iMac to Come in Both Dual-Core and Quad-Core Configs?

[-hh]

"Psystar believes Apple's prohibition against third-party installations will not hold up in court: ...

Psystar hasn't yet won in court.

"Irrelevant, since Hardware is merely one small piece of the whole. "

...You totally deny that hardware is of any importance...

Quite clearly not what I said. Gosh, it is so endearing how you have to literally lie try to make your case.

you obviously don't know hardware, it has tremendous affect on how your OS is going to perform.

The power of contemporary hardware has advanced to the point that it can be generally considered secondary to other factors. If you want to waste your time with the minutia to try to claiming significance from minor variances within various synthetic benchmarks, go right ahead and knock yourself out.

Windows is just as productive as OSX.

For some things, Windows is more productive. For others, OS X is more productive. But they're not the same for all things, so what you do is relevant to what is optimal for you.

The point I want to get across is that PC's are cheaper & faster, and you can get just as much done as a Mac.. I've used both, Ive had a Macbook for 5months, I can do the exact same thing in both, I see no differences, except in the price & performance..

If your level of productivity with a "slow" Mac has caught up to where you are with a PC after using it for only 5 months, just imagine where you'll be a full year into your learning curve.

If you actually take the time and see benchmarks of X58 1366 Platform, you'll truly realize the differences, and how productive it really is in comparison to an Mac and the older LGA 775 Platform.. and thats because of hardware changes..

I've already seen benchmarks for the i7. Its a nice bump, but in the bigger picture, it merely shows that Moore's Law is still in effect. Simply wait another few months and there will invariably be yet another even newer chip that's even faster and/or as fast but cheaper.

And even if you go buy an i7, the problem you have is that it can't make you type your forum posts any faster, so what have you really accomplished besides increase your %-idle value from 90% idle to 99% idle?

It is such individualized utilization issues that are making the hardware merely "one piece" of the whole as opposed to being the only piece.

And the flip side is that if you really need the power of the i7 today, then you shouldn't have a MacBook, but at least a MacBook Pro and someone's (Apple, Dell, whoever) Dual Quad Xeon workstation for the desktop iron.

Since that's obviously not the case, then all you really want are egotistical weenie-waving bragging rights to make "Vroom! Vroom!" sounds while trying to figure out how to run your pirated Adobe software. What college did you claim to be going to again?


-hh

 

[JamesGorman]

macs are faster than any pc ive ever used, and ive used sum machines that cost 2000 dollars+. My macbook anhilates all of those computers. Its nto cause os the hardware either. Its the OS. and once snow leopard comes out its gonna kill any windows OS, and any pc configurations.

 

[shokunin]

Heres me using Windows 7, its 1min clip you get to see how bad windows is .

Windows 7
theres a bit of lag, but its cuz of camtasia 6.0.. oh and my pc is 2yrs old

I'm a user both OS's and your video is exactly why I hate windows. How many times did you go to start->programs-> scroll, scroll, srolll... Now to be fair I use and LOVE Quicksilver on OSX. I can launch any program with a couple of keystrokes. I haven't found anything as fast nor as responsive on Windows platform. Those that I did find needed to be setup or short-cut keys defined, which isn't what I want. The closet I've found is Skylight on windows, but it's buggy.

For me, I'm far more productive on my Mac Pro with Final Cut studio than I ever was on my previous Opteron workstation with Sony Vegas or Avid. Processor speed is only one part of the "productivity" equation. Find a platform that works for you then use it, be it Mac, PC, Linux, etc.

 

[Yamcha]

I'm a user both OS's and your video is exactly why I hate windows. How many times did you go to start->programs-> scroll, scroll, srolll... Now to be fair I use and LOVE Quicksilver on OSX. I can launch any program with a couple of keystrokes. I haven't found anything as fast nor as responsive on Windows platform. Those that I did find needed to be setup or short-cut keys defined, which isn't what I want. The closet I've found is Skylight on windows, but it's buggy.

For me, I'm far more productive on my Mac Pro with Final Cut studio than I ever was on my previous Opteron workstation with Sony Vegas or Avid. Processor speed is only one part of the "productivity" equation. Find a platform that works for you then use it, be it Mac, PC, Linux, etc.

Yeah i understand that, but with Windows 7 you could actually put application in the "Dock".. I didn't because I like it clean.. But I understand you could have that issue with Vista, unless your ok with putting shortcuts on ur desktop..

