Why? They really don't want people thinking if you buy a mac you need to keep running windows programs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Job Posting Suggests 'Revolutionary' New Mac OS X Feature
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? They really don't want people thinking if you buy a mac you need to keep running windows programs.
Exactly! So I don't know what people are even talking about.
BTW, the duplicate command is command+D.
Knew that, didn't think it was necessary to spell out. Then again...
Exactly! So I don't know what people are even talking about.
BTW, the duplicate command is command+D.
You can't Cut & Paste files and folders, unless you have both source and destination Finder windows open side by side so you can drag and drop the file from one place to the other. Plus you have to remember whether it's an external disk or not, because the Drag & Drop will either Copy or Cut the object depending on that, requiring you to press Alt to change that, so it's not as simple as Cut & Paste.
Take a simple situation: You have a folder called "Vacation", and within it you have two folders, "Photos" and "Videos". Now you accidentally put everything in the "Photos" folder and you want to move the videos into the Videos folder. So you either go up one level, to "Vacation", and then Cmd + Double Click "Videos" to have it open in a separate window, then Double Click "Photos" AGAIN, then drag the videos from "Photos" to "Videos", or you can switch from whatever view you're in to any view that allows you to see multiple levels at the same time (I always use the normal icons view, so I always have to change this, and then when I'm done, change it back).
Or, if we had something as revolutionary and magical as Cut & Paste, you could just select the videos in the "Photos" folder, press Cmd + X, then go up one level, then paste them into "Videos". Wouldn't that be simpler? All within ONE Finder window, without having to change the icon view. So why not have cut and paste? What's the disadvantage? You could still use Drag & Drop if you wanted to.
I could care less about MS windows. I just want to resize my OSX windows without having to move, resize, move, resize, move, 10 times to get them positioned and sized where I want them. As someone who switches from external monitor to laptop display twice every day for 3 years I can tell you I'm no less annoyed by the lack of this feature now than I was 3 years ago.
I don't need to buy a $20 product to give me this basic functionality. Because now Steve's finally hiring programmers to figure out how to do it in the base version of the OS.
I didn't say anything about the maximize button. I don't want to maximize or "optimize" my windows. I want to size them how *I* want them and put them where *I* want them, and it should not require so many steps to do so. There is NO good reason to omit this feature other than stubborn "OS X is not windows" egocentric pride and foolishness.
You shouldn't even really BE cutting and pasting in UNIX file systems. If something goes wrong that data is lost forever.
So Apple trying to be like Google is now "new" and "revolutionary"? Hilarious. Apple is like those boxes of laundry detergent with "NEW AND IMPROVED" stamped on the outside!
OK people let's get serious here!
LOGIC:
NOW... Taking these things into account, my guess is that this is something where Apple will implement their two platforms within the Mac OS. In other words, Apple could somehow integrate the App Store with iOS as being integrated along with its apps, or as an overlay such as Dashboard. BUT ALSO & MAINLY perhaps the ENTIRE OS will be able to render HTML5 and web standards and not ONLY in the browser. In other words, you could have HTML5 apps running as if they are native apps right in the OS, no browser involved!!! NOW THAT would be VERY interesting and a HUGE threat to Microsoft and Google. It would be different than a cloud OS. It would be a hybrid of both and VERY powerful and versatile!!!
This is along the lines of what I see happening based on the evidence I compiled!
Anyone have some real or serious thoughts about this?
While i don't disagree with the logic and do think will push their work in things like sproutcore into systems to replace flash and to develop near native web apps. I could even see them fostering a graphical development environment for sproutcore as part of the OS. After all if they can keep developers then the truck division will stay healthy and self supporting well in the future.
Is any of that really that new thou. Plus how does it shape how the consummer interacts with the product. That is what makes a revolution for Apple changing how people think about computers. A new kind of apps that have had a lot of work to make them just like other apps is a great thing for dev's. Just not something to grab the public.
I sure it's part of it but doesn't seem like the full story.
