[ghporter]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

File system fragmentation is not really an issue with SSDs, but erase/rewrite cycles are. Hopefully we'll get TRIM support in Lion at least.

Not really an issue because "seek time" is effectively nonexistent? What about situations like the discussion above about repartitioning (in the above case for Boot Camp)? The hard drive cluster/sector paradigm SSDs employ would still show "contiguous space" being insufficient, right? While not a problem 99% of the time, I think it means SSD users need to know how their storage will be organized before they get started, so they can partition the blank drive first thing...

Skipping the "physical" erase/rewrite step with TRIM to allow the SSD to recognize certain blocks are unused should extend the life of the SSD by quite a bit. But I still think it's going to take a big advancement in flash cell longevity before SSDs are going to be a direct substitute for hard drives in enthusiast or heavy duty data editing applications. In some machines we may be headed back to the old Windows practice of having one drive for the OS and another for data and applications-but here it would be to extend the life of the instant-access SSD the OS is stored on.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Don't use it, so no comment.

You're not required to be a user for there to be a problem with it. If you haven't noticed, there's been a lot of bad press and tons of user complaints about MobileMe. Tech sections and Tech Blogs are all discussing and hoping for improvements. MobileMe has, by fact, several performance issues. The two biggest ones are slow iDisk transfer and Address Book sync problems, among others.

As an actual user of MobileMe, another issue is the frequent maintenance. They perform maintenance very frequently where you can't login online and access services. Sometimes this happens once a week for several weeks in a row and it's down for hours. While it's good they do it late at night, it happens much too often.

But aside from that, Steve Jobs wrote an Email 'apologizing' for the poor performance of MobileMe when it rolled out, and users were given an extra ~3 months extension on their service. Then he's even admitting that performance will be improved in 2011:

Steve Jobs: MobileMe Will Get “A Lot Better” Next Year

So no Don, it's not just me and it's not because of me that the performance is poor.

Everybody gasped as Steve Jobs admitted they launched Mobile Mess

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Have used it without major problems on three different machines, two different processor families and two different versions of OS X. The problem is probably specific to your use of it.

That's great you use it and it works well for you. Doesn't erase the fact that people have issues with it, and they've had issues with it for years.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

edit: Looks like you're not having problems with Time Machine. Looks like your finding lots of threads with people having trouble and posting this. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Yes, Don, I have had problems with Time Machine and continue to. I post references to other documented cases because I'm not going to infer just because I have issues that means that there's some real issues with Time Machine outside of my world.

Apple's own note about slow performance under Snow Leopard and Time Machine:

Mac OS X 10.6 Help: If Time Machine is slow

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

This is something which makes me wonder what kind of "developer" you are. The move from 32- to 64-bit requires more RAM, as did the move from 16- to 32- bit, as did the move from 8- to 16-bit, and on and on. You don't get something for free.

Right, which is what I'm saying. There's a higher requirement for RAM, and without more RAM, the system does not seem to perform as well. I posted one review about 4 GB vs. 8 GB which is consistent with what I've seen and experienced. And I use this point as one of several examples about Snow Leopard because I think, performance wise, Snow Leopard has been a mixed bag. In the end, it's merely a transitionary OS to something fully 64-bit.

Here's Apple's comment in their own documentation about 64-bit, memory/cache... in the context of Snow Leopard:

Apple's own documentation:

"Myth: My application will run much faster if it is a "native" 64-bit application. Fact: Some 64-bit executables may run more slowly on 64-bit Intel architectures because of increased cache pressure."

The main disadvantage of 64-bit architectures is that relative to 32-bit architectures the same data occupies more space in memory (due to swollen pointers and possibly other types and alignment padding). This increases the memory requirements of a given process and can have implications for efficient processor cache utilization.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Once again, please be specific. I haven't found anything which is slower.

Gauging Snow Leopard's speed boosts | Mac OS X | From the Lab | Macworld

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

First, once again, I wonder what kind of "developer" you are. The issues you describe occur in all 64-bit OSes, and the issue isn't the OS but the state of drivers and plugins, many of which (<cough>TWAIN</cough>) are still 32-bit. If you boot the 64-bit kernel, 32-bit drivers and plug ins won't work, or will work poorly. Compared to 64-bit versions of Linux and Windows, OS X is remarkably free from problems in this area.

Second, saying that marketing is misleading is like saying water is wet, and is not a technical issue with the OS.