 

[Yamcha]

@ -hh

I'm not bragging, Im showing people what my PC runs like, because I don't understand why there are even complaints, "PC is slow", this that.. I haven't encountered those issues, but then Im an advanced user, and I know what sites to avoid to not get those viruses/spyware...

I don't understand why u bring up my personal issues into this argument =/, like college or me downloading software.. Its not what its about..

Im simply trying to say PC's don't suck! and that if you do want to save money, then going for PC is def the smarter choice.. But if money is not an issue, and you want a Mac then by all means get one.

Im just tired of ppl saying PC sucks.. And if you have a look at video I posted you see that I don't have performance issues, and my PC is 2 yrs old.. and Im betting it'll last a couple years more..

The fact that some people say "You get more done on a Mac", imo is just a plain LIE, the things you see in Mac ads are overly exaggerated.

Ive used OSX before, and I really like it, Im a fan since I was a kid, and I'm a designer, a lot of designers these days use Macs, and those are actually one of the reasons I've been thinking about getting an iMac.. because its used in the design industry for the most part, and if I were ever to get into an office I should know what im doing on OSX..

But I am not seeing the "More Productive" side of OSX, I think it works aswell as Windows, except you never have to worry about viruses, at least yet , and its fairly stable, though I have experienced crashes in both OSX and Windows..

Me Using Windows 7

 

[AidenShaw]

macs are faster than any pc ive ever used, and ive used sum machines that cost 2000 dollars+. My macbook anhilates all of those computers. Its nto cause os the hardware either. Its the OS. and once snow leopard comes out its gonna kill any windows OS, and any pc configurations.

Yes dear, Would you like another glass of Kool-Aid?
__________

You may have used "sum" machines that cost $2000, but the memory alone in my main system was $5k (bloody FB-DIMMs ).

Did you know that Windows 7 has new thread libraries (something that Apple calls "Grand Central") and APIs for GPGPU (that's that "OpenCL" thing of Apples).

Did you realize that any Apple machine is actually almost identical to a PC config? (The converse is not true - on the PC side we can get reasonably priced quad core desktop and Core i7 systems.)

I laugh at your post, sorry.
__________

ps: You should get a new keyboard which works for the capitalization and punctuation that was missing from your post.

 

[shokunin]

macs are faster than any pc ive ever used, and ive used sum machines that cost 2000 dollars+. My macbook anhilates all of those computers. Its nto cause os the hardware either. Its the OS. and once snow leopard comes out its gonna kill any windows OS, and any pc configurations.

As much as I prefer to use OS X, Leopard is RAM hog, a fat pig that eats RAM. Sure it is fast IF you have enough RAM, kind of like Vista. XP is far lighter in RAM requirements and you could get by with far less. I feel 1GB is the absolute bare minimum on the Mac, 2GB if you're going to do any heavy multi-tasking. Getting 1GB isn't an issue these days, but a couple of years ago when Macs came with 512MB of RAM, OS X sucks on those machines. Beach ball city.

My first whitebook Core Duo machine (Tiger) felt slower than XP in bootcamp, that is until I upgraded to 2GB of RAM. Even then, it didn't quite have the "snap" in some actions and it still lacks some snappiness..

 

[-hh]

@ -hh

I'm not bragging, Im showing people what my PC runs like...

Here's a hint for you: that's bragging.

Im simply trying to say PC's don't suck!

Agreed; and Macs don't suck either.
But you don't want to hear that second part.

and that if you do want to save money, then going for PC is def the smarter choice..

This claim is not necessarily true.

Holistically, it depends on more factors than merely its initial purchase price, such as lifecycle cost, or other metrics such as delivered workplace productivity.

But you don't want to hear this part either. All you care about is the initial pricetag and ignore the rest of the lifecycle considerations. Yours is a common approach to finances, but it is generally a shortsighted one.

Im just tired of ppl saying PC sucks..

I've clearly ...and repeatedly...said that PC's don't suck, but you protest, apparently because I also dare to say that Macs don't suck either. WTF is your problem, boy?

And if you have a look at video I posted you see that I don't have performance issues...

What I saw was that you have a productivity issue, since you didn't actually accomplish anything other than to get ready to work by opening a few Apps. When you've finally accomplished some real work, call.

