what must 10.6 do to justify its price tag

Discussion in 'macOS' started by ert3, Jun 8, 2008.

  1. ert3 macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #1
    What would make you shell out $130 for a new version of OS:X.

    for me it would be the following
    ZFS integration.
    More Linux libraries (For things like compiz fusion)
    DirectX (while not a need it would be nice)
    More native 64bit apps.
    Extended multitouch features that will work on current multitouch macs.
     
  2. p.luik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Faribault, MN
  3. G4R2 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    #3
    I'm not crazy about mulitouch support simply because it would force a hardware upgrade on most Mac users. The only users who would really benefit from it are Mac Pro users if a touch sensitive Cinema Display is released. Some iMac users would go for that as well but it would diminish the appeal of that model. And all laptop users wouldn't be able to use it on the road.

    Additionally, I'm not convinced that multitouch is useful or practical for the current form factor of computers. Leaving aside the cost of an upgrade and even the blemishes that such an interface would leave on pristine compuer screens, the UI just doesn't seem to be practical for desktop apps. Will users really reach across their desktops to touch the screens in order to invoke a zoom in or a swipe when a mouse is more convenient, albeit less glamorous, for these functions? Perhaps on multitouch enabled laptops this would be a better course but that runs into the above mentioned problem of leaving all current users out of the game.

    Instead, I think a far more appealing and practical alternative to multitouch is motion tracking. There are many reasons why this is more appealing. First, virtually all users could use this feature if it were implemented now. All current iMacs and Mac laptops come with a built in camera. And cameras are available for Cinema Displays as well. This doubles the utility of the built in iSights, which seem to be under used anyway for their intended video conferencing purposes. No one would be required to purchase new hardware, which may be prohibitively expensive, in order to gain access to these features.

    And secondly, perhaps more importantly, it's a more practical UI, at least in the interim until the hardware form factors properly adopt to multitouch. Users won't have to reach across their desks to touch their screens. And screens won't be covered with smudges.

    How close are we to seeing this in OS X? Very close, even if Apple doesn't include it. Take for instance this soon to be released freeware application for OS X, Vista, and Linux that is presently in beta:

    http://camspace.com/

    Such an implementation wouldn't only hopskip Windows again, which recently added multitouch to Windows 7. It would also push into the same space that Nintendo has succesfully pioneered with the Wii.
     
  4. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #4
    The big three S's.

    Security
    Speed
    Stability

    Features are not something that I believe are that important in an OS, although obviously ZFS is an OS feature and one which I hope is included. I'm hoping Apple does not introduce any more bells and whistles.

    As for your suggestions:

    DirectX - Never going to happen. Microsoft would be foolish to license it and lose the one advantage they have.

    Linux libraries - Just about all Linux libraries compile fine on Mac OS X already. Compiz Fusion is different matter as it requires a different window manager which Mac OS X does not support.

    64 bit apps - That is up to developers. There are no applications that come bundled with OS X that would benefit at all from being 64 bit. The only Apple applications that would are their pro applications.
     
  5. fishkorp macrumors 68020

    fishkorp

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Location:
    Ellicott City, MD
    #5
    Wouldn't this be more of the hardware and the DVD player software, not the OS?

    And I thought the nVidia cards already had HDCP support? I thought at least the specs on the Santa Rosa MBPs claimed they were HDCP compliant?
     
  6. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #6
    The cards support it but the drivers do not I believe.
     
  7. p.luik macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Location:
    Faribault, MN
    #7
    DVD Player would need blu-ray support. I also agree that speed and stability could be increased.
     
  8. ert3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #8
    While I agree with everything else you said Compiz fusion works through both X11 and Xorg. Both of which can be used on OSX as a native desktop environment.
     
  9. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #9
    I want it to be faster...

    Thats all I want, and I will drop 130$ on it.

    I want the Graphics to be faster all around, for the GUI, and gaming.

    I want the OS to run all the apps faster and take better advantage of Multicores and SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4.

    Everything else can be exactly the same.
     
  10. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #10
    Fast OS switching and better speed. That would sell it to me.
     