That's great that water is wet. Doesn't make misleading advertising right. Apple really touted 64-bit with Snow Leopard, and I've had friends who are pretty computer literate complain and be let down by the fact that it isn't really 64-bit in the way Apple made it out to be. By fact, it boots into 32-bit.

My overall point is that Snow Leopard has been a mixed bag. I like a lot of things about it, and I'm not running off to Windows 7. But after using it for over a year, there's been lots of things that have seeped through that have been discussed here.

And here I am coming off clean erases and installs because of slow downs with the OS. And all the SSD problems we've had across all 6 machines that have them. And again, no Don, it's not "our fault". Lack of TRIM support is not our fault.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

But aside from that, Steve Jobs wrote an Email 'apologizing' for the poor performance of MobileMe when it rolled out, and users were given an extra ~3 months extension on their service. Then he's even admitting that performance will be improved in 2011:

Steve Jobs: MobileMe Will Get “A Lot Better” Next Year

Clarification:

Steve Jobs' public apology was explicitly and exclusively for severe difficulties - down to data loss - encountered by a number of users in the transition from .Mac to MobileMe, three years ago.

Apart from that, yes, lots of people are seeing issues with MobileMe.

Count me in among the ones who've had mostly trouble-free operation ever since first registering with iTools in January 2000.

The only "major" issue I've ever had was the sudden reappearance of a long-deleted keychain from some mystic online sync cache when upgrading my main Mac to 10.6.
That certainly wasn't life-threatening, but it was quite annoying, and required resetting the Sync protocol from another Mac running 10.5.

I use MMe web galleries, iMovie uploads, iDisk, Mail, and contact/calendar/bookmark syncing, all on a regular basis.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

freudling's post and the article he linked to are the first I've ever seen this phenomenon referred to as "fragmentation", though - not sure if the term is actually commonly used here. Anandtech does not.

I'm pretty sure that's a misnomer, and a pretty dangerous one at that, since the use of it could cause people to think they need to run defrag utilities on an SSD, which is likely to cause this sort of thing. You can see this potential for confusion in freudling's rtcmagazine.com link, which repeatedly refers to "file system fragmentation" when talking about SSDs. Best to keep the terminology unambiguous.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm also curious what the benchmark for incremental backup solutions is. To what is Time Machine being compared, and how do we know that it's "slow?"

Compared to taking ZFS snapshots the comparison is laughable, although some might argue that this is not a fair comparison...

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by freudling 

And here I am coming off clean erases and installs because of slow downs with the OS. And all the SSD problems we've had across all 6 machines that have them. And again, no Don, it's not "our fault". Lack of TRIM support is not our fault.

Which is fine. But you seem to be upset about relatively minor problems with the OS, and have still made some strong statements for which you haven't provided any real back up, other than posting articles from Apple's KB. You seem to like to complain, without really knowing what you're complaining about.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Compared to taking ZFS snapshots the comparison is laughable, although some might argue that this is not a fair comparison...

Its not, because ZFS has its share of issues as well, aside from the licensing problems which made it a no go for OS X.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Its not, because ZFS has its share of issues as well, aside from the licensing problems which made it a no go for OS X.

Technical issues or legal issues?

Laminar was asking how we know that TM is slow. Compared to what is possible as illustrated by ZFS, TM is factually slow. You could also get into the slow HFS+ write performance assertions that have been made, but I think ZFS snapshots really show a better way in an absolutely non-debateable way, technologically speaking.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Technical issues or legal issues?

Laminar was asking how we know that TM is slow. Compared to what is possible as illustrated by ZFS, TM is factually slow. You could also get into the slow HFS+ write performance assertions that have been made, but I think ZFS snapshots really show a better way in an absolutely non-debateable way, technologically speaking.

If you're going to compare it, the compare it to NTFS or ext3fs. ZFS isn't very widely used, and definitely not in the desktop world.

edit: I'm not saying that HFS+ is teh awesome, only that I think we should compare Apples to Apples, no pun intended.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

If you're going to compare it, the compare it to NTFS or ext3fs. ZFS isn't very widely used, and definitely not in the desktop world.

edit: I'm not saying that HFS+ is teh awesome, only that I think we should compare Apples to Apples, no pun intended.

I don't understand how this is an unfair comparison based on popularity and common usage? NeXT/OpenSTEP wasn't popular nor common at the time yet Apple deemed it to be what OS X should be based on.

