings (and perhaps a few errors) due to this. You have several choices:
  • A: Fix the occasional error, and ignore the warnings. (The choice of troglodyte programmers.)
  • B: Fix the errors, and add conditionals (like "#define I_am_stupid true") to eliminate the warnings. (The choice of the better hack programmers.)
  • C: Modify your code to use the safer alternatives (many of these are overloads on the old functions, so it's a project level change rather than a line-by-line change). (The obvious choice for any honorable programmer or production software.)
Sometimes "B:" is the right choice even for high quality software. If you're dealing with internal data, or you've stringently screened external input - you may be able to prove that a buffer overrun attack is impossible. But, since we have 3+ GHz multicore processors - use the safe functions instead unless you can really prove that the inputs are safe.
 
kingtj said:
Apple's net revenue has nothing to do with the realities of software development. Microsoft had FAR more revenue than Apple to spend on software development (especially since they don't even sell computers themselves!), yet we see what all of those folks came up with; products like Windows Vista - which had to essentially be massaged and re-worked into Windows 7 to regain public acceptance.

As it's often been said, a cake that takes 1 hour to bake won't get done 10 times faster if you hire 10 bakers to make it instead of 1.

Now, I'd probably agree with you that Apple could stand to hire some more developers, now that they have to keep up with iOs AND OS X development. I assume they HAVE hired some more people for that, in fact. But obviously not as many as would be ideal when you see how one OS has been delayed whenever they need to meet a deadline for an upgrade to the other one.

But ultimately, Steve's business model works pretty well at ensuring the products that Apple *does* finally release meet a high standard. When you delegate too much authority out, you lose control over the end product. Most companies see that as an "acceptable loss" since like you say, it allows more profit generation by way of quicker turn-out of new products and/or services. IMHO, if Apple ever followed suit with that tactic? They'd quickly become another HP or Dell or Toshiba. They'd lose their edge.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there is this belief (which I am guilty of myself) that because of one episode of Mac OS X being delayed and the media focusing excessively on iOS and i-devices well beyond the marketing Apple puts out (just look at the excessive whining by so-called pundits about Windows Phone 7 as if it were the only damn product Microsoft made). I don't think Apple is 'caring' less about Mac OS X but the perception there is because there is an over focus on iOS by the media to the point that some are believing that Apple is caring less about it.

I also don't think that more developers will help; do they need more? sure but hiring legions of programmers will hit what as known as the 'mythical man month' (as you noted) where actually more people can undermine the whole project due to the need to implement bureaucracy to manage larger groups of people (with the bureaucracy being an impediment to decisions being made quickly (fast decision making ensures that development does not slow down)). Apple I'd say are hiring more but not just large sways of people but instead focusing on getting the best and brightest and putting them to use in areas where they're needed rather than the scattergun approach that Microsoft seem to implement.

Take FreeBSD for example, they have a small group of developers which work a lot better when it comes to tackling issues - and it is even more imperative when it comes having people specialised in a particular area. In the case of file systems, do you want a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' working on a crucial system component or would you sooner have someone whose main forte is file system design. When you hear about the development process at Apple it sounds more like that sort of model, lots of small specialist groups, rather than a scatter gun approach.

I've had a look through Lion and it appears that components such as Finder are finally getting some love such as being able to merge folders for starters which leads me to wonder whether 10.0-10.3 was getting technology out there, 10.4 marked the transition to Intel, 10.5 marked the last version for PowerPC, 10.6 moved the system to Cocoa with a focus of ensuring there were no regressions in terms of features (Finder in 10.6 has all the features of 10.5), and 10.7 most likely being that since the big move to Cocoa has been made and Objective-C pretty much delivers all that a developer needs (which makes me wonder whether AV Foundation in the long run replaces Quicktime for projects that need more than simply record, playback etc) and now it makes sense adding new features given that the new long term base has been set - adding features to Finder make sense given that unlike the Carbon version, it isn't going to be thrown out in a few years.
 
I understand the idea of having too many people on a given project, but when you read that the person who designed the "Remote" app has had no time to update it or fix bugs because he was reassigned to 'x' other projects and you read that a good chunk of the core OSX team is busy working on the iPhone OS so Leopard is (was) going to be delayed yet another 6 months you tend to get the feeling that Apple is nowhere near the point that they have too many developers around. If it takes awhile to get a new developer up to speed, all the more reason to hire now and get them moving than wait until the point where it all starts to fall apart.