The fact that some people say "You get more done on a Mac", imo is just a plain LIE, the things you see in Mac ads are overly exaggerated.

Of course marketing includes hype.

However, as I've already told you before, the OS platform does make a difference in productivity - - but it does matter what sorts of tasks you're doing. As such, some people will be more productive on a Mac (and some on a PC). What's best for one person isn't necessarily best for another ... or everyone. This shouldn't be a hard concept for anyone to grasp. And here's a little industry secret: sometimes it doesn't make any meaningful difference whatsoever.

Ive used OSX before, and I really like it, Im a fan since I was a kid, and I'm a designer, a lot of designers these days use Macs, and those are actually one of the reasons I've been thinking about getting an iMac.. because its used in the design industry for the most part, and if I were ever to get into an office I should know what im doing on OSX..

If its your industry standard, you had better get used to it, even if you don't like it. And no, it doesn't matter which OS we're talking about...this is a two way street.

But I am not seeing the "More Productive" side of OSX, I think it works as well as Windows..

"As well as" yet despite inferior hardware.
Hmm...maybe its time to ponder those implications?

And 'being a fan' isn't necessarily the same as 'being a real world user'. There's things you learn about the warts of both OS's by really living with them every day, week after week, month after month, for a few years. If you still love Windows, the more power to you, but I can advise you that after several years, it no longer is "fun" to go mucking through the Registry to fix things.


-hh

 

[zer0tails]

I agree Leopard is ram hungry. This fact has been hidden thus far because most macs come with 2GB ram as standard. I do hope Snow Leopard fixes this.

 

[AidenShaw]

...because most macs come with 2GB ram as standard. I do hope Snow Leopard fixes this.

It will. OSX 10.6 will require a minimum of 6 GiB of RAM. More if you want to use "Grand Central" or "OpenCL".

 

[Apollo21]

-hh, older age and good spelling do not a logical argument make. Perhaps you criticize college students because you wish you had gone and learned how to reason like an intelligent person. Allow me to help you.

Here's a hint for you: that's bragging.

No, that's providing experimental evidence for a hypothesis.

Agreed; and Macs don't suck either.
But you don't want to hear that second part.

This is pretty remarkable because it's as if you can't even read:

Ive used OSX before, and I really like it, Im a fan since I was a kid

Holistically, it depends on more factors than merely its initial purchase price, such as lifecycle cost, or other metrics such as delivered workplace productivity.

But you don't want to hear this part either. All you care about is the initial pricetag and ignore the rest of the lifecycle considerations. Yours is a common approach to finances, but it is generally a shortsighted one.

Same hardware = same lifecycle cost. And Yamcha argues that productivity is the same. So no, he hasn't ignored your other factors.

If its your industry standard, you had better get used to it, even if you don't like it. And no, it doesn't matter which OS we're talking about...this is a two way street.

Here and in the rest of the post you agree with him but don't seem to realize it and argue pointlessly.

You should stop focusing on arguing for its own sake, and focus on reading comprehension and the formation of logical arguments if your viewpoint actually differs from the other person. Just a suggestion.

 

[EmperorDarius]

A comment on the claim that PCs are faster than Macs:

They may be, but only when talking about raw power.
For instance, when talking about rendering time of a 3D animation app.
However, how much important is that gain of time if that 3D animation app keeps freezing/crashing while rendering? (which happens so frequently with Windows)?
You may have the most powerful hardware you can get, but if your OS cannot administrate it properly, it is a waste of money. And from my experience, Windows isn't and never was able to use resources properly. OS X and Linux can. They both run naturally faster than Windows on the same hardware, with much less freezes and crashes.

 

[-hh]

Here's a hint for you: that's bragging.

No, that's providing experimental evidence for a hypothesis.

It was an essentially irrelevant demonstration because the point was that value comes from applied productivity, not benchmarks. His demonstration didn't do anything that illustrated any pragmatic relevance to productivity.

For example, had he shown us how long it takes to process a particular unsharp mask on a 200MP photo, that would have some productivity relevance. Better still would have been the broader typically workflow: from original camera import and cataloging, through adjustments, to the printer.

Agreed; and Macs don't suck either.
But you don't want to hear that second part.

This is pretty remarkable because it's as if you can't even read:

(he claims that he likes OS X)

And Yamcha argues that productivity is the same, with a slower Mac. But he then disregards his own observation and claims that faster raw hardware is the most important.

