iOS and OSX should become ONE OS

[betabeta]

I do not see OSX ever coming to any iPad version, rather see ios gaining all the power and the features of OSX and iOS will slowly cannibalize OSX.

So when a 13" iPad comes out with an attaching keyboard, what do you do? put OSX on it? I don't think so, so you put iOS on it? again we probably need or want some of the features or interface of OSX. So what do you do on this in between device?

The best solution is for one smart OS, that brings the features and power of OSX and adds intelligent switching ie: it knows when you attached a mouse and switches the os interface slightly, put it on a TV and again changes interface, but maintains a fluidity between all of the interfaces.

One OS that understands how you want to use it, and all the apps should become universal. Even styles could change depending on the device, icons on the phone could be flat, icons on a large screen could be highly realistic and even show more live info.

Each device should run the same OS, BUT each device should intelligently conform to the device or even situation so the interface changes, they sort of do that between the iPad and iPhone now, but it should be much better.

One OS in long term is better for developers and better for users.

 

[SkyBell]

The day Apple fuses iOS and OS X is the day I am fully abandoning the company.

 

[Michael Goff]

Either they'd have to move OS X to ARM or iOS to Intel. And neither of those look like they're really going to happen, or at least I hope they don't move OS X to ARM.

 

[leman]

It already is a one OS (iOS and OS X share much of their codebase). Furthermore, it is not possible for iOS to 'gain power os OS X', because its uses a quite different programming model tailored to small touchscreen devices. It would be much easier to extend OS X with touch support (it already includes most of other iOS-based stuff anyway) than the other way around. BTW, 'intelligent' solutions like you want (better described as 'neither fish nor fowl') usually do not work.

 

[Michael Goff]

It already is a one OS (iOS and OS X share much of their codebase). Furthermore, it is not possible for iOS to 'gain power os OS X', because its uses a quite different programming model tailored to small touchscreen devices. It would be much easier to extend OS X with touch support (it already includes most of other iOS-based stuff anyway) than the other way around. BTW, 'intelligent' solutions like you want (better described as 'neither fish nor fowl') usually do not work.

No, they very much are two different Operating Systems.

 

[leman]

Either they'd have to move OS X to ARM or iOS to Intel. And neither of those look like they're really going to happen, or at least I hope they don't move OS X to ARM.

This doesn't make any sense. Supporting multiple CPU architectures is not such a big deal. Currently they have at least four, maybe more (including CPU-specific optimisations).

 

[Michael Goff]

This doesn't make any sense. Supporting multiple CPU architectures is not such a big deal. Currently they have at least four, maybe more (including CPU-specific optimisations).

Except he's talking about an OS that "smart switches" between iOS and OS X. To be able to do that, you would essentially have to have one OS. That OS would have to be able run everything iOS does right now and everything that OS X does. ARM applications do not run on the x86 platform without emulation, and emulators don't give good performance at all. And the opposite is doubly true, ARM cannot emulate x86 in any meaningful way.

Supporting different architectures with multiple versions of the OS is one thing. Supporting them all within the same OS at the same time would be amazingly groundbreaking and at this point impossible. It's just a reality at this point.

Or are you able to play Infinity Blade 3 on your MacBook Air without an emulator as of today?

 

[TheRainKing]

It would probably take a lot of effort to make an OS that's advanced enough to change it's UI and other elements depending on the device it's running on. Not to mention all the 3rd party apps that would have to do the same thing. It's probably easier to just keep the operating systems separate.

 

[leman]

No, they very much are two different Operating Systems.

No they are not at all 'very much different'.

Both are based on the same kernel (Darwin), both use the same programming frameworks and the same runtime, even the API sets are largely equivalent. The UI of iPhone is based on the Core Animation Framework, which is part of OS X as well. iOS uses sandboxes for each of its applications (btw, the same tech is also present on OS X) and includes only necessary services. Other than that, its pretty much the same OS X as the one running on the desktop.

If you want to know more about these things, I can refer you to this very nice book: http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-iOS-Internals-Apples/dp/1118057651

----------

Except he's talking about an OS that "smart switches" between iOS and OS X. To be able to do that, you would essentially have to have one OS. That OS would have to be able run everything iOS does right now and everything that OS X does. ARM applications do not run on the x86 platform without emulation, and emulators don't give good performance at all. And the opposite is doubly true, ARM cannot emulate x86 in any meaningful way.

Supporting different architectures with multiple versions of the OS is one thing. Supporting them all within the same OS at the same time would be amazingly groundbreaking and at this point impossible. It's just a reality at this point.

Or are you able to play Infinity Blade 3 on your MacBook Air without an emulator as of today?

Why are you referring to yourself in third person? That quote was from you. Anyway.

Its quite trivial to write a compiler that translates ARM code to x86 one. And given that ARM CPUs are slower anyway, a small performance hit would be absolutely tolerable. And for your information, Xcode includes an iOS hardware emulator for developers. It actually usually runs faster than the 'real' hardware.

Support for multiple architectures has been done often and is not such a big deal. See Rosetta.

 

[betabeta]

Except he's talking about an OS that "smart switches" between iOS and OS X. To be able to do that, you would essentially have to have one OS. That OS would have to be able run everything iOS does right now and everything that OS X does. ARM applications do not run on the x86 platform without emulation, and emulators don't give good performance at all. And the opposite is doubly true, ARM cannot emulate x86 in any meaningful way.

Supporting different architectures with multiple versions of the OS is one thing. Supporting them all within the same OS at the same time would be amazingly groundbreaking and at this point impossible. It's just a reality at this point.

Or are you able to play Infinity Blade 3 on your MacBook Air without an emulator as of today?