  11. Tom B. macrumors 65816

    Tom B.

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #11
    Resolution Independence, amongst other previous suggestions.

    However I would prefer if it was added to Leopard as promised.
     
  12. BlakTornado Guest

    BlakTornado

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Location:
    Washington, OH
    #12
    Plus DirectX is horrible and annoying.


    I think Apple providing a nice, integrated multi-touch solution for EVERYBODY (well, all the people who can run 10.6 on their Mac but can't change the monitor) would be a deal breaker. The current iMacs would suit Multi-Touch really well, but only supplying Multi-touch to computers made AFTER the release of 10.6 would be rather disappointing. A way for Apple to install (or the user to install) the Multi-touch panel would be nice (whether it be a replacement of the glass panel or a thing to put under the glass and connect up to a USB port)

    Umm and probably some significant update to the dock that makes it better somehow, a tabbable Finder with integrated FTP client (one can dream), and some sort of awesome feature like Spaces or Quick Look that saves loads of time.

    I dunno. Some innovative stuff would be nice.
     
  13. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #13
    Native support for Windows applications (a la Rosetta) so that you won't need boot camp Windows installations or VMWare/Parallels with a copy of XP/Vista.
     
  14. soberbrain macrumors 65816

    soberbrain

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    #14
    That would be an awesome, "and one more thing" :D
     
  15. Stevamundo macrumors 6502

    Stevamundo

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #15
    Yes I totally agree!!!!!! Like very advanced WINE incorporated into the OS X.
     
  16. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #16
    Would like to see Carbon brought up to date and then likely frozen, and Apple drop all the PPC code left hidden in the OS.

    The 040 switch to PPC took too long to ditch the 040 code.
     
  17. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #17
    1) That would probably be the biggest development in the history of Apple. Aside from the cost complaints (which are from people who apparently love crappy HPs) the Mac would have no real weakness, except...

    2) Would such a move open Mac OS up to extreme vulnerabilities? You have to add virus protection in Boot Camp (and I assume using Parallels or VMware). I don't think Apple would do this if it compromised OS X. Plus I think more stuff will move toward the Internet (take a look at Google Docs, Quicken Online). Probably wouldn't be worth the hassle.
     
  18. Watabou macrumors 68040

    Watabou

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    One word: Viruses.

    Then Macs would be basically Windows and you have to install all these Anti-virus programs. :(
     
  19. martychang macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    #19
    I generally try not to make fruitless posts, but I really can't add anything after that post.

    ZFS to replace the archaic and frankly insecure HFS, bugfixes and general code cleanup to increase stability, speed, and security. That's all I could want.
     
  20. Quillz macrumors 65816

    Quillz

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #20
    So, in other words, the only way to make 10.6 appealing to you is to make it more like Windows...
     
  21. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #21
    Faster.
    Less buggy.
    Fast OS switching.
    ZFS.

    It would be nice if they added:

    - New set of default desktop pictures ;)
    - GPU-accelerated h.264 encoding.
    - Intel only (so I can finally replace my iMac :D )
     
  22. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #22
    Better support and usage of integrated graphics.

    When this comes out I will likely buy a brand new faster hard drive for it, so even if it isn't faster I will think it is :D
     
  23. pilotError macrumors 68020

    pilotError

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Long Island
  24. ert3 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    ert3

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    #24
    you mean like outside of the time capsule.

    Yes that would bee ****ing awesome
     
  25. markcres macrumors 6502

    markcres

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Absolutely no more bells and whistles!!

    That was the mistake with Windows... Win 3.1 was good.. as was WinWord 2.0 and Excel 4.0 etc.. but then Win95 came and forced us all to have more memory and bigger hard drives. I still keep my old classic MAC going because it does all I want plus I 'like it'!! My modern Intel MAC is really just to make my office docs compatible with the people at work.

    My PC came pre-installed with Vista.. a computer experience equivalent of having a chocolate eclair covered in treacle, butter, white sugar and more chocolate.. totally unnecessary and sick-making.

    Slim OS X down.. make it Intel-only and make it more stable and faster
     

Share This Page