Yes, it is true that faster hardware is a good thing, when all other variables are held constant.

But all other variables aren't being held constant. And Yamcha has admitted that he has seen this firsthand.

From Yamcha, in simplistic summary form:

(Fast HW)(Windows) = Productivity Level 'X'
(Slow HW)(OS X) = Productivity Level 'X'

We also know:

(Fast HW) > (Slow HW)

And we've also been told by Yamcha:

(Windows) = (OS X)


Which results in:

(Fast HW)(Windows) = Productivity Level 'X' = (Slow HW)(OS X)

(Fast HW)(Windows) = (Slow HW)(OS X)

Performing a substitution:

(Fast HW)(Windows) = (Slow HW)(Windows)

(Fast HW)(Windows) = (Slow HW)(Windows)
(Windows) blank space (Windows)


(Fast HW) = (Slow HW)

... which we know is untrue.​

We can go work this through a couple of other ways, but the fact is that we'll always find that it can't ever be reconciled because it contains a logical self-contradiction.

Same hardware = same lifecycle cost.

Only if all other factors are equal, but we know that this is not true.

As such, you've made a truthful-but-irrelevant 'Motherhood' statement.


-hh

 

[diamond.g]

I'm a user both OS's and your video is exactly why I hate windows. How many times did you go to start->programs-> scroll, scroll, srolll...

I don't understand why anyone would use the programs menu anymore. There is a search bar that grabs focus as soon as you press the windows key. type the name of the app or document and press enter. If you really want you can make keyboard shortcuts for programs quite easily. There is a shortcut option in the properties menu for most (if not all) executables.

 

[charlituna]

feb 06th, still no sign of imac or apple special event ...
!

The only folks that said either was going to happen were rumor sites. Apple never said anything, much less an imac was coming out this month. and any special event would send out invites at least a good two weeks before so media could make travel arrangements.

all apple said was that nothing was going too be released before 2009, and that was like a month after the notebook thing. who knows when a release might happen, why it hasn't, what the specs will be. until Apple answers these questions it's all rumors no matter whose analyst says anything or how many 'well placed sources' a site has.

If you need a computer now, buy it. if you are just toying with the idea of getting a new computer you can probably wait. but if you don't, it's not like there is a kill switch that makes the one you bought today suddenly stop working because something more bad ass was released. the only thing you might do to CYA is look at the expected system requirements for Snow Leopard and if you have plans to run that OS make sure your system is more likely to be solid under that than not.

Unlike you I'm not rich, Im a student, and a designer, I couldn't possibly afford Adobe Creative Suite, If i do download it, I do it for the intention of learning something,

Any statement of 'logic' is just lipstick on a pig.

as a student, there are student discounts, there are school labs, there are dozens of ways to legally get access to software you need for school without ripping it off. there are even places you can get grants and super low rate loans to buy such things if you bothered to look.

Psystar hasn't yet won in court.

more to the point, Apple hasn't. although they are more likely to so Psystar by not pulling the clones is just digging themselves deeper and deeper into damages for every machine sold. if they were smart they would have frozen that area until they had legal clearance and then they could have demanded damages for sales lost.

I agree Leopard is ram hungry. This fact has been hidden thus far because most macs come with 2GB ram as standard. I do hope Snow Leopard fixes this.

from the sounds of it, that is exactly the type of stuff that Snow Leopard is striving to improve

 

[macmee]

@ -hh

I'm not bragging, Im showing people what my PC runs like, because I don't understand why there are even complaints, "PC is slow", this that.. I haven't encountered those issues, but then Im an advanced user, and I know what sites to avoid to not get those viruses/spyware...

Just because you haven't encountered issues with Windows doesn't mean other people haven't.

I don't understand why u bring up my personal issues into this argument =/, like college or me downloading software.. Its not what its about..

Because downloading on a PC can have far worse impact than downloading on a Mac.

Im simply trying to say PC's don't suck! and that if you do want to save money, then going for PC is def the smarter choice.. But if money is not an issue, and you want a Mac then by all means get one.

PCs don't suck...it's Vista that sucks. OSX is just better than Windows in general .

Im just tired of ppl saying PC sucks..

Then get off the Mac forums.