What i'm hoping is the big user facing change / feature for the users would be an end to files. That is files that exist in one place on one device. A system in which devices work together seemlessly. Yes we've seen this in movies but not in real life. Plus as others have noted the geek side of tech is there.
to me it would seem like there would be three pieces to this that Apples has been working on. One the part the various user interaction systems Cocoa and Cocoa touch for two styles of native plus sproutcore all based on Obj-C.
Part two the task engine Grand central and xgrid before after all if split tasks to run on different processors then you could do the reverse duplicate the task out to multiple devices processors so they all seem to be reacting to the same user input.
Part three would be something like a distributed version of Core Data. Like Core Data of now but not just for files in memory of one machine but across many machines. Sort of like Google Wave but i don't see any sign google understands how it could be really used.
All the parts would need experts in moving data over the web.
So something similar to jolicloud or Appcelerator Titanium?
I could see Apple building a cloud os to compete against Google and Chrome OS, but I'd rather the work integrating native clustering, P2P protocol, a ZFS like filesystem, built in OS level virtualization (FreeBSD Jails), and multicore/manycore scalability (Tessellation OS/FastOS) into the kernel. Those are definitely mor important problems that need to be worked on in the foundation vs an HTML5 GUI. Apple could purchase Appacelerator for that capability, they've done the majority of the work already tying their framework to Cocoa.
More importantly Apple will need to rethink basic OS concepts for the multicore/manycore future. A whole new kernel would be needEd, it wouldn't be Unix anymore. More then likely something like Plan9/Inferno with some parts DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, the L4 kernel (everything is virtualized) and what ever comes out of the Tessellation OS and FastOS research. A distributed, clustered, parallel, virtualized OS mesh.
Xgrid, Sun Grid Engine, Xsan, and lustrefs technology could all play a role. I also hopes Apple moves to an x11/aqua/quartz based GUI (compiz/fusion comes to mind) that can run over the network with the capability to allow multiple users to login to one OS instance with a GUI. This is the closest that I have found and it's lacking: Multiple GUI login Mac OS X
I could see Apple building a cloud os to compete against Google and Chrome OS, but I'd rather the work integrating native clustering, P2P protocol, a ZFS like filesystem, built in OS level virtualization (FreeBSD Jails), and multicore/manycore scalability (Tessellation OS/FastOS) into the kernel. Those are definitely mor important problems that need to be worked on in the foundation vs an HTML5 GUI. Apple could purchase Appacelerator for that capability, they've done the majority of the work already tying their framework to Cocoa.
More importantly Apple will need to rethink basic OS concepts for the multicore/manycore future. A whole new kernel would be needEd, it wouldn't be Unix anymore. More then likely something like Plan9/Inferno with some parts DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, the L4 kernel (everything is virtualized) and what ever comes out of the Tessellation OS and FastOS research. A distributed, clustered, parallel, virtualized OS mesh.
Xgrid, Sun Grid Engine, Xsan, and lustrefs technology could all play a role. I also hopes Apple moves to an x11/aqua/quartz based GUI (compiz/fusion comes to mind) that can run over the network with the capability to allow multiple users to login to one OS instance with a GUI. This is the closest that I have found and it's lacking: Multiple GUI login Mac OS X
That's not true. I single-window drag and drop all the time. You can still navigate within the window while dragging files.
So it's ok in a Windows file system or a VAX file system, just not in a UNIX file system ? Pray tell what the difference is.
Hear me out...
So I've been thinking...
Apple's been making a lot of news for a long time with their hardware, but every software move is pretty incremental. We have expectations of how the OS works, so including cut & paste into the Finder or incorporating IOS as a Dashboard replacement gets us Mac geeks excited, but it appears from the outside to be another bullet point; another feature that Mac OS 10.X has over the version before it.