There is no technical reason why a filesystem such as ZFS could not be used for desktop use. The copy-on-write model consumes a lot of RAM, but this is only applicable for when you are building ZFS raids and mirrored sets.

[CharlesS]

My personal hope is that we're getting some sort of new file system in 10.7, and that this is why we still haven't seen TRIM support — because it will be included in the drivers for the new file system, and the HFS+ drivers consequently aren't a priority.

The downside of this, of course, is that if Apple creates a new file system, they'll probably call it something like "iFS".

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no technical reason why a filesystem such as ZFS could not be used for desktop use. The copy-on-write model consumes a lot of RAM, but this is only applicable for when you are building ZFS raids and mirrored sets.

There may be no technical reasons (debatable, and, frankly, above my pay grade) but there are/were definitely legal reasons: Why did Apple drop ZFS?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

My personal hope is that we're getting some sort of new file system in 10.7, and that this is why we still haven't seen TRIM support — because it will be included in the drivers for the new file system, and the HFS+ drivers consequently aren't a priority.

The downside of this, of course, is that if Apple creates a new file system, they'll probably call it something like "iFS".

Better than "FFS"!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

There may be no technical reasons (debatable, and, frankly, above my pay grade) but there are/were definitely legal reasons: Why did Apple drop ZFS?

My impression was that Laminar was asking for technical evidence.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My impression was that Laminar was asking for technical evidence.

In that case I can only provide what I've read, and can't add anything of my own. I have read there were technical issues with ZFS which prevented it from being used by Apple. If that isn't true then I can't provide anything else, as I don't know a lot about file systems.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

In that case I can only provide what I've read, and can't add anything of my own. I have read there were technical issues with ZFS which prevented it from being used by Apple. If that isn't true then I can't provide anything else, as I don't know a lot about file systems.

That blog post you provided ruled out the possibility of technical issues.

All I can think of is that perhaps there is no great way to run ZFS on a single disk without requiring that RAM footprint, but...

[P]

The lead ZFS developer has confirmed that the reason for Apple pulling out was licensing issues. Can't find the link now, but it was on a ZFS developer mailinglist.

Ah well. Btrfs is a better fit anyway.

[P]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Better than "FFS"!

Fun fact: There are no less than 4 filesystems named FFS, one of which Apple actually supports in OS X.

UFS stands for UNIX File System. UNIX is a registered trademark, and after the lawsuit in the early nineties, the various BSDs are very carful about using that trademark on anything. They refer to UFS as FFS, ostensibly standing for Fast File System. Mac OS X supports UFS, a legacy of Openstep. Apple is a UNIX licensee, and can use the term UFS freely, but it's the same file system.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

The lead ZFS developer has confirmed that the reason for Apple pulling out was licensing issues. Can't find the link now, but it was on a ZFS developer mailinglist.

Ah well. Btrfs is a better fit anyway.

Unfortunately, there is no way it will be ready in time for Lion.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Which is fine. But you seem to be upset about relatively minor problems with the OS, and have still made some strong statements for which you haven't provided any real back up, other than posting articles from Apple's KB. You seem to like to complain, without really knowing what you're complaining about.

Give me examples of statements I have made without "any real backup".

[besson3c]

The one plus of btrfs is that there is a lot of thought put into its design in terms of how it best performs on SSDs. ZFS supports using SSDs as read and write caches, but otherwise I'm not sure how optimized it is for SSDs

A great read on the status of btrfs and SSD stuff:

http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sl...2010_mason.pdf

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Give me examples of statements I have made without "any real backup".

You've said:

"Snow Leopard seems like the buggiest version of all. "

No backup. Anecdote is not backup.

"When multiple programs open, it seems to do a poor job of memory management and allocation."

You have shown no "poor management." When I explained to you how OS X manages memory, and why free memory is wasted memory, you switched to complaining about having to buy more RAM.

"Fragmentation is a problem in OS X, especially with SSD."

It's been explained to you that the problem isn't fragmentation.

"-64-bit support and performance, or lack thereof. "

Nothing provided to show this. You complain about marketing. This is not the same thing.

So, your complaints seem to boil down to 1) MobileMe has problems, 2) You don't want to have to buy more RAM, and 3) You can find complaints online about Time Machine. Looks you the problems you are actually having are pretty minor.

[besson3c]

It seems like the common ground between freudling and voodoo is that Apple has been neglecting OS X in favor of iOS, and this is correct. I think these two even understand *why* Apple has been doing this, they just seem to think that either it's too soon or it's otherwise unwise to be neglecting OS X to the extent which they are.