It's pretty obvious to me that this supposed "year of OSX" isn't OSX at all but rather the majority of the developers have been assigned to iPad V2 and now V3 because that's what is selling like hotcakes. "Lion" is a freaking joke thus far. It's basically a few iOS type features brought back to what is essentially Leopard - PPC Support (i.e. Snow Leopard).

One of the things that used to impress me most about OSX was how unlike Windows it was in terms of operating system progress and efficiency. Unlike Windows which always seemed to get bulkier and slower and more draconian, OSX just seemed to run better/faster with each incarnation. Starting with Leopard, we have seen a slip in relative performance. "Snow Leopard" was supposed to be a leaner, faster, more efficient version of Leopard but yet in every XBench test I've ever seen of a given machine before and after the upgrade to Snow Leopard, it is slower in almost every single test! How much do you want to bet Lion will be even slower yet? And at which point will this new "launch pad" interface start superseding the traditional "Mac" interface and the "Mac" will essentially "merge" off the face of the Earth? I've been told by fanatics galore for years on here how that is so much fantasy dreaming by a 'hater', but even some of the faithful are starting to suspect the obvious these days. Steve doesn't give a flying rat's behind about "trucks" anymore. He's obsessed with 'thin' gadgets at any cost.

Instead of adding features to OSX that would be truly useful and put OSX back on track to being the best OS on the planet (as Apple likes to tout,but just doesn't ring true in so many areas now), they're worried about making OSX more like a smart phone. Well I for one don't want my desktop computer to feel like a freaking phone. The day Apple releases a "thumb keyboard" that emulates high-speed "texting" while declaring the traditional keyboard 'dead' I'll know it's time to move on.

Just a few features OSX should have by now that we probably won't see for a few more generations (if EVER):

-OpenGL 4.x

-Updated graphics drivers that aren't always 2-4 years behind Windows/Linux drivers

-SLI support for high-performance graphics hardware (some Mac Pros can use them...in Windows! :rolleyes:

Note: It's always pathetically sad when Windows runs better/faster on Apple's own hardware than OSX. For example, my own 2008 Macbook Pro has full H264 hardware acceleration in Windows, but not in OSX. Heck, even my lowly Dell Netbook (hacked for OSX currently) with Intel graphics has hardware acceleration for HD movies even (not a chance in OSX with the same graphics hardware or any other Mac that has that hardware; most of those models cannot run HD video period, let alone with almost no CPU hit)

-Resolution independent display (predicted for Tiger and absolutely no sign of it yet for OSX three 'major' revisions later; I guess the developers have better things to do than make OSX great)

-Support for USB3 hardware (even if a Mac doesn't ship with USB3, it'd be a breeze to add such a card to any Mac Pro and some Macbook Pros; the few I've seen only seem to work with certain brand drives. This shouldn't be an issue.)

-Blu-Ray support (this should be a consumer decision whether to use BD drives, not Apple's. Some of us are more than willing to pay the fee for the license to use them; Apple should not base its operating system decisions purely on its other market interests. In other words, let iTunes woo me to buy movies from then, not try and force me to by not offering Blu-Ray. BD is now over a half decade old. It's downright pathetic that Apple has no support for it). The whole "bag of hurt" was such BS nonsense and even Steve has pretty much admitted as such (clearly he no longer cares to hide the truth of Apple's greed. And sorry, but 720p doesn't cut for some people's desires or needs).

-iTunes support for consumer formats such as AVI or MKV. (I should not have to convert all my home movies to M4V simply because Apple is playing games again. One of my digital cameras outputs AVI. Converting to M4V will only result in a further drop in quality). The truly sad thing about this is that it wouldn't take hardly any work at all to support these two major formats. Apple chooses not to for their supposed benefit, not yours.

-Dual Pane Finder (this should be an obvious addition for making transfers to other drives a cinch instead of having to open multiple finder windows).

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Several wouldn't be much bother to implement. I've sent suggestions to Apple before (obviously free of charge). They pretty much ignore most things sent to them from what I've seen. After all, if Steve didn't think of it, it's not worth doing.