What if Apple is rewriting the OS again, the way they did when they flipped to UNIX. A truly Mac operating system completely written by Apple, without the UNIX foundation. They certainly have the resources to put to a crazy undertaking like this one. UNIX is amazing, but why is that the pinnacle of an OS underpinning? It's great, but is it perfect? Every problem that anyone has with anything could be worked out of the OS. Every single thing that Apple wants to put in could go in. Whatever file system, whatever anything... They would be making their computers completely unique. Granted that this would require a Rosetta type overlap for a while, but they've proved they would do it before.
Maybe "revolutionary" isn't hyperbole. Maybe OSX is getting old enough that it's time to throw the whole thing out and start over again, like zen garden raking. It could be time for some chaos.
There are mission critical applications that would have to be rewritten for a lot of businesses (Adobe's apps, etc.), but the vast majority of users are using docs, spreadsheets, internet, etc. This stuff could all be ready on launch by Apple. Maybe they could use Bootcamp until all the other stuff is translated. All these small features we've been listing in the forums... maybe we're not thinking big enough.
So I've been thinking...
Apple's been making a lot of news for a long time with their hardware, but every software move is pretty incremental. We have expectations of how the OS works, so including cut & paste into the Finder or incorporating IOS as a Dashboard replacement gets us Mac geeks excited, but it appears from the outside to be another bullet point; another feature that Mac OS 10.X has over the version before it.
What if Apple is rewriting the OS again, the way they did when they flipped to UNIX. A truly Mac operating system completely written by Apple, without the UNIX foundation. They certainly have the resources to put to a crazy undertaking like this one. UNIX is amazing, but why is that the pinnacle of an OS underpinning? It's great, but is it perfect? Every problem that anyone has with anything could be worked out of the OS. Every single thing that Apple wants to put in could go in. Whatever file system, whatever anything... They would be making their computers completely unique. Granted that this would require a Rosetta type overlap for a while, but they've proved they would do it before.
Maybe "revolutionary" isn't hyperbole. Maybe OSX is getting old enough that it's time to throw the whole thing out and start over again, like zen garden raking. It could be time for some chaos.
There are mission critical applications that would have to be rewritten for a lot of businesses (Adobe's apps, etc.), but the vast majority of users are using docs, spreadsheets, internet, etc. This stuff could all be ready on launch by Apple. Maybe they could use Bootcamp until all the other stuff is translated. All these small features we've been listing in the forums... maybe we're not thinking big enough.
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
Maybe you should understand what Unix is before trying to talk about it. The last time Apple made a truely Mac operating system, it was called System 1 through 7 and then MacOS 8 or 9. Horrible, horrible.
By people who understand it. Read the quote properly. The guy posting had no clue about Unix yet blattered on and on about replacing it. The Unix foundation in OS X doesn't prevent any of what he's asking for.
Yes, you must understand Unix in order to identify the rust spots that need work. Keep what works and replace what doesn't. That's how a modular architecture like Unix works. That's it's key design, it's adaptable and grows.
My guess is we all get Mini's and Apple charges you $2500 for the computing power of a PowerMac in the cloud, without you actually getting anything.
At least no one complains about the hardware price then...
This is rather clouded iTunes running on HTML5. What else?
At least no one complains about the hardware price then...
This is rather clouded iTunes running on HTML5. What else?
"Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." - Henry Spencer
Nice qoute, but there are others (don't know which one is the original though):
If Unix is the answer, what was the question anyway?
If Unix is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question.
UNIX is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very carefully.
Unix is not the only and not best OS in the world. The idea of recreating an Operating System is not unique, not new and believe me, there are plenty of OSs around which are or were better in some areas but are dead or only known to a small fraction of engineers by now. Why? Who the hell knows exactly and honestly, who cares nowadays. Even me as a former system fanatic, I don't really care about what's new, reinvented or superior. I need my work to get done and I am able to do so with the current possibilities. If there will be new ones, I will explore them with interest. If there will be none, I can still get my work done.
This may sound ignorant but if you really want to experience Operating System Puberty over and over again, you are free to do so.