That's how I see the crux of the debate going on here... I would suggest that these two haven't made their points terribly clear, but I would also argue that my paraphrasing of their viewpoints here does bring up a valid question and valid viewpoints that could come out of these questions.

Has Apple put too many eggs into a single basket (counting all iOS devices as being a part of this basket)?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Has Apple put too many eggs into a single basket (counting all iOS devices as being a part of this basket)?

I don't think Apple is neglecting OS X. Neglect, to me, implies that Apple would be willfully stopping development. I don't think this is the case.

There are two things happening here. The first is that OS X is a mature, robust OS, and the rate of change will be much slower than it was in the first several years, when Apple was just trying to dig its way out of a deep, deep hole. That the rate of change is slowing isn't a surprise.

Secondly, iOS and mobile computing is definitely the future. The desktop, as we know it, is slowly dying. Better Apple is in the forefront of this than finding itself, in ten years, with products no one wants.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I don't think Apple is neglecting OS X. Neglect, to me, implies that Apple would be willfully stopping development. I don't think this is the case.

There are two things happening here. The first is that OS X is a mature, robust OS, and the rate of change will be much slower than it was in the first several years, when Apple was just trying to dig its way out of a deep, deep hole. That the rate of change is slowing isn't a surprise.

Secondly, iOS and mobile computing is definitely the future. The desktop, as we know it, is slowly dying. Better Apple is in the forefront of this than finding itself, in ten years, with products no one wants.

For the record, I agree with all of this.

Still, while I agree that there is not much that OS X really needs added to it in the way of features, I hope that Apple keeps up maintaining OS X in doing stuff like adding TRIM support, working on their next file system, and making sure that OS X runs optimally on present and future hardware (including Light Peak). I also think they need to think about the future of iTunes.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Secondly, iOS and mobile computing is definitely the future. The desktop, as we know it, is slowly dying. Better Apple is in the forefront of this than finding itself, in ten years, with products no one wants.

Exactly. The OS of the future will be as invisible as possible to the user.

All current mouse and pointer based OS's are already anachronisms.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Exactly. The OS of the future will be as invisible as possible to the user.

All current mouse and pointer based OS's are already anachronisms.

besson: I think Apple will.

Philaes: I was about to post something similar. The Mac with its WIMP paradigm, which was an enormously disruptive shift from CLI, is almost 30 years old, an enormity in technological times. It's due to be replaced, and I think it will as soon as someone (<cough>Apple</cough>) can figure out a way to combine the intuitive nature of iOS with the size and needs of the desktop. I don't know if this will happen soon, but I think we will start to see the transition in 10.7. I have a feeling we're all going to want Magic Trackads later this summer.

I think it's also worth remember that, for many years, the Mac was called a "toy" by all those wedded to DOS and the CLI. Where are they now?

[P]

(btrfs)

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Unfortunately, there is no way it will be ready in time for Lion.

I don't think they will actually use Btrfs as in "the data on the disc will be binary compatible". Btrfs is simply not done yet - the Wikipedia article lists some pretty serious defects. I'm not in any position to judge them on their merits, but the examples look pretty damning. No, I think Apple is making a "HFS3" based on some of the same principles. Is it done? Depends on when they started working on it. Apple stepped away from ZFS in October 2009. There was nothing new in Snow Leopard from the filesystem group, as far as I can tell (the filesystem group also works on Spotlight, which was added in 10.4 and improved in 10.5 but essentially untouched in 10.6). That group is not gone - last I checked, the names I know on it were still at Apple. I doubt they twiddled their thumbs in the last year and a half.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by P 

(btrfs)



I don't think they will actually use Btrfs as in "the data on the disc will be binary compatible". Btrfs is simply not done yet - the Wikipedia article lists some pretty serious defects. I'm not in any position to judge them on their merits, but the examples look pretty damning. No, I think Apple is making a "HFS3" based on some of the same principles. Is it done? Depends on when they started working on it. Apple stepped away from ZFS in October 2009. There was nothing new in Snow Leopard from the filesystem group, as far as I can tell (the filesystem group also works on Spotlight, which was added in 10.4 and improved in 10.5 but essentially untouched in 10.6). That group is not gone - last I checked, the names I know on it were still at Apple. I doubt they twiddled their thumbs in the last year and a half.

It is also possible that Spotlight would be integrated into this new file system, where it probably best belongs.