And if you have a look at video I posted you see that I don't have performance issues, and my PC is 2 yrs old.. and Im betting it'll last a couple years more..

Telling us it's two years old is irrelevant. What's your PC's specifications?

The fact that some people say "You get more done on a Mac", imo is just a plain LIE, the things you see in Mac ads are overly exaggerated.

Of course those adds are over exaggerated. You can get the same amount of work done better on OSX.

Ive used OSX before, and I really like it, Im a fan since I was a kid, and I'm a designer, a lot of designers these days use Macs, and those are actually one of the reasons I've been thinking about getting an iMac.. because its used in the design industry for the most part, and if I were ever to get into an office I should know what im doing on OSX..

But I am not seeing the "More Productive" side of OSX, I think it works aswell as Windows, except you never have to worry about viruses, at least yet , and its fairly stable, though I have experienced crashes in both OSX and Windows..

I've been using this iMac for several months now and it's the first Mac I've owned since I switched from a Windows Machine. I never freeze running OSX. Windows Vista on the other hand was a nightmare. Everything was sluggish, and froze more. The incompatibillity from XP to Vista was terrible, yet the incompatibillity from Tiger to Leopard was almost non-existant.
My Windows machine had the same duo core processor as this Mac, and more RAM. Yet it was on my iMac where I could watch a movie, and multitask at the same time. On Windows I always knew what was running because most every application made an inpact as to how fast my machine was running. On my iMac I wont even notice that I have VMware Fusion running Windows XP in the background, or two Firefox windows open, the idle one using 12 tabs.

Look at it this way, my 1.6Ghz Intel Atom Netbook runs XP. I look at Vista Netbook users. Everything is 4x slower than it should be and booting up takes 2 minutes too long. Then I look at the users who illegally run OSX on their Netbooks (I don't condone OSX on non-Apple machines mind you). OSX runs just as good on their Intel Atom netbooks as it does on a modern MacBook. In general Leopard runs better on old old Macs than Vista does on old old PCs.

 

[Apollo21]

-hh:

I apologize for my rudeness and respect that you took the high road. My observations were limited to page 12 of this thread. Having looked back a page I see more illogical statements coming from Yamcha than you.

While I appreciate your algebraic reasoning, we both know there are too many factors to make it compelling. Can you explain what you define as "lifecycle cost"? It sounded to me like a property of the hardware and software, which would exclude the nebulous "user productivity factor." If that is the case I don't see how a Mac would come out on top.

EDIT: I just realized what you were missing from your equations. Yamcha's main argument is that PCs give more value for the money. So the point is that (Windows)(Fast HW) $<$ (OS X)(Slow HW) while the productivity of the 2 sides is equal.

 

[megastuff999]

Yamcha - it's impossible to say this without being condescending so I'll just come out with it...

You are clearly young and inexperienced. Try owning a Mac for a few years and then decide whether it is overpriced or not compared to the Windows equivalent. You will probably have to pay for one, which seemingly goes against everything you stand for though...

Some of us have been using the various systems Mac/Windows/Linux etc before you grew curly downstairs hair. We know everything that Windows has to offer. It does have some virtues, including a cheap initial cost. But that doesn't equate to a low cost of ownership. Some people earn money with their system and in that respect the higher resale (something a beige box PC won't have) value and non-existant (near enough) trouble shooting of a Mac makes it far better value than even a free PC. Your i7 box will be worthless in 2 years, my iMac, slower in hardware though it may be, will not.

I suggest you be quiet for a bit now so the grown ups can talk.

 

[shokunin]

Your i7 box will be worthless in 2 years, my iMac, slower in hardware though it may be, will not.

Macs typically have higher resale, when I sold my whitebook, I was quite surprised at how much value it still had after 2 1/2 years. The resale on any of my prior Windows DIY systems was horrible. $250 mobo's will be $60 or less, same with the processor, RAM, hard drive, etc all get killed in resale. On the other hand, I still see Mac Mini G4's from 3+ years ago selling for $350.

Come-on Apple, send out invites to the press this month, I want to see Quad iMacs!! If you want my money this quarter, you know what you need to do, and if you update the Mini, I'll buy one of those too.

