Job Postings and Patent Acquisitions Hint at Potential Overhaul of iLife and iWork

[iLondoner]

Some aspects of skeuomorphism are not terribly evident—thank goodness—and it took me some time to realise the brown bit at the top of Calendar had paper tear offs underneath.

The one app where skeuomorphism really annoys me is the Game Centre which (maybe because I am a European) I find really creepy, so I never use it.

The only app I think should keep elements of skeuomorphism is the Calculator, otherwise long live a clean modern design.

[clukas]

Originally Posted by NoExpectations

Agreed....but if they are looking to fill jobs now, it will be a long wait before we see any substantial updates.

3 months to Hire appropriate headcount
3 months for new hire(s) to settle in
6-12 months for development
3-6 months to test

Very true, but this sends out strong signals that apple has not yet abandoned its OS X software in favour of focusing on iOS. No question this will happen eventually, but at least we can expect 1 more major software update.

[applebro]

hopefully they change it so that us engineers will actually have a use for Pages and Numbers

[globalhemp]

Apple states that the pricing of their products reflects not only the hardware, but software.

Apple choose to stop allowing iDVD to work on my iMac. No warning, no choice, no nothing. Just Apple's decision that nobody needs to use iDVD anymore.

I spoke with an Apple Store employee, and they stated that it was not a good app, that I should just go out and purchase Roxio.

I still have iDVD on my iMac, I just can't launch it due to an update that Apple made to dismantle its functionality. Now I'm being told that I need to purchase a replacement?!?!

Apple needs to bring back iDVD. If I want to send a video to family (e.g., grandma or mother), they don't have an Internet enabled tv. They don't even have an HDTV. However, they do have a DVD player.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by JGRE

Right, Apple should make an statement (by having all their own apps 64-bit) to all the software developers still working with 32-bit code. 64-bit is really faster, for some apps hardly noticeable but for other there is a big difference. 64-Bit Arperture is much faster than 32-bit iPhoto.

I don't know if 64 bit in of itself would be faster. But being 64 bit would have access to more then 4GB of RAM. The reasons why Aperture might be faster if it is written for multicore processors and graphic card acceleration.

[iGrip]

Originally Posted by Rogifan

That was Steve Jobs. And the mini is 7.9" and not 16:9 so one could argue its really nothing like the other 7" tablets on the market.

Doesn't matter. Anything under 10 inches cannot possibly express great tablet apps. Sorry, but that is true.

[linuxcooldude]

Originally Posted by globalhemp

Apple states that the pricing of their products reflects not only the hardware, but software.

Apple choose to stop allowing iDVD to work on my iMac. No warning, no choice, no nothing. Just Apple's decision that nobody needs to use iDVD anymore.

I spoke with an Apple Store employee, and they stated that it was not a good app, that I should just go out and purchase Roxio.

I still have iDVD on my iMac, I just can't launch it due to an update that Apple made to dismantle its functionality. Now I'm being told that I need to purchase a replacement?!?!

Apple needs to bring back iDVD. If I want to send a video to family (e.g., grandma or mother), they don't have an Internet enabled tv. They don't even have an HDTV. However, they do have a DVD player.

Not updating iDVD or not including it in future updates goes with the phasing out DVD's for downloadable media. Not just an Apple thing.

I have the most recent Mac OSX and iDVD works fine for me.

[numlock]

Originally Posted by wizard

Numbers certainly needs an overhaul but five or six years ago when development started on this version I believe they achieved their goal which was a simple spread sheet app. Today things are far different, people do more with their Macs and thus a more professional Numbers is required.


Personally I hate OpenOffice but that is me. I'm really looking forward to a version of Numbers with a built in scripting language like Python. Numbers needs a lot of work when it comes to imports and exports. Frankly I'd like to see a version of Numbers that can easily turn a range of cells into HTML.

well my mention of openoffice/libreoffice was because if you dont have or want to use ms office its the closest thing available.

and if google sheets would have better support for different localization i could use google sheets for most of my needs.

numbers as you say started out fine but very little has been done with it. but pivot tables and freeze cells those are still not available right?

i dont use enough formulas to know if its lacking there.

there is a little application called tables that one could argue has surpassed numbers.

