[voodoo]

Originally Posted by driven 

I started typing a serious reply. I doubt you'd read it. Saving my energy.

SARACASM
You are right. They are toys. I'll go do something else for work.
/SARCASM

Oh I read every post in a thread I start, just common courtesy.

I bet you aren't using an iPad to program for the iPad.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Disagree. In fact, Apple has been fighting that model from the beginning. When you buy something from the iTunes store you own it. The copy is on your machine(s), not stored in the cloud anywhere.

Computing models don't have to be 100% cloud 0% local for the overall direction to be cloud based.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Yeah ironic if you don't understand irony, since the Macs were indeed used as important workstations in numerous fields - but certainly in graphic design and DTP above all. In other words, a Mac in the hands of a capable artist, could help said artist shovel $$$s into his bank account.

Now the iToys are just for diversion. They don't pretend to be anything else. Apple doesn't market them as anything else. A phone. A music player. A mini-app computer. Little or no connectivity to peripherals (excepting the iPad optional keyboard) and as people say all the time - they use them to browse the web, read and perhaps even reply to mail, check Facebook, play games, listen to music, watch video...

They are toys and they are proud of it! Nothing wrong with that, but it would be hugely stupid and asinine to compare the empty claims about the Mac being a toy in the 80s (when it wasn't and never wanted to be) and the fact that the iToys are in fact for diversion only (which they are and are proud of!).

Those claims about the Mac were only uttered by people who never even tried a Mac seriously and felt just fine with DOS. I've tried the iToys, I own one and use it daily. It's fine for what it is.. but it is no Mac or Macintosh replacement. Or PC replacement in general. It's a toy.

It sounds to me like you are having a hard time imagining these devices being anything more than they are today?

Prediction: touch will eventually become the new default input method. Whether this is in the form factor that laptops are today where the keyboard is replaced with a touchable screen, the whole potential of using your fingers to interact with technology is a very powerful concept.

[Don Pickett]

To summarize: no good music has been made since the Beatles broke up.

[Phileas]

Oh, nm.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Computing models don't have to be 100% cloud 0% local for the overall direction to be cloud based.

True. However, I don't see Apple moving to a place where everything is in the cloud (a term I hate, btw) for several reasons, the simplest of which is that you don't always have access to it. Anywhere your signal strength is attenuated which, for AT&T means anywhere, denies you access to that information. I'm pretty sure that Apple knows this.

As an aside, I would never, ever put any sensitive info of mine into Teh Cloud. You have no idea where those servers are, or whose poking around in them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

True. However, I don't see Apple moving to a place where everything is in the cloud (a term I hate, btw) for several reasons, the simplest of which is that you don't always have access to it. Anywhere your signal strength is attenuated which, for AT&T means anywhere, denies you access to that information. I'm pretty sure that Apple knows this.

As an aside, I would never, ever put any sensitive info of mine into Teh Cloud. You have no idea where those servers are, or whose poking around in them.

I agree that we'll never get to 100% cloud, but I think it is fairly easy to predict that the cloud (or whatever it should be called, I'm not crazy about the term either) will drive computing.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I'm not spinning anything, I fully acknowledge that I don't see the iPod touch, the iPhone nor the iPad as serious computing devices - However I don't mean iToys as degrading. They are what they are and nobody (least of all Apple) is claiming that they are "serious computing devices".

Then you're high on your own supply. People are looking at the iPad as a computer. They could spend $499 on a desktop PC that they only use to browse and check email on or they can spend $499 on an iPad and do the same exact thing wherever they'd like and have much better battery life than any notebook. For what 99% of the population does on a computer, the iPad can do just as well. And Apple are absolutely marketing iPads as computers.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Indeed, you can play with your toy that you can carry in your pocket.

My 'toy' is more powerful than my $2000 PowerMac G4 from 2001. What is your point? Mobile devices handle 99% of most peoples computer needs and that is an amazing fact, not a detriment.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Bah, no Mac has the latest technology, in fact Apple seems *proud* that it's offering C2D MacBook Air. The GPUs in every Mac is old AND for laptops (excepting the one in the MacPro, which is just old)

...and when has this ever not been the case? Name a desktop Mac that shipped with the best GFX card on the market, take your time. The tech in our current machines keeps pace with the industry far better than it ever did.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

You ask what you need with a computer that the i3 can't handle? If you use your computer like your iPad or whatever, then you probably don't. And honestly I don't care much for a much much faster Mac, but I care for a more *responsive* Mac. How it is done is immaterial...

I care for a more refined Mac, with a consistent UI, no beachballs.