Maybe Apple is secretly reimplementing a new system. Who knows. Maybe the're trying something with a database instead of a filesystem as Microsoft has tried some years ago. But I'm sure, the job listing discussed in this thread has nothing to do with.
Nice qoute, but there are others (don't know which one is the original though):
If Unix is the answer, what was the question anyway?
If Unix is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question.
UNIX is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very carefully.
Unix is not the only and not best OS in the world. The idea of recreating an Operating System is not unique, not new and believe me, there are plenty of OSs around which are or were better in some areas but are dead or only known to a small fraction of engineers by now. Why? Who the hell knows exactly and honestly, who cares nowadays. Even me as a former system fanatic, I don't really care about what's new, reinvented or superior. I need my work to get done and I am able to do so with the current possibilities. If there will be new ones, I will explore them with interest. If there will be none, I can still get my work done.
This may sound ignorant but if you really want to experience Operating System Puberty over and over again, you are free to do so.
Maybe Apple is secretly reimplementing a new system. Who knows. Maybe the're trying something with a database instead of a filesystem as Microsoft has tried some years ago. But I'm sure, the job listing discussed in this thread has nothing to do with.
siri
It would have to be "tunable" to the individual user in order for it to be useful. Advanced users might like it because it could, if not now eventually, automate some processes such as finding a suitable movie time and location, or restaurant or search for a file you wanted or make it easier to tag photos. Once you start assuming a useful jump in AI it opens up a lot of possibilities, much like the knowledge navigator.
http://vimeo.com/5424527
http://www.open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8129
I don't think OSX will jump to something that advanced, but I would not be surprised if Apple started moving in that direction. Clearly SIRI sees this as an inspiring vision and I think Apple's purchase of SIRI has broader implications than most people are considering.
It would have to be "tunable" to the individual user in order for it to be useful. Advanced users might like it because it could, if not now eventually, automate some processes such as finding a suitable movie time and location, or restaurant or search for a file you wanted or make it easier to tag photos. Once you start assuming a useful jump in AI it opens up a lot of possibilities, much like the knowledge navigator.
http://vimeo.com/5424527
http://www.open-video.org/details.php?videoid=8129
I don't think OSX will jump to something that advanced, but I would not be surprised if Apple started moving in that direction. Clearly SIRI sees this as an inspiring vision and I think Apple's purchase of SIRI has broader implications than most people are considering.
That's probably true in a lot of ways, much like the early GUIs severely taxed the cpu, hogged memory, and changed the way simple tasks were accomplished. Nonetheless the compelling nature of the GUI was and is so strong that it overwhelmed the complaints of the old timers. Similarly the compelling nature of a well executed AI would, I think, overwhelm the naysayers and become the default. I see no reason why it couldn't be turned off if the user wanted.
Ah, quoting the UNIX-Haters handbook I see. You do understand that the book is part humour right, part user complaints, part elitist rantings from VMS or Mainframe people ?
Again, maybe you guys should understand what it is you're speaking of. Sure other OSes have existed, some have been better or worse and Unix isn't the be all, end all. But it has survived over 40 years now. Its design philosophies don't stop you from implementing anything over it, be it a database driven filesystem or a whole new GUI paradigm or anything really.
I agree with you, OS virginity over and over again for the sake of "doing something new" is exactly what Henry Spencer was getting at and is exactly what Apple understood when they picked up NeXTSTEP. Building on the shoulders of giants who have sane design can only lead to something better.
You can run Windows NOW on the Mac via BootCamp, CrossOver, Parallels or VMware.
So why wouldn't Apple want to make it even easier for people to have best of both worlds on a Mac? If Apple develops their Wine technology, then it would be Microsoft crapping their pants, not Apple.
Why reinvent the wheel ? Just repackage wine in a friendlier form.
The article does mention this is something new, never before seen. If that isn't just HR chest thumping, it can't be something that's been around for the last 15 years...
Well you have to have multiple clipboards built-in then. To prevent accidentally erasing files.
Again, what's so wrong with dragging and dropping?