Heck, I'd be happy if they could just keep updates to iTunes from being buggy as all heck. The latest version is completely buggered for PPC (not the first time either). It causes my machine to freeze within a few hours of opening it. I will give them credit for at least fixing the "post a review" feature in the previous update for PPC after I reported it (they actually told me they'd fix it for once after submitting the bug instead of just sending a thanks for writing machine reply). It does work in 10.1.1 (and I assume 10.2, but I won't run it since it freezes the machine).

Truly, I think relative iTunes instability is the reason for most of my unexplained freezes over the past few years. 10.1.1 is the most stable version I've ever had. I've literally run my PowerMac server (whose primary function is to serve my whole house audio/video system) for over two months solid without a reboot of any kind while also browsing and doing e-mail on it every day. I didn't get a freeze until I installed iTunes 10.2 and then got two within a few hours of each other (at which point I replaced it with 10.1.1 again and it's now rock solid again with no freezes despite being on 24/7 so I'm pretty sure it was iTunes. I reported the issue so hopefully they will fix it before dumping iTunes for PPC altogether given I'd like to eventually use the improved Airplay options it has for ATV2.
 
Excellent reply, Magnus ....

You lay out a lot of specific examples, and I find it hard to argue with much of that.

I will say, however, that I don't really find Lion to be shaping up to be a "joke". So far, a lot of the little changes I've heard about in it are ones I've been LONG waiting or hoping for. For example, Apple is FINALLY giving us the ability to resize a window by dragging from any corner? The inability to do that all this time was just plain stupid, IMO -- and especially with so many people coming over from a Windows platform, inexcusable. The ability to encrypt data for offsite storage with the "vault" feature sounds worthwhile, too. And whether you consider it "just taking stuff from iOS" or not, I'm also glad to hear that Apple is finally allowing some apps to be zoomed to full-screen. There are definitely situations where a user simply wants as much screen real-estate as possible to be given to a single application. (EG. working with architectural drawings in a CAD package, or looking at large spreadsheets) Apple's refusal to admit this was a valid use-case has been hurting them for far too long.

As for performance? I think it's premature to claim Lion will be slower and more bloated than Snow Leopard. I don't even find Snow Leopard to really feel any more sluggish than Leopard on the hardware I've had both on? Perhaps the benchmark numbers disagree -- but I'm much more concerned with my real-world experiences than the benchmark scores. So often, synthetic benchmarks only give a small part of an overall picture anyway.

What I do think, though, is that you're right about PPC support. As Apple phases it out, nobody over there is really putting much effort in ensuring the remaining PPC compatible apps actually run as efficiently and reliably as possible on the platform. Your iTunes experience is a prime example. I'm a little torn though at how much that even concerns me, this late in the game? I mean, I still own a PPC compatible Mac myself, but I've already written it off as essentially an "obsolete" machine, which I relegate to running existing, older programs that still have enough value to keep using. If the latest iTunes won't run without crashing every few hours on it? That sucks, but I'll cope... I'll just keep the previous version on it and consider it the last usable one for the platform.


MagnusVonMagnum said:
I understand the idea of having too many people on a given project, but when you read that the person who designed the "Remote" app has had no time to update it or fix bugs because he was reassigned to 'x' other projects and you read that a good chunk of the core OSX team is busy working on the iPhone OS so Leopard is (was) going to be delayed yet another 6 months you tend to get the feeling that Apple is nowhere near the point that they have too many developers around. If it takes awhile to get a new developer up to speed, all the more reason to hire now and get them moving than wait until the point where it all starts to fall apart.

It's pretty obvious to me that this supposed "year of OSX" isn't OSX at all but rather the majority of the developers have been assigned to iPad V2 and now V3 because that's what is selling like hotcakes. "Lion" is a freaking joke thus far. It's basically a few iOS type features brought back to what is essentially Leopard - PPC Support (i.e. Snow Leopard).