I have used my iMac for any number of intensive processes and it has been up to the challenge quite well. I dunno where you are seeing all these beachballs but the only place I encounter them is Safari, and I haven't updated to SL yet either.

I guess I simply don't share your disdain for the operating environment. At no point do I find it clunky or slow, or expect it to do something that it does not. Your rants reek of unfocused criticisms with no rhyme or reason to them.

You assert the Mac is in a poor state, I stand by my assertion that it's never been better.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Yes it is my opinion that I write, but BASED on facts. If you don't perceive the difference between that and presenting something as fact that is opinion, well that's harder.

No. The FACTS are that Apple are shipping more Macs than ever, and more iPads than Macs. It's clear the direction the market is going in and Apple are following that direction. Anything different would be a lack of vision from the leadership.

[angelmb]

...and when has this ever not been the case? Name a desktop Mac that shipped with the best GFX card on the market, take your time.

Perhaps Yosemite G3's ATI Rage 128 ??

[Laminar]

16MB of fury.

[P]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

Perhaps Yosemite G3's ATI Rage 128 ??

Likely the TNT2 and Voodoo 3 were faster, although I honestly don't know for certain. No, sek's point is well taken - Apple is not in the habit of stuffing their computers with powerful graphics. The original Mac might qualify, as the resolution was higher than anything else in a "microcomputer" at the time (EGA wasn't out yet), and the original Mac II certainly does for being the first computer to support 32-bit color, but beyond that it certainly looks dark.

In re iMac graphics: ifixit mentions in passing that the MXM cards are standardized parts not manufactured by Apple and that they're used in other computers. We do know (from the 27" iMac screen flickering debacle) that the BIOS is special, but every indication is that the hardware is generic.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It sounds to me like you are having a hard time imagining these devices being anything more than they are today?

Prediction: touch will eventually become the new default input method. Whether this is in the form factor that laptops are today where the keyboard is replaced with a touchable screen, the whole potential of using your fingers to interact with technology is a very powerful concept.

I'm not really addressing what they 'could' be in the future, just what they are *today*. But touch as the default input method? On handheld devices: yes. On anything else: not until it's as precise as a mouse and more effective than a tactile keyboard.

What handheld devices will be in the future is beyond the scope of this thread and my interest, to be honest.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Then you're high on your own supply. People are looking at the iPad as a computer. They could spend $499 on a desktop PC that they only use to browse and check email on or they can spend $499 on an iPad and do the same exact thing wherever they'd like and have much better battery life than any notebook. For what 99% of the population does on a computer, the iPad can do just as well. And Apple are absolutely marketing iPads as computers.

Your definition of computer is somewhat broad. A pocket calculator is a computer, but it is not a personal computer. A personal computer is not defined by whether it can browse the internet, check email, play games or music.

I've tried the iPad. It's not a PC, but it can perform nearly all of the entertainment and diversion that one wastes one's time with, but when it comes to doing something as simple as edit a photo, record music, design a layout, program something, ... well you get the picture, the iPad is put away.

Though it's off topic the ad you link to doesn't claim anything about the iPad being a computer. Everything mentioned in it is just a non serious game/browsing/whatever. That's still not computer, lest my old SE K700 from 2005 is a computer. It could do all those things.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

My 'toy' is more powerful than my $2000 PowerMac G4 from 2001. What is your point? Mobile devices handle 99% of most peoples computer needs and that is an amazing fact, not a detriment.

My pocket calculator is more powerful than the nav computer on the Apollo missions of 1969.. What is your point? Computer needs is having fun? Wasting time? Well then I'd agree with you! The mobile devices cover that pretty well and for the rest you probably have an XBox or something.

You also realize that a MacBook is ten times more powerful than your telephone company subsidized toy? If you don't make money with a device and especially if it can't make money, well it's a toy. The XBox is a toy, even though it's a full fledged computer underneath. Or wait.. you don't consider the XBox a toy?

[quote]
...and when has this ever not been the case? Name a desktop Mac that shipped with the best GFX card on the market, take your time. The tech in our current machines keeps pace with the industry far better than it ever did.

Yeah this is always been the case in the sense that Apple always puts old tech in the Macs and makes us pay like it was state of the art for the privilege, but now is the first time I'm paying for yesterdays software technology from Apple. After all, while one could criticize Apple any day for a lousy GPU in pretty much any given Mac, one has until recently been hard pressed not to admire and enjoy the software development and engineering of Apple.

I have used my iMac for any number of intensive processes and it has been up to the challenge quite well. I dunno where you are seeing all these beachballs but the only place I encounter them is Safari, and I haven't updated to SL yet either.