[imitchellg5]

I wouldn't say Apple are "neglecting" OS X when the platform is still being actively developed, and at a decent pace at that. 1.5 years between 10.x updates is hardly letting the platform stagnate.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

You've said:

"Snow Leopard seems like the buggiest version of all. "

No backup. Anecdote is not backup.

"When multiple programs open, it seems to do a poor job of memory management and allocation."

You have shown no "poor management." When I explained to you how OS X manages memory, and why free memory is wasted memory, you switched to complaining about having to buy more RAM.

"Fragmentation is a problem in OS X, especially with SSD."

It's been explained to you that the problem isn't fragmentation.

"-64-bit support and performance, or lack thereof. "

Nothing provided to show this. You complain about marketing. This is not the same thing.

So, your complaints seem to boil down to 1) MobileMe has problems, 2) You don't want to have to buy more RAM, and 3) You can find complaints online about Time Machine. Looks you the problems you are actually having are pretty minor.

Nope, and lots of strawmen here too.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Nope, and lots of strawmen here too.

I will assume your failure back your claims means you can't, so I don't know why you posted them in the first place. Maybe you're ignorant of what you claim knowledge of. Maybe you're a troll. Maybe you were bored.

Either way, I'm done wasting bandwidth.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I will assume your failure back your claims means you can't, so I don't know why you posted them in the first place. Maybe you're ignorant of what you claim knowledge of. Maybe you're a troll. Maybe you were bored.

Either way, I'm done wasting bandwidth.

Me too.

[Spheric Harlot]

Is freudling Voodoo with the Viking helmet exchanged for a beanie cap?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It seems like the common ground between freudling and voodoo is that Apple has been neglecting OS X in favor of iOS, and this is correct. I think these two even understand *why* Apple has been doing this, they just seem to think that either it's too soon or it's otherwise unwise to be neglecting OS X to the extent which they are.

This is correct? Indeed... Yet you write in your next post that you agree with the (sycophantic I'd say) statement of "I don't think Apple is neglecting OS X. Neglect, to me, implies that Apple would be willfully stopping development. I don't think this is the case." Your viewpoint isn't terribly clear. Besides, neglect is not necessarily willfully stopping something. I'm sure many people here, perhaps Don Pickett, neglects to work out and has become obese (hypothetical). He's neglecting his body, but probably not willfully. He's just lazy. That's confusing lethargy for strategy.

Of course Apple has been neglecting OS X, but I don't think it is in favor of iOS. Apple can well manage and develop both systems without breaking a sweat, but it has *chosen* not to. People who consider OS X to be 'mature' or 'feature complete' have either learned nothing from history and development of technology or lack the imagination to understand that there is no such thing as feature complete or mature.

Least of all with OS X. (btw, remember that short period of time when Apple was branding Mac OS X as just 'OS X', in perhaps a clumsy attempt to distance itself from the Mac or perhaps marketing dept. attempting to unify Mac OS X and iphone OS)

I maintain than the lack of interest for Mac OS X and by extension the Mac by Apple isn't exactly planned, but is rather the reflection of the limitations of the former Apple CEO. Or soon to be former Apple CEO.

That's how I see the crux of the debate going on here... I would suggest that these two haven't made their points terribly clear, but I would also argue that my paraphrasing of their viewpoints here does bring up a valid question and valid viewpoints that could come out of these questions.

I would suggest you haven't made your point or viewpoint terribly clear. Yet I'm sure my posting here will bring up valid viewpoints that could shed light on the matter. Naturally.

Has Apple put too many eggs into a single basket (counting all iOS devices as being a part of this basket)?

If Apple is going to have more than one egg, then yes Apple should definitely nurture both the Mac and the iToys. The main reason I don't consider the neglect of the Mac by Apple to be strategic as Steve Jobs might sometimes put it in his sales speeches about trucks, is that so far the iToys rely on Macs and desktops in general to function.

Every iToy needs a Mac or a PC. Until that tether is cut, predicting the doom of desktops is rather premature. The Mac is certainly a part of the Apple 'ecosystem' for now, but Apple is still neglecting it because it seems unwilling to devote resources to anyone else than the favorite son. The rest will just have to survive by God's good grace and whatever is left when the favored son has fed.

