It allows you to upgrade from SL ? Wow...any chance to get hands on ML without Dev acc?
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 Releases First Developer Preview of OS X Mountain Lion, Public Launch in Late Summer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It allows you to upgrade from SL ? Wow...any chance to get hands on ML without Dev acc?
As much people think that OS X will become a walled appstore-only garden, I really really doubt it. Maybe things will have to be signed eventually (I doubt that too) but so much software would die, and many developers would bail.
I think this ML system of user/developer advantages is best for everyone, including Apple.
Standalone Notes app is brilliant for people who use an email client other than Mail! I use postbox and I've hoped for this for a while.
I think this ML system of user/developer advantages is best for everyone, including Apple.
Standalone Notes app is brilliant for people who use an email client other than Mail! I use postbox and I've hoped for this for a while.
You couldn't go from leopard to lion, so chances are you will need lion anyway to get mountain lion. Sorry.
Well worth a £20 upgrade eh?
(Assuming that Mountain Lion will be the same price as Lion).
Im happy too, since Lion is a mess, but to be honest Id like to see ML on my MBP. Anyway unless there is Expose, Im not into it that much...:/
I think everyone freaking out about GateKeeper needs to think about it for a second. This actually reassures me that apple IS NOT forcing developers to use the app store in the future. In fact, they are in a way lowering the gate a little bit and saying that they will treat 3rd party apps the same as App Store apps as long as they are signed with their free certificate. This is a good thing... especially with developers worried about the app store's rules on sandboxing.
You do realize not one company has to use the app store correct? Its there to give people an easy way to purchase software with 5 licenses as well as help small devs cut distribution and overhead costs and get more publicity for their apps.
How exactly do you lose control over your computer? You can turn off Gatekeeper, or even WITH Gatekeeper on you can right click and run unsigned apps.
Again, this doesn't happen. I don't know where you read this but its incorrect. Your app will keep working just the same. The most you would have to do is give it permission to run.
And why not? I have yet to see any Mac OS conspiracy theory ever come to fruition.
I use Lion since it came out, and while I complain about the way Spaces and Exposé changed, the issue with dual-Monitors in FullScreen mode, etc., I do like it.
I do see it lack features, reflecting more the characteristics of an unfinished product, an almost GM version.
But I don't believe at all that Lion compares to Vista. Not in a million years! Vista was totally disgusting. not even Windows Millenium Edition compares to it.
I can't wait to try Mountain Lion, but not now; I wish I had another Mac to install it. I may get an iMac soon... Maybe I'll just wait until the summer.
SO the mission control is the same like in Lion? I would expected some way of swich from Mission Control to Old expose...
I have no idea dude, it's a mess in Lion.
BTW my previous post was me being sarcastic
Well worth a £20 upgrade eh?
(Assuming that Mountain Lion will be the same price as Lion).
combined with the other new features, yes.
Apple has been pushing app signing since Snow Leopard. If anything, they will remove the ability to install unsigned apps in a future release.
Which I personally think is fine, if they are providing developers with a simple and free mechanism for signing.
Exactly. Remember folks, even in iOS you don't have to install from the App Store. Apple has maintained the notion of Enterprise apps, and Apple is doing something similar here. Not all Apps belong in the App Store, but ensuring you are running malicious software is a good thing.
Though I understand the argument that iOS-apps in OS X won't hurt us users who won't use them, the tendency DOES have consequences for us. As Apple continues to focus on adapting those, IMO ridiculous, apps and features, their focus on improving other apps and overall stability and speed of the OS is getting less attention than they could've got, thereby letting the features that power users use get dated.
This is why this can threaten OS X's position as a superior OS with time.
This is why this can threaten OS X's position as a superior OS with time.
I know I'll get down voted for this but is all about the money for apple, if the charge another £20 for another update & get the same figures for lion ape is winning. Yes £20 is cheap as you bought/are about to buy an expensive mac but all these things could of been implemented in Lion or given as a free update. Apple is taking advantage of the sheep, me included which I don't like.
Down me vot. I don't care. We are the ones spending huge amounts on apple products while apple gets the rewards.
Down me vot. I don't care. We are the ones spending huge amounts on apple products while apple gets the rewards.
I spent some time reviewing ML on Apple's site.
This looks great!
The iCloud integration is nice. It's not so much the specific apps Apple has unified across idevices and macs. It's that they set a high standard for doing so.
I expect massive consternation over Gatekeeper, but I'm not going to worry until they make "App Store Only" the default.
I do think it's useful to distinguish between:
* registered-verified sandboxed (App store)
* registered-sandboxing unverified (identified developers)
* free-for-all (anywhere)
The part that seems "unfair" is that registered-verified sandbox apps can only be purchased through the Apple app store... Once verified it seems like a developer should be able to sell such an app anywhere. Now, it might be that Apple offsets the cost of verifying an app via revenue from App Store sales. But if that's the argument, Apple could simply charge more to verify an app that will not be sold in the store (or equivalently but more paletable, set the price of verification high and waive the cost for app store exclusives).
I do think Apple is within their rights to make verified sandboxing an exclusive for app store apps. But I don't like it.
This looks great!
The iCloud integration is nice. It's not so much the specific apps Apple has unified across idevices and macs. It's that they set a high standard for doing so.
I expect massive consternation over Gatekeeper, but I'm not going to worry until they make "App Store Only" the default.
I do think it's useful to distinguish between:
* registered-verified sandboxed (App store)
* registered-sandboxing unverified (identified developers)
* free-for-all (anywhere)
The part that seems "unfair" is that registered-verified sandbox apps can only be purchased through the Apple app store... Once verified it seems like a developer should be able to sell such an app anywhere. Now, it might be that Apple offsets the cost of verifying an app via revenue from App Store sales. But if that's the argument, Apple could simply charge more to verify an app that will not be sold in the store (or equivalently but more paletable, set the price of verification high and waive the cost for app store exclusives).
I do think Apple is within their rights to make verified sandboxing an exclusive for app store apps. But I don't like it.
Nonsense, you can always do a clean install on a blank HD. I recently upgraded a friend's Mac from Leopard to Lion using that method without any issue.
You don't understand where Apple makes its money. Unlike Consoles, which are often sold at a loss, Apple makes its money through hardware. Content distribution barely breaks even.
And how are you loosing more control? Nothing is lost, and extra security is there for those who want it.
I don't like Autosave, Versions and the loss of Save As. What is your advice?
(Please don't tell me "then don't upgrade." When I had to replace an aging, underpowered Mac Mini with a new one last summer, I didn't have that option.)
10.7 allows 32-bit apps. It appears 10.8 doesn't. Which means Dashboard is now 64-bit
More :
In OS X v10.8, most of the APIs in the Carbon Core framework are deprecated. In many cases, there are alternative APIs you can use, such as APIs in the Core Foundation, Foundation, GCD (Grand Central Dispatch), and Disk Arbitration frameworks.
Some of the deprecated APIs are high-level wrappers around functions in the POSIX or BSD layers, such as malloc, pthread, and sysctl(3). In place of a deprecated wrapper function, you should use the appropriate lower-level API directly. Finally, some of the deprecated APIs are no longer needed or recommended, such as the bit-operation functions in ToolUtils.h (because these functions were needed in Pascal development, and C provides bit operators). Also, no new apps should use Component Manager APIs to find and manage components.
Someone with the Dev Preview: please put up the new default desktop picture!
dude thats just the same as OSX Lion... the Andromeda Galaxy..
just a bit darker and slightly different angle..