The beachballs don't indicate a slow machine as much as a choked up system because a process is stuck and is usually do to shoddy programming. The beachballs happen a lot in Apple apps. Pretty much all the iApps and Safari. It used to happen in the OS itself when a mounted network drive was lost. That wasn't because the computer was slow. It was just stupid.

However, slow they are not exactly, but then again with all that power they're not even as responsive in the UI as in OS 9. I've never watched a progress bar and thought: wow that's fast enough! Maybe you have and great.

I guess I simply don't share your disdain for the operating environment. At no point do I find it clunky or slow, or expect it to do something that it does not. Your rants reek of unfocused criticisms with no rhyme or reason to them.

Do you even read what you write? First of all every post you make here is a *rant*. Every rant you make can be said to *reek* of some arbitrary reason. Yours rants can thus be said to reek of unabashed apologism and drone like thinking.

Think about that next time the Mac OS presents you with a beachball or in any other way makes a strange decision, the UI looks odd or ill thought out or Windows is starting to look good as a Mac replacement.

You assert the Mac is in a poor state, I stand by my assertion that it's never been better.

Good for you! Stand by that assertion. Steve needs good people like you!!

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

but when it comes to doing something as simple as edit a photo, record music, design a layout, program something, ... well you get the picture, the iPad is

You're behind the times. The iPad has made serious inroads into education, business and medicine. Check google for the facts on these.

In my own company, we use iPads in a production environment all the time. We present work to clients , use it in video production (clapper, storyboarding, continuity), we draft out web sites, we use it to create mind maps. When we have production teams on location, the iPad has replaced the laptop completely.

Sure, in the evenings I use my iPad to read, watch movies, browse the web. But that's not its main use.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No. The FACTS are that Apple are shipping more Macs than ever, and more iPads than Macs. It's clear the direction the market is going in and Apple are following that direction. Anything different would be a lack of vision from the leadership.

Apple is selling more IBM compatible machines than ever!!? A-mazing! And more iToys than Macs!!? Oh gosh!

It's only a clear direction that cheaper items sell better. I'm sure Apple isn't just realizing that's where the market is heading and has *always* been heading. That's how Bill Gates became rich, that's how McDonald's became huge, Walmart (or whatever it's called) or their equivalents became ubiquitous.

And that's why Apple is selling more iToys than computers. Computers cost at least 2x more! And you can play games and browse and waste your time much cheaper with an iPad for example.

But anyway, what you're saying is that item x sells, thus item y is no longer important. Well that's exactly how Apple under Jobs sees it. And it's incredibly short sighted. Especially when the two items aren't in competition and never will be outside some tech fantasies. But even if they would ever be, they aren't today or in the foreseeable future.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

You're behind the times. The iPad has made serious inroads into education, business and medicine. Check google for the facts on these.

In my own company, we use iPads in a production environment all the time. We present work to clients , use it in video production (clapper, storyboarding, continuity), we draft out web sites, we use it to create mind maps. When we have production teams on location, the iPad has replaced the laptop completely.

Sure, in the evenings I use my iPad to read, watch movies, browse the web. But that's not its main use.

I couldn't use an iPad in a university for making notes, but it can do amazing things for 10 year olds and lower, where laptops are just too much of a computer.

But what work do you present to clients on an iPad? Do you send them the iPad?

But yes as a thingamajik that can do very basic things such as display a picture, make very basic notes on (rather cumbersomely, but well you can) sure it's neat. But when all is said and done it doesn't replace the Mac (or a PC) it just replaces a PC where a PC was always an overkill.

Talk to me when you're editing your production video on the iPad.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Your definition of computer is somewhat broad. A pocket calculator is a computer, but it is not a personal computer. A personal computer is not defined by whether it can browse the internet, check email, play games or music.

Why not? That's what 99% of the world does with their computers.

I've tried the iPad. It's not a PC, but it can perform nearly all of the entertainment and diversion that one wastes one's time with, but when it comes to doing something as simple as edit a photo, record music, design a layout, program something, ... well you get the picture, the iPad is put away.

Again, that's what most of the world does with their computers. And you can actually edit photos and record music on the iPad. Like Steve Jobs said, the computer is like a truck: most of the population won't need one, but it's around for those that do.

Though it's off topic the ad you link to doesn't claim anything about the iPad being a computer. Everything mentioned in it is just a non serious game/browsing/whatever. That's still not computer, lest my old SE K700 from 2005 is a computer. It could do all those things.

Stop babbling on about me being off-topic whenever I try and support my argument. "non serious game/browsing/whatever" is EXACTLY what folks like my mother and father do with their computer. My dad replaced his PowerBook with a Galaxy Tab. While I wouldn't recommend the Galaxy Tab to anyone, it does what he did on his PowerBook even better than his old PowerBook did.