In other words, Apple is not behaving like they're selling more Macs per quarter than ever in it's history. Because it seems psychologically impossible for the (soon to be) ex-CEO to do so, and if one would think one finds Apple sycophants in forums, I'm sure there's even a higher concentration on the Apple campus - plus they owe their pay to the company. What Steve Jobs loves at the moment is the favored child and the hive moves its collective gaze upon it.

Furthermore, though I am annoyed over the UI mess that continues to plague the Mac OS, and how the iOS-ification of Lion isn't going to help any, people would have to be completely lost if they think the Mac OS X UI is going to change into iOS UI, become a touch based OS or somesuch.

It would take a completely new version of Mac OS X, a blank slate, to do that - just like the iOS was. Any iOS elements added to the Mac OS X are just yet another UI element that strikes Apple's fancy at the moment. We already went through something similar when Mac OS X was iTunes-ified. It tends to gather these seemingly arbitrary UI elements of the Apple 'star' of the day, mostly because even after ten years Apple (and by extension Steve Jobs) has no idea or interest in user interface on Mac OS X, but continues to use the 'shotgun' method -- that is, to try a bunch of different UI styles between different apps or platforms and use whatever is popular as the 'new' thing in Mac OS X. We've been down this road before.

As for the touch-based Mac, just imagine your iMac is touch based already (or your Macbook) and start using it for hours on end. It's not happening any time soon, but I remember reading about similarly 'enthusiastic' (or even rabid at times) posts on how Spotlight would change everything and do away with the Mac OS X UI as we know it. Metadata would be king. Touch interface is the Spotlight of 2011.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Is freudling Voodoo with the Viking helmet exchanged for a beanie cap?

Either way they, they're a cute couple, no?

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Is freudling Voodoo with the Viking helmet exchanged for a beanie cap?

Is Spheric Harlot dressed up in a clown suit right now?

[P]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is also possible that Spotlight would be integrated into this new file system, where it probably best belongs.

That's basically what a database file system is. Problem is, MS has twice tried to implement one in Windows and failed spectacularly both times. Yes, Be had one, and yes the guy that made it works at Apple now, but making it work with an existing OS apparently isn't trivial.

[freudling]

The reality that I see is that OS X has been neglected, but I can't say it's just because of iOS. I find it hard to believe that a company with thousands of engineers and as much money as Apple wouldn't be able to manage both baskets. However, just a general culture and complete fixation on mobile computing, which Apple seems to have predicated on it, could be a major culprit. This is, of course, if you also think that OS X is kinda lacking in certain departments (see earlier discussions).

As for the idea that the desktop is dying. It kinda is, but its death is greatly exaggerated. Multi-tasking operating systems like webOS or Gingerbread will enable users to replace even more so their laptops and desktops for day-to-day use. We're talking sending out lots of Emails; accessing and inputting data into company databases (e.g., FMP App); using an external, foldable keyboard with something like the Pages App; managing lots of Spreadsheets with something the Excel App in webOS... A lot of these things that I think many people didn't think would jive on a tablet are jiving. And laptops and desktops thus get less use from people who really know how to take advantage of a tablet. With webOS and Android 3.0, you have the ability to shuffle Apps and windows around similar in ways to desktop computers so production goes up, and working like this is tenable.

But for production work like graphic creation, coding, research... there's a bevy of things that are better on a desktop or laptop: larger screens, more power... input devices like Wacom tablets, etc. Yes, I agree with Jobs about desktops and perhaps laptops by implication becoming like trucks in society. But there're still a lot of trucks out there.

And as for iOS being mature. It's not. I say that because I'm comparing it to webOS, and even Android 3.0. Yes, yes, go ahead and regurgitate what Apple said about Android 3.0 being vapourware. It's not, though. Yes, it's not yet out on the market, but it's in fact quite real, and has a lot of innovation. It's true multi-tasking, just like webOS. I got a chance to try it last month and although it was not the final product (some hiccups), the thing blew iOS away in terms of multi-tasking. And so does webOS. I'll keep saying it. iOS is very nice. It's fast on iPhone 4. But it is virtually unchanged other than speed ups compared to when it first launched. You can put iOS 1 beside an iOS latest on the same phone and they're virtually identical. Obviously speed ups and some new features like unified inbox, search... but in no way does the latest iOS represent the kind of leaps and bounds innovation that webOS and Android 3.0 bring to the table. What I'm really focussed on here is multi-tasking, features, and the interface. Like HP said, with webOS, "multi-tasking wasn't an after thought". On iOS, it was.