 

[cwwilson]

I am within a couple of weeks of buying my new Mac and if push comes to shove and I don't quite have enough for the MBP I'm wanting, I was going to get an iMac. Either the 2.66 20" or the 2.8 24". I've been out of the loop for a long time in the Mac world and am just curious...Is the current iMac on the way out? I have heard they're not as widely available now as they used to be. And I sure would LOVE to have a quad-core if at all possible.

 

[iMacmatician]

I've been out of the loop for a long time in the Mac world and am just curious...Is the current iMac on the way out? I have heard they're not as widely available now as they used to be.

That usually means an update is coming soon.

And I sure would LOVE to have a quad-core if at all possible.

There has been rumor and speculation pointing to desktop quad-cores. The quad-cores that are likely to go in the iMac are of similar prices to mobile dual-cores with similar GHz.

 

[SACD02]

Irrelevant, since Hardware is merely one small piece of the whole.

Wow!
It wasn't that long ago you guys used to say PowerPC (which was supposed to toast intel) was a major reason to buy a mac because it provided better performance aka Photoshop benchmarks. Many hours in keynotes were spent showing how PowerPC and using better hardware was a critical factor in Mac's supremacy. Hardware was supposed to be a big part of Apple's platform (Apple is a hardware company)

Now, all of a sudden, hardware becomes a small piece of a whole?
Before, you could get away with PowerPC vs. Intel benchmarks because it was Apples (no pun intended) to oranges. Now that benchmarks can be done and you guys will lose the hardware performance test (and have no way to get away with it), hardware becomes a small piece..... Yeah Right!

Stop drinking that kool aid!

 

[TheAshMan]

...
You may have the most powerful hardware you can get, but if your OS cannot administrate it properly, it is a waste of money. And from my experience, Windows isn't and never was able to use resources properly. OS X and Linux can. They both run naturally faster than Windows on the same hardware, with much less freezes and crashes.

I would agree with that statement prior to Leopard which in my experience on multiple machines at work has been the most unstable and more has problems than XP and Vista. Leopard has some great new features and I love OS X, but this thing felt incomplete the moment it was released --note the major Dock, network, and firewall corrections since. It has gotten better, but I still have issues that flare up on an almost daily basis. I think it suffered a lot because Apple developers had to work on the iPhone. With its predecessors Tiger and Jaguar I had almost no problems, except for slow Spotlight in Tiger (which they fixed in Leopard.) It is 95% there as an incredible OS, but it OS X still has a number of shortcomings in functionality.

 

[EmperorDarius]

I would agree with that statement prior to Leopard which in my experience on multiple machines at work has been the most unstable and more has problems than XP and Vista. Leopard has some great new features and I love OS X, but this thing felt incomplete the moment it was released --note the major Dock, network, and firewall corrections since. It has gotten better, but I still have issues that flare up on an almost daily basis. I think it suffered a lot because Apple developers had to work on the iPhone. With its predecessors Tiger and Jaguar I had almost no problems, except for slow Spotlight in Tiger (which they fixed in Leopard.) It is 95% there as an incredible OS, but it OS X still has a number of shortcomings in functionality.

Well I haven't experienced many problems with Leopard (very few really), but I know that a number of people have (especially with problematic updates). I think that it really has improved a lot compared to initial releases, and although it's not 'perfect', IMO it's still a lot stabler than Windows. I just can't imagine how many problems I had only with the registry, all of which were vanished...by not using one.

 

[JamesGorman]

Yes dear, Would you like another glass of Kool-Aid?
__________

You may have used "sum" machines that cost $2000, but the memory alone in my main system was $5k (bloody FB-DIMMs ).

Did you know that Windows 7 has new thread libraries (something that Apple calls "Grand Central") and APIs for GPGPU (that's that "OpenCL" thing of Apples).

Did you realize that any Apple machine is actually almost identical to a PC config? (The converse is not true - on the PC side we can get reasonably priced quad core desktop and Core i7 systems.)

I laugh at your post, sorry.
__________

ps: You should get a new keyboard which works for the capitalization and punctuation that was missing from your post.

Honestly, theres no need to worry about how i type, this is a forum, Not a freaking english class so you need to relax. And yes, i did know that any apple machine is pretty much identical to a pc configuration. Likewise, that helps me prove my point. If you take two systems with the same config, One being an Apple, The other a pc, the apple will trump the pc, hands down. I also was aware that Windows was incorporating those features in there OS, and they should be. Any OS that is coming out in todays technologically advanced world should have those features.