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Apple is selling more IBM compatible machines than ever!!? A-mazing! And more iToys than Macs!!? Oh gosh!

It's only a clear direction that cheaper items sell better. I'm sure Apple isn't just realizing that's where the market is heading and has *always* been heading. That's how Bill Gates became rich, that's how McDonald's became huge, Walmart (or whatever it's called) or their equivalents became ubiquitous.

What? That's not true. The iPad is quite a bit more expensive than many pretty powerful AMD Fusion-powered notebooks. This goes beyond simple cost.

And that's why Apple is selling more iToys than computers. Computers cost at least 2x more! And you can play games and browse and waste your time much cheaper with an iPad for example.

Where I'm from I can walk into Walmart and buy a notebook PC for $399. That's not 2x more than an iPad.

But anyway, what you're saying is that item x sells, thus item y is no longer important. Well that's exactly how Apple under Jobs sees it. And it's incredibly short sighted. Especially when the two items aren't in competition and never will be outside some tech fantasies. But even if they would ever be, they aren't today or in the foreseeable future.

No it's not short sighted at all. In the very near future, nobody will actually have or need a computer. You'll take your phone or tablet home and dock it in a station and use it as a computer. The Motorola Atrix has a dual-core 1.4 GHz processor for example and runs Linux and Firefox when docked. The desktop computer is rapidly becoming obsolete and useless, apart from that very small percentage of users who actually need the power of a desktop computer. Most iMac buyers aren't even going to be taking advantage of the power of a i3 as it is, so why not work on ways to redefine exactly what it means to have a desktop computer?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Talk to me when you're editing your production video on the iPad.

Your argument, all along, has been that the iToys, as you call them, were unsuitable for what you deem to be real work. That's simply not true, and I can give you both anecdotal examples from my own work life and direct you to google to do your own research.

Now you've changed your argument to "maybe it can do real work, but only where a laptop would have been overkill". Again, that's wrong. In addition to replacing laptops, we're using the iPad as a replacement for all sorts of tools, from dedicated sound recorders to clapper slates, i.e we're replacing a multitude of tools that never even existed on the PC.

Strangely enough, none of our staff are 10 years old and strangely enough the iPad helps us to be more responsive, more nimble and ultimately to create higher quality work.

At the end of the day, we're a business and as such we need to be profitable. Everything we buy, equipment wise, needs to earn its keep and the iPad does that in spades.

Your personal experience is just that, your personal experience. While no doubt true for you, there are many others out there, experiencing the world on their own terms.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Why not? That's what 99% of the world does with their computers.

I doubt that.

Again, that's what most of the world does with their computers. And you can actually edit photos and record music on the iPad. Like Steve Jobs said, the computer is like a truck: most of the population won't need one, but it's around for those that do.

Editing photos and recording music on the iPad is cumbersome and limited at best. You can't make that claim with a straight face (Apple's PR excluded, which can claim anything with a straight face)

Stop babbling on about me being off-topic whenever I try and support my argument. "non serious game/browsing/whatever" is EXACTLY what folks like my mother and father do with their computer. My dad replaced his PowerBook with a Galaxy Tab. While I wouldn't recommend the Galaxy Tab to anyone, it does what he did on his PowerBook even better than his old PowerBook did.

You're off topic and babbling when you're talking about the iPad or other iToys.

What? That's not true. The iPad is quite a bit more expensive than many pretty powerful AMD Fusion-powered notebooks. This goes beyond simple cost.

Notbooks, as they're called, because they're not notebooks. Netbooks or some hybrid of an iToy and a notebook. Underpowered as a notebook and too clunky to be an iToy. Yeah you're right, price isn't everything, because when a computer is actually so anemic that it doesn't appeal, well that's that. At least the iPad looks better than a Fusion "powered" notbook.

No it's not short sighted at all. In the very near future, nobody will actually have or need a computer. You'll take your phone or tablet home and dock it in a station and use it as a computer. The Motorola Atrix has a dual-core 1.4 GHz processor for example and runs Linux and Firefox when docked. The desktop computer is rapidly becoming obsolete and useless, apart from that very small percentage of users who actually need the power of a desktop computer. Most iMac buyers aren't even going to be taking advantage of the power of a i3 as it is, so why not work on ways to redefine exactly what it means to have a desktop computer?