[gregwyattjr]

Originally Posted by HenryDJP

I have to agree with you, Powerpoint definitely has features not found in Keynote such as "Lack of Intuitive UI", "Lack of beautiful templates", "Lack of graphics animation for presentations" and lack of ease of use.

Seriously, even the most fanboyish of MS Office users can't deny that Keynote is the best in class and Powerpoint is nowhere close. That being said, still doesn't mean that the entire iWork suite doesn't need an upgrade because it definitely does.

You hit the nail right on the head, brother.

[Solomani]

Originally Posted by iLondoner

Some aspects of skeuomorphism are not terribly evident—thank goodness—and it took me some time to realise the brown bit at the top of Calendar had paper tear offs underneath.

Subtle skeumorphism is fine with me. As long as it's not an "in-your-face" glaring skeumorphic fashion statement, I don't mind it at all.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by JGRE

At least 64-bit please.

because 64bit will help. I mean I need a office document to address more than 32GB of RAM..and iPhoto and Movie would be so much snappier if they could address more memory and anything but iMac's and Mac Pros..

[Michael Goff]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

because 64bit will help. I mean I need a office document to address more than 32GB of RAM..and iPhoto and Movie would be so much snappier if they could address more memory and anything but iMac's and Mac Pros..

You do realize that 64-bit applications are generally faster than 32-bit, right? >_>;

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Michael Goff

You do realize that 64-bit applications are generally faster than 32-bit, right? >_>;

Actually there not..

[Michael Goff]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

Actually there not..

Let's look at things that have gotten faster when they took the leap to 64-bit:
Operating Systems
Browsers
Adobe Creative Studio.

Also, something that I forgot to correct, is that 32-bit applications can only address 2GB of RAM (Aside from the OS, which registers 4GB).

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Michael Goff

Let's look at things that have gotten faster when they took the leap to 64-bit:
Operating Systems
Browsers
Adobe Creative Studio.

Also, something that I forgot to correct, is that 32-bit applications can only address 2GB of RAM (Aside from the OS, which registers 4GB).

OS's haven't gotten faster as they've gone 64bit..the isn't a significant difference in speed between Snow Leopard and Mountain Lion. Just like there was no diffenence between xp 64 and 32 going forward.

Browsers have gotten faster in 64bit that'd be news to me..

The creative suite is a memory hog and and not applicable what where talking about here. Yes PS is faster if you give it more RAM.

In OSX 32bit applications can address 4GB of memory the 2GB limitations is artificial and limited to Windows.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

...the 2GB limitations is artificial and limited to Windows.

There isn't a 2GB limit on applications in 32 bit Windows. They can access the full 4GB limit anything can, minus what's taken up by the OS and other programs, of course.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

There isn't a 2GB limit on applications in 32 bit Windows. They can access the full 4GB limit anything can, minus what's taken up by the OS and other programs, of course.

no, thats the point.

Windows, where the operating system takes 2GB leaving only 2GB available for the running application. Mac OS X, like Linux, has always allowed applications the full 4GB available on the Intel architecture

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/0...opard-64-bits/

Just a quick google

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

no, thats the point.

Windows, where the operating system takes 2GB leaving only 2GB available for the running application. Mac OS X, like Linux, has always allowed applications the full 4GB available on the Intel architecture

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/0...opard-64-bits/

Just a quick google

Roughly Drafted. Gawd. That site's almost as bad as Obama Pacman for pure Apple praising internet dumbness.

Windows doesn't take up a static 2GB of ram and absolutely refuses to allow any other programs to access it. Windows is incredibly efficient with memory usage these days. If a application needs more memory, Windows will start moving OS specific data out, and allow said application to access it.

For example, I've rendered out a complex scene on a 4GB 64 bit machine before. It needed as much ram as it could get. By the time it was done, Windows was eating up 4% of my memory, and slowly started swapping OS data back into the ram as it needed it. 32-bit Windows does this exact same thing.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Roughly Drafted. Gawd. That site's almost as bad as Obama Pacman for pure Apple praising internet dumbness.