One of the things that used to impress me most about OSX was how unlike Windows it was in terms of operating system progress and efficiency. Unlike Windows which always seemed to get bulkier and slower and more draconian, OSX just seemed to run better/faster with each incarnation. Starting with Leopard, we have seen a slip in relative performance. "Snow Leopard" was supposed to be a leaner, faster, more efficient version of Leopard but yet in every XBench test I've ever seen of a given machine before and after the upgrade to Snow Leopard, it is slower in almost every single test! How much do you want to bet Lion will be even slower yet? And at which point will this new "launch pad" interface start superseding the traditional "Mac" interface and the "Mac" will essentially "merge" off the face of the Earth? I've been told by fanatics galore for years on here how that is so much fantasy dreaming by a 'hater', but even some of the faithful are starting to suspect the obvious these days. Steve doesn't give a flying rat's behind about "trucks" anymore. He's obsessed with 'thin' gadgets at any cost.

Instead of adding features to OSX that would be truly useful and put OSX back on track to being the best OS on the planet (as Apple likes to tout,but just doesn't ring true in so many areas now), they're worried about making OSX more like a smart phone. Well I for one don't want my desktop computer to feel like a freaking phone. The day Apple releases a "thumb keyboard" that emulates high-speed "texting" while declaring the traditional keyboard 'dead' I'll know it's time to move on.

Just a few features OSX should have by now that we probably won't see for a few more generations (if EVER):

-OpenGL 4.x

-Updated graphics drivers that aren't always 2-4 years behind Windows/Linux drivers

-SLI support for high-performance graphics hardware (some Mac Pros can use them...in Windows! :rolleyes:

Note: It's always pathetically sad when Windows runs better/faster on Apple's own hardware than OSX. For example, my own 2008 Macbook Pro has full H264 hardware acceleration in Windows, but not in OSX. Heck, even my lowly Dell Netbook (hacked for OSX currently) with Intel graphics has hardware acceleration for HD movies even (not a chance in OSX with the same graphics hardware or any other Mac that has that hardware; most of those models cannot run HD video period, let alone with almost no CPU hit)

-Resolution independent display (predicted for Tiger and absolutely no sign of it yet for OSX three 'major' revisions later; I guess the developers have better things to do than make OSX great)

-Support for USB3 hardware (even if a Mac doesn't ship with USB3, it'd be a breeze to add such a card to any Mac Pro and some Macbook Pros; the few I've seen only seem to work with certain brand drives. This shouldn't be an issue.)

-Blu-Ray support (this should be a consumer decision whether to use BD drives, not Apple's. Some of us are more than willing to pay the fee for the license to use them; Apple should not base its operating system decisions purely on its other market interests. In other words, let iTunes woo me to buy movies from then, not try and force me to by not offering Blu-Ray. BD is now over a half decade old. It's downright pathetic that Apple has no support for it). The whole "bag of hurt" was such BS nonsense and even Steve has pretty much admitted as such (clearly he no longer cares to hide the truth of Apple's greed. And sorry, but 720p doesn't cut for some people's desires or needs).

-iTunes support for consumer formats such as AVI or MKV. (I should not have to convert all my home movies to M4V simply because Apple is playing games again. One of my digital cameras outputs AVI. Converting to M4V will only result in a further drop in quality). The truly sad thing about this is that it wouldn't take hardly any work at all to support these two major formats. Apple chooses not to for their supposed benefit, not yours.

-Dual Pane Finder (this should be an obvious addition for making transfers to other drives a cinch instead of having to open multiple finder windows).

These are just a few things off the top of my head. Several wouldn't be much bother to implement. I've sent suggestions to Apple before (obviously free of charge). They pretty much ignore most things sent to them from what I've seen. After all, if Steve didn't think of it, it's not worth doing.

Heck, I'd be happy if they could just keep updates to iTunes from being buggy as all heck. The latest version is completely buggered for PPC (not the first time either). It causes my machine to freeze within a few hours of opening it. I will give them credit for at least fixing the "post a review" feature in the previous update for PPC after I reported it (they actually told me they'd fix it for once after submitting the bug instead of just sending a thanks for writing machine reply). It does work in 10.1.1 (and I assume 10.2, but I won't run it since it freezes the machine).

Truly, I think relative iTunes instability is the reason for most of my unexplained freezes over the past few years. 10.1.1 is the most stable version I've ever had. I've literally run my PowerMac server (whose primary function is to serve my whole house audio/video system) for over two months solid without a reboot of any kind while also browsing and doing e-mail on it every day. I didn't get a freeze until I installed iTunes 10.2 and then got two within a few hours of each other (at which point I replaced it with 10.1.1 again and it's now rock solid again with no freezes despite being on 24/7 so I'm pretty sure it was iTunes. I reported the issue so hopefully they will fix it before dumping iTunes for PPC altogether given I'd like to eventually use the improved Airplay options it has for ATV2.
Click to expand...
 
MagnusVonMagnum said:
How much do you want to bet Lion will be even slower yet?
Click to expand...

It is a lot faster, even with all the debug-code in it...


*** removed lots of whining ***

Just a few features OSX should have by now that we probably won't see for a few more generations (if EVER):

-OpenGL 4.x
Click to expand...

Lion brings at least 3.2 and prpares for faster updates in the future with this change.

-Updated graphics drivers that aren't always 2-4 years behind Windows/Linux drivers
Click to expand...

Much better already in the 10.7dp.

-Resolution independent display (predicted for Tiger and absolutely no sign of it yet for OSX three 'major' revisions later; I guess the developers have better things to do than make OSX great)
Click to expand...

10.7 gets a big step in this direction with the new layout-system in Cocoa.

-Support for USB3 hardware (even if a Mac doesn't ship with USB3, it'd be a breeze to add such a card to any Mac Pro and some Macbook Pros; the few I've seen only seem to work with certain brand drives. This shouldn't be an issue.)
Click to expand...

What for?

-Blu-Ray support (this should be a consumer decision whether to use BD drives, not Apple's. Some of us are more than willing to pay the fee for the license to use them; Apple should not base its operating system decisions purely on its other market interests. In other words, let iTunes woo me to buy movies from then, not try and force me to by not offering Blu-Ray. BD is now over a half decade old. It's downright pathetic that Apple has no support for it). The whole "bag of hurt" was such BS nonsense and even Steve has pretty much admitted as such (clearly he no longer cares to hide the truth of Apple's greed. And sorry, but 720p doesn't cut for some people's desires or needs).
Click to expand...

You may be ready to pay for BD-Support, lots of people like me aren’t. HD and BR is a totally useless feature, even for movies…

-Dual Pane Finder (this should be an obvious addition for making transfers to other drives a cinch instead of having to open multiple finder windows).
Click to expand...

So use on of the many alternatives… For the record - I hate Norton Commander style for working with files. But hey, your wishes are all that count.
 
Dranix said:
It is a lot faster, even with all the debug-code in it...




Lion brings at least 3.2 and prpares for faster updates in the future with this change.



Much better already in the 10.7dp.



10.7 gets a big step in this direction with the new layout-system in Cocoa.



What for?



You may be ready to pay for BD-Support, lots of people like me aren’t. HD and BR is a totally useless feature, even for movies…



So use on of the many alternatives… For the record - I hate Norton Commander style for working with files. But hey, your wishes are all that count.
Click to expand...

10.7 still doesn't support OpenGL 3.0 on my system (Radeon 4870 which should support OpenGL 3.2)
 
holmesf said:
10.7 still doesn't support OpenGL 3.0 on my system (Radeon 4870 which should support OpenGL 3.2)
Click to expand...

It contains 2 separate OpenGL systems. The app has to request OpenGL 3.2 when creating the context, else it gets a compatibility (OGL 2.1) context. GLview i.e. doesn’t request OGL3.2, yet.
 
Dranix said:
It contains 2 separate OpenGL systems. The app has to request OpenGL 3.2 when creating the context, else it gets a compatibility (OGL 2.1) context. GLview i.e. doesn’t request OGL3.2, yet.
Click to expand...

That seems doubtful. OpenGL 3.2 is backwards compatible with OpenGL 2 unless you request a view that has deprecated functionality disabled. You're free by default to mix OpenGL 3.0 function calls with those of 2 so this design decision makes no sense. So I won't believe this without reference to the documentation.
 
It’s a fact. The Apple OpenGL 3.2 stack is a core-only-implementation. Backward compatibility is implemented through the fallback to 2.1 when not requesting 3.2.

Here’s the code to get a 3.2 context.

Code: 
#include <OpenGL/OpenGL.h>
#include <OpenGL/gl3.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
     CGLContextObj ctx;
     CGLPixelFormatObj pix;
     GLint npix;
     CGLPixelFormatAttribute attribs[] = {
               [COLOR="Red"]kCGLPFAOpenGLProfile, kCGLOGLPVersion_3_2_Core,[/COLOR]
               0
     };
     
     CGLChoosePixelFormat(attribs, &pix, &npix);     
     CGLCreateContext(pix, NULL, &ctx);
     CGLSetCurrentContext(ctx);

     printf("%s %s\n", glGetString(GL_RENDERER), glGetString(GL_VERSION));

     return 0;
}
 
Last edited:
Dranix said:
It’s a fact. The Apple OpenGL 3.2 stack is a core-only-implementation. Backward compatibility is implemented through the fallback to 2.1 when not requesting 3.2.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I still would like to see documentation of this, however.
Edited: thanks.
 
Last edited:
Dranix said:
What for?
Click to expand...

What for? You may not care about USB3, but the world doesn't revolve around you, bub. I bought a 3TB external drive a few months ago and guess what? There's not Thunderbolt on it. There's no FW on it. I didn't see a single 3TB drive available with either of those on it at the time. What it does have is USB3. I see no reason for having to deal with slower transfers just because Apple thinks I should wait...and wait...and wait for devices to support Thunderbolt (when the only computer currently on the planet that has it is from Apple who represents less than 10% of the overall computer market, let alone the few recent models that support it (with no ability to add it to older models, even Mac Pros, whereas USB3 could be easily be added to any Mac Pro and many MBP models).

You may be ready to pay for BD-Support, lots of people like me aren’t. HD and BR is a totally useless feature, even for movies…
Click to expand...

I guess you don't comprehend that I'm saying the OPTION would only be for those that WANT it (i.e. you don't pay the fee unless you get the drive). And the fact once again that you call HD and BD "totally useless" features tells me you think the Universe revolves around you. Neither is useless to many people. A Mini could make a heck of a HTPC with just a few changes and added features (updated Front Row & BD drive support and iTunes support for a few more formats).

If you want BD on the Windows platform you just buy a model that has it. If you don't want it, you don't buy it.

So use on of the many alternatives… For the record - I hate Norton Commander style for working with files. But hey, your wishes are all that count.
Click to expand...

Once again, you never apparently heard of OPTIONS. :rolleyes: They could make a simple button push along the top of the window pan for when you want/need it to do some copying with a preference option to open a 2nd by default for those that might want that. But unlike you, I think of the needs of a group of people, not just myself.

I mean how do you transfer a file to another drive or folder? Copy, move, paste? If you open a 2nd window then your complaint about a dual-pane is absurd to say the least.
 
re: Blu-ray

Well, my only comment to interject here would be that it's pretty clear Apple is and NEVER was really out to provide options to please everyone. There are other computer makers out there that clearly try MUCH harder to "offer something for everyone". (Take a look, for example, at the product lineup offered by Dell. It absolutely dwarfs the number of models Apple offers on their web site.) Apple made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in providing people with BD solutions. Is that self-serving on their part? Absolutely... They don't want people to buy movies on physical BD media vs. just downloading a copy from their store. For those who need to burn to large capacity BD media for archival purposes and such? Nothing's stopping you from buying a BD burner and adding it to your Mac. (I put an internal one in my Mac Pro as a second drive months ago. Roxio Toasts recognizes it and can write to it just fine.)

I don't always like the limited options Apple offers me for a given system at a given time -- but complaining about it is like yelling at a brick wall, isn't it? I mean, Apple clearly sees advantages in only offering a limited product line and not changing it out every few months for the sake of changing it. (Some brands do this just to discourage price-matching among retailers, and it never benefits the consumer.) It allows their store staff to get a better handle on the products and their capabilities too. (The more configurable options you start allowing in a laundry list, the less certain anyone is of exactly what a given machine can/can't do by taking a cursory look at it.)

So I'm pretty "Eh... so what?" about the Blu-Ray thing with Macs. I agree it may be a big deal or even deal-breaker for some folks, but I think Apple's apparently ok with those people walking away.


MagnusVonMagnum said:
I guess you don't comprehend that I'm saying the OPTION would only be for those that WANT it (i.e. you don't pay the fee unless you get the drive). And the fact once again that you call HD and BD "totally useless" features tells me you think the Universe revolves around you. Neither is useless to many people. A Mini could make a heck of a HTPC with just a few changes and added features (updated Front Row & BD drive support and iTunes support for a few more formats).

If you want BD on the Windows platform you just buy a model that has it. If you don't want it, you don't buy it.



Once again, you never apparently heard of OPTIONS. :rolleyes: They could make a simple button push along the top of the window pan for when you want/need it to do some copying with a preference option to open a 2nd by default for those that might want that. But unlike you, I think of the needs of a group of people, not just myself.
Click to expand...
 
pubwvj said:
"PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered."

Apple keeps abandoning old technology. Yet they expect us to buy content from them such as iTunes, Apps and iBooks. BUT I don't know that I'll be able to read my books in ten years if I buy them from Apple. That is a very bad move on Apple's part.

Frankly it is trivial for them to continue to emulate the old systems (e.g., PPC, OS9 and even Apple I, II, II, Lisa) and continue to support the old software and content. There are a tremendous number of great software programs and the content that went with them. It's not being produced for OSX. Apple's losing by doing this.
Click to expand...

You seems to confusing file formats with Apps; Apps will go the way the dodo but Jobs has stated iBooks will use the ePub format--an open source format. So unless there is some form of DMR added on top of the epub format those books will be readable in 10 years.

As far as emulate the old systems goes there where two commercial attempts to do that: 'Apple in a box' and the LC Apple II card. Both were to put it mildly commercial disasters.

According to an Apple representative to our club back when Copland was still in the pipeline (1995) one of the problems Apple had was that the System had become a quagmire of 68k Assembly, Pascal, and C that worked together in a way no one really understood anymore. There were many times they had to black box the system to understand what it was really doing.

This part of the reason SheepShaver (an Classic-PowerPC emulator that doesn't require ROMs from a Mac) has so many problems; the Classic MacOS was doing some bizarre things that strictly speaking it should not have been doing.
 
hvfsl said:
I currently have Office V.x, Dreamweaver and Adobe CS1 which are all PPC apps. Now I am trustee for a local charity so I guess I could get them with the charity discount, but even so I am looking at spending more than £700. I guess my compliant is more aimed at Adobe's pricing for people that don't want to use their software for business use, but unless things change or unless Final Cut Studio 4 requires Lion (which I also use a lot), I can't see myself upgrading any time soon.
Click to expand...

LibreOffice and Amaya (both free) are possible alternatives for Office and Dreamweaver. As for Adobe CS1, that goes back to September 2003 and is long overdue for a replacement.
 
I wonder if Apple plans to drop support at any time for BootCamp?

It just seems with their new OS's getting slim and quick, it might make sense, however I know it wouldn't bother me, however it would bother some of the peeps on this forum :rolleyes:
 
Wicked1 said:
I wonder if Apple plans to drop support at any time for BootCamp?

It just seems with their new OS's getting slim and quick, it might make sense, however I know it wouldn't bother me, however it would bother some of the peeps on this forum :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bootcamp isn't really part of the OS.

Apple isn't stupid enough to take that out though.
 
re: Bootcamp

Bootcamp actually does require some extra support on Apple's part though, considering they have to gather up all the required Windows drivers (and had to write some of their own for things like their iSight cameras and multi-touch trackpads).

I don't think Apple would want to eliminate it either -- but if they did? I don't know that it would be a "stupid" move. It would just put them back to the status they've long held with regards to Windows operating systems; you have to run them in some kind of 3rd. party virtualization.

VMWare and Parallels both do a FAR better job of letting you use Windows on a Mac than products like "VirtualPC" ever did, back in the PPC days.

The primary reason to keep BootCamp around is to run Windows games on a Mac. So at some point, I guess you have to ask how much effort Apple is willing to keep putting forth to make sure the Windows gamer crowd can use a Mac for that purpose? We already know Jobs cares very little about computer games, so you tell me?


Daveoc64 said:
Bootcamp isn't really part of the OS.

Apple isn't stupid enough to take that out though.
Click to expand...
 
kingtj said:
VMWare and Parallels both do a FAR better job of letting you use Windows on a Mac than products like "VirtualPC" ever did, back in the PPC days.
Click to expand...
Um, VPC had to abstract hardware at a level that VMWare and Parallels don't have to worry about.
 
Sigh

Now I have to go thru my system and figure out all the apps that are PPC.

Might make sense for me to keep a PPC Mac around as some of the tools I use for music production were never offered in an x86 Mac native form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back