Perfect! Amazingly Groundbreaking is what Tim Cook will say when he takes the stage

Either way I feel it can be done, and you bring up another good point, how about a single architecture across all devices. I knew they kept Bob around for something groundbreaking.

 

[ELSELS]

The day Apple fuses iOS and OS X is the day I am fully abandoning the company.

Yes, makes sense to NOT join.. the two separate OS..

 

[Michael Goff]

No they are not at all 'very much different'.

Both are based on the same kernel (Darwin), both use the same programming frameworks and the same runtime, even the API sets are largely equivalent. The UI of iPhone is based on the Core Animation Framework, which is part of OS X as well. iOS uses sandboxes for each of its applications (btw, the same tech is also present on OS X) and includes only necessary services. Other than that, its pretty much the same OS X as the one running on the desktop.

If you want to know more about these things, I can refer you to this very nice book: http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-iOS-Internals-Apples/dp/1118057651

----------



Why are you referring to yourself in third person? That quote was from you. Anyway.

Its quite trivial to write a compiler that translates ARM code to x86 one. And given that ARM CPUs are slower anyway, a small performance hit would be absolutely tolerable. And for your information, Xcode includes an iOS hardware emulator for developers. It actually usually runs faster than the 'real' hardware.

Support for multiple architectures has been done often and is not such a big deal. See Rosetta.

He refers to the OP, not me. Also, an Intel I-processor can, indeed emulate ARM at a faster speed than the ARM chip itself provides. I don't see Apple providing tablets with an I processor, though. The battery life just isn't there, and they likely will never be there in comparison to ARM. Also, Rosetta was an emulator, if I remember correctly.

Perfect! Amazingly Groundbreaking is what Tim Cook will say when he takes the stage

Either way I feel it can be done, and you bring up another good point, how about a single architecture across all devices. I knew they kept Bob around for something groundbreaking.

It would be groundbreaking to be able to do it without emulation.

 

[ErikGrim]

Ask Microsoft how their compromised unified system is working.

 

[tripleg]

Hoping Apple does not do this. I'm looking to get an iMac in another month or two and don't want to look at an ugly flat white blurry mess of a UI. Please no.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

The day Apple fuses iOS and OS X is the day I am fully abandoning the company.

Why?

You have no idea what it would look like.

A computer is a tool. I don't care if it is powered by a hamster on a wheel with a stone tablet input as long as I can get from A-Z in the most efficient/cost effective way possible.

Apple has been pretty clear that its iOS lineup is for media consumption and its OSX lineup is for media production.

If they can fuse the two OSes more power to them as long as I am still able to consumer and produce media in the most efficient manner possible.

Post like this remind me why I absolutely HATE IT. IT just like any other technology is just a support function of a business yet time after time you get arrogant 'geeks' telling you how to run a company via technology when technology is just a tool to assist core business functions.

Ug. Better stop before I go into an SAP rant.

 

[myrtlebee]

The operating systems depend on the mode of interaction as well as the limitations of the hardware. With that in mind, they could never become one OS unless Macs go fully touch and iPads and iPhones receive notebook or desktop hardware -- neither of which is practical presently. Let's revisit this in 10 or 15 years and the story could be different.

 

[Michael Goff]

Ask Microsoft how their compromised unified system is working.

Even Microsoft isn't at one OS yet, they've already admitted that.

 

[VulchR]

If OS X loses any of its UNIX-like functionality, then I will have to abandon Apple's ecosystem. Some of us actually do serious data analysis on the Mac, and the walled garden approach of iOS would simply get in the way (to the extent that it is implemented in OS X, it already gets in the way).

 

[MarcusCarpenter]

NOOOO that would be the worst move ever, we don't want a mobilised POS like windows 8. OS 10 in it's current state is perfect, i agree it should be more uniformed to match iOS7 as Mavericks GM don't yet. But never just one OS.

I WILL THROW MY BRANDNEW MBP 15INCH AT THE WALL IF THEY DO THAT

 

[Antoni Nygaard]

I don't want my iPad to become a Surface with system taking up more than 10Gb just because they want it se to system wide OS

 

[monolithic]

No.

OS X doesn't require the 'closed' nature of iOS. It should be the way it is now. In fact iOS can take some things from OS X.

 

[robjulo]

Great idea. So all my mac documents become sandboxed and I can't attach files to existing emails.

 

[roadbloc]

I think the idea worked well for Microsoft with Windows 8, but many people disagree, so I guess it's probably best if Apple continued pleasing its fans and didn't bother.

But I do think the dual interface of Windows 8 is a brilliant idea.

 

[Smeaton1724]

Problem with a unified OS is the bloat that it would bring. One solution does not fit all. The way it has developed over time with mobile (Intel) and super mobile (ARM) architectures works well. Over time I expect this to expand to Ultra mobile architectures - just a scaled down version of ARM.

History has shown that portable devices require super simple interfaces, optimised software and streamlined approach for mass adoption of the technology- i.e iOS and Android. This won't change, if anything software will have to get simpler for wearable tech.
EG: iPhone, iPad.

Desktop OS's don't need this, they are the garden shed, the tinkering in the garage type devices that are powerful, filled with ideas, messy file systems and workhorse devices. This OS needs to be functional, powerful and customisable.
E.G iMac, Mac Pro, Macbook.

This is where Apple can dominate, Microsoft have gone whole hog touch, it's simply a blinkered strategy and not suitable to the way anyone has ever worked.

 

[marktuk]

And... How many threads are there already on this?

And how many posts are there like this? You could just cut and paste these post in to any thread on the forum, seriously what's the point?