There is no future, there is only now. In other words, you know nothing of the future, but either way it isn't here. A tablet that docks and can be connected to a dock (keyboard etc) is so underpowered that it actually *can't* be used as a computer. Most iMac buyers are taking advantage of the i3 and then some (which is anyway a little better than a C2D) but the internals of the iMac are not just the CPU, but an anemic GPU and bus. That's more of a bottleneck than the processor - which is why the *main* difference between an iMac and a MacPro is the motherboard and GPU. The bottlenecks.

[imitchellg5]

Whatever. I give up. It's a good thing you're not in control of any tech giant, because that attitude is exactly what runs companies into the ground.

And you're completely off-base with Fusion-powered notebooks. It's like you're using the argument against Atom for Fusion.

But again, I digress. Might as well go talk to a wall.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It's a good thing you're not in control of any tech giant, because that attitude is exactly what runs companies into the ground.

Ditto.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I'm not really addressing what they 'could' be in the future, just what they are *today*.

So you're faulting Apple because of the speed in transitioning to what you refer to as the iToys as their primary products?

To be honest, your argument is fairly incoherent at this point.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Your argument, all along, has been that the iToys, as you call them, were unsuitable for what you deem to be real work. That's simply not true, and I can give you both anecdotal examples from my own work life and direct you to google to do your own research.

My argument, all along, has nothing in particular to do with the iToys. I like them, as far as that goes, but I'm not under any illusion that they are a replacement for the Macintosh. My argument all along is that Apple can and should spend all its efforts on the Mac as well as the iToys. That's a smart, long term business strategy. It paid off very well for Microsoft, even though they have multiple products, they never let go of their core.

What people are arguing, you included, is that it is the right thing to do, to wind down Mac development - that Apple's focus on the iToys isn't just because of the antics of Steve Jobs and his inability to focus on more than one thing at at time, but that it is a sound strategy. Devolve the Mac, make it a self-fulfilling prophecy that the iToys will take over and desktop machines will become the "trucks" or whatever drivel Steve Jobs used.

While this strategy will ensure that to be a self fulfilling prophecy for Apple, it won't work on reality. Apple will become an iToy company and the Mac will go the way of the Apple II. Not it terms of technological relevance, but company focus.

Apple already has started moving out of serious business environment by the sudden axing of the XServe - offering no replacement and thus killing any and all credibility Apple had in the enterprise sector. The MacPro will be next, then the iMac. That's just a strategic decision, not because these machines aren't selling, just that they aren't Apple's "focus" any more. 30% of revenue isn't all that much and when you don't nurture, develop and push the Mac platform and just put it in maintenance mode as Apple is doing, it will shrink. You have to tend your garden. When it's small enough, it can be finally killed.

However, iToys are probably not the future, because they are limited by their own frame. Computers are not. They are easily adaptable to almost any situation. You'll constantly hit walls if you're going to base your whole life around an iPad, for instance - while and ugly box under the desk connected to a monitor, keyboard and a mouse is so versatile and expandable that one is less tethered.

For instance, you want to edit a movie on the iPad. It's monitor is not large, it's small. It isn't color calibrated. Nor is the machine fast enough to handle modern HD video of 1080p. The speakers are terrible for music editing purposes, and the mini-jack port is not good enough to transmit sound to better speakers in actual hi-fi without digital distortion in the background. No paper or website can be designed or maintained on a tablet, even if it had the performance of a MacPro. Typing on a touchscreen a text of any length is a terrible experience and programming requirers access to a much more flexible UI than is offered.

The very frame defeats it.

It's not I who deem it unable to do real work, it's the iPad itself, it's design and purpose - it's limitations are it's strong point as an iToy, but ultimately defeats it as any sort of actual replacement for a desktop or a dedicated laptop such as the MacBook Pro.

Now you've changed your argument to "maybe it can do real work, but only where a laptop would have been overkill". Again, that's wrong. In addition to replacing laptops, we're using the iPad as a replacement for all sorts of tools, from dedicated sound recorders to clapper slates, i.e we're replacing a multitude of tools that never even existed on the PC.

No, I've not changed my argument at all. It works where it works, but some have said that it can replace a laptop or desktop - which it can't. It can do some things, I know, I've used an iPad and frequently use my fine iPod touch. It's a great device to have when one can't reach a computer, but it fails so many times when a computer would have succeeded. For instance just browsing the web, it renders wrong, it doesn't support all websites and even here on the forums clicking a next page requires zooming in and finding a small arrow at the bottom of the screen. It's cumbersome and as I say, for emergency only.

It can't always connect to WiFi networks and there's no way for me to diagnose why, I just have to accept that. Doing edits or publishing things through it, would be an ordeal of pain. But for listening to music, see if I have new mail or using the occasional funny app, it's great!!