We'll see what iOS 5 brings. It better bring a lot, because when it comes to tablets, the software is going to be that much more important.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Is Spheric Harlot dressed up in a clown suit right now?

Whatever turns you on, my little Freud.



(Harlots in clown suits - that's gotta rank among the most awesome fetishes ever! )

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I find it hard to believe that a company with thousands of engineers and as much money as Apple wouldn't be able to manage both baskets.

There's your problem right there: Apple doesn't have thousands of engineers. Most of Apple's 18,000 employees work in retail. Just how big do you think Apple's Cupertino campus is?

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(Harlots in clown suits - that's gotta rank among the most awesome fetishes ever! )

I predict a Shaddim thread inspired by this.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

There's your problem right there: Apple doesn't have thousands of engineers. Most of Apple's 18,000 employees work in retail. Just how big do you think Apple's Cupertino campus is?

From my understanding, they have 4,000. I guess I'm wrong? Please let me know what your sources of information are and the number of engineers they have.

[imitchellg5]

From the SEC's information about Apple, Inc. (2010 numbers)

There are also some very interesting numbers in there.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

From the SEC's information about Apple, Inc. (2010 numbers)

There are also some very interesting numbers in there.

Ok, I don't really feel like going through that, it's pretty hefty. Can you approximate a number?

[imitchellg5]

The 2010 filing isn't as advanced as the 2007 filing, so I'm just using percentages here to compare... not going to be 100% accurate but should give a broad overview.
Apple has 46,000 full-time employees total (including contractors, so not all of those are actually working at or for Apple directly). 27,000 of those work in retail. Beyond that it delineates a bit into percentages. Of the remaining 19,000, it seems as though 6,000 of those are simply taking care of Apple facilities (retail, corporate buildings, and independent contractors). About 10,000 work in shipping via Apple's manufacturing facilities and receiving facilities around the world. So that leaves about 3,000 people who work elsewhere in Apple, doing R&D, legal, marketing, and leadership. No real number of engineers, but it's probably safe to assume that Apple (and this seems to somewhat mesh with the amount we've heard from various press events and tours on Apple's HQ) that Apple employs about 1,200 people who are actively working as either hardware or software engineers in Cupertino, Paris, and Tokyo (also gleaned from Wikipedia ) That's not a tiny amount of engineers to be sure, but Apple is still a relatively small company compared to Google or Microsoft who employ engineers in every market of the globe; India, Thailand, Singapore, Canada, Brazil, England, France, etc, etc.

Of note, in 2007 Apple had 21,000 employees TOTAL. Most of the expansion has occurred in retail and shipping.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The 2010 filing isn't as advanced as the 2007 filing, so I'm just using percentages here to compare... not going to be 100% accurate but should give a broad overview.
Apple has 46,000 full-time employees total (including contractors, so not all of those are actually working at or for Apple directly). 27,000 of those work in retail. Beyond that it delineates a bit into percentages. Of the remaining 19,000, it seems as though 6,000 of those are simply taking care of Apple facilities (retail, corporate buildings, and independent contractors). About 10,000 work in shipping via Apple's manufacturing facilities and receiving facilities around the world. So that leaves about 3,000 people who work elsewhere in Apple, doing R&D, legal, marketing, and leadership. No real number of engineers, but it's probably safe to assume that Apple (and this seems to somewhat mesh with the amount we've heard from various press events and tours on Apple's HQ) that Apple employs about 1,200 people who are actively working as either hardware or software engineers in Cupertino, Paris, and Tokyo (also gleaned from Wikipedia ) That's not a tiny amount of engineers to be sure, but Apple is still a relatively small company compared to Google or Microsoft who employ engineers in every market of the globe; India, Thailand, Singapore, Canada, Brazil, England, France, etc, etc.

Of note, in 2007 Apple had 21,000 employees TOTAL. Most of the expansion has occurred in retail and shipping.

Wow, if all of this checks out, that's an incredibly small tooth to tail ratio.

[imitchellg5]

Well, Apple is set up pretty efficiently compared to other companies. They really only have two product lines to maintain: Products that use OS X and products that use iOS.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well, Apple is set up pretty efficiently compared to other companies. They really only have two product lines to maintain: Products that use OS X and products that use iOS.

And as both are really just two branches of the same OS, they don't need two teams for a lot of the under-the-hood stuff.

[imitchellg5]

Correct. There is a lot of exchange between the iOS and OS X teams, and I believe that hardware design and engineering is just one team for both products.