Windows doesn't take up a static 2GB of ram and absolutely refuses to allow any other programs to access it. Windows is incredibly efficient with memory usage these days. If a application needs more memory, Windows will start moving OS specific data out, and allow said application to access it.

For example, I've rendered out a complex scene on a 4GB 64 bit machine before. It needed as much ram as it could get. By the time it was done, Windows was eating up 4% of my memory, and slowly started swapping OS data back into the ram as it needed it. 32-bit Windows does this exact same thing.

OK google PAE..

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

OK google PAE..

What about it? That's a processor feature to allow 32-bit computers to use more than 4GB memory. It's not a requirement, nor is it addressing a weakness specific to Windows.

edit: Okay, it has to be enabled within the OS as well. But I still don't see how it proves your point. For one, Windows will only address 4GB regardless, and two, it's a common feature across all OSes.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

What about it? That's a processor feature to allow 32-bit computers to use more than 4GB memory. It's not a requirement, nor is it addressing a weakness specific to Windows.

edit: Okay, it has to be enabled within the OS as well. But I still don't see how it proves your point. For one, Windows will only address 4GB regardless, and two, it's a common feature across all OSes.

It allows 32bit programs to address more than 2GB of RAM.

PAE has been standard in OSX and Linux for quite a long time it's only standard now in Windows 8 and only selectively used/enabled before.

PAE has system wide benefits for memory allocation 16GB of RAM for the G5 32GB for early Mac Pros even though the OS and more importantly the Kernel (program) is 32bit.

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

It allows 32bit programs to address more than 2GB of RAM.

I've been reading up on this, and it looks like you're at least half right. Windows by default only allows 32-bit programs to access 2GB memory...

...unless otherwise specified by the programmer. They can set it so that their application can access 3GB, with 1GB dedicated to the kernel.

Though this isn't a Windows specific problem. Linux only allows 2GB by default. Some higher end server OSes (of which Unix is one) can access 3GB by default. With Windows, it seems to be determined by the programmer, and how the PAE is being used by the OS.

As for it being standard in Windows only with 8, that's not correct. It's now a requirement as of 8. It's been standard in Windows since Win2k, though mostly used only in their server class OSes.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

I've been reading up on this, and it looks like you're at least half right. Windows by default only allows 32-bit programs to access 2GB memory...

...unless otherwise specified by the programmer. They can set it so that their application can access 3GB, with 1GB dedicated to the kernel.

Though this isn't a Windows specific problem. Linux only allows 2GB by default. Some higher end server OSes (of which Unix is one) can access 3GB by default. With Windows, it seems to be determined by the programmer, and how the PAE is being used by the OS.

You have to look to find a Linux OS that doesn't have PAE enabled..

The 3GB thing only holds true if your stacking a 32 bit program on a 32bit Kernel. If you take the same 32 bit program and stack it on a 64 bit Kernel it;ll address all 4GB minus a few KB

**edit** let continue this debate later I need to take apart the big Mac

[Renzatic]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

You have to look to find a Linux OS that doesn't have PAE enabled..

The 3GB thing only holds true if your stacking a 32 bit program on a 32bit Kernel. If you take the same 32 bit program and stack it on a 64 bit Kernel it;ll address all 4GB minus a few KB

Yeah, but the thing is, anyone who desperately needed more than 2GB ram for their programs back during the 32-bit days likely wasn't using consumer grade Windows OSes. They were on XP Professional at the very least, which did have PAE support.

Really, we're getting into a topic I don't know that much about. Though from what I've read, Windows didn't necessarily have a deficit in comparison to other OSes in this regard.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by Renzatic

Yeah, but the thing is, anyone who desperately needed more than 2GB ram for their programs back during the 32-bit days likely wasn't using consumer grade Windows OSes. They were on XP Professional at the very least, which did have PAE support.

Really, we're getting into a topic I don't know that much about. Though from what I've read, Windows didn't necessarily have a deficit in comparison to other OSes in this regard.

It was never my intent to criticize Windows it was just a statement that was an artificial limitation. The gentlemen I quoted was thinking in a Windows paradigm and that it wasn't applicable to all.

In the end state no one really cares as long as everything works the way it should. It will most iLife and iWork will most probably be updated to 64bit more than anything to finish off the transition that started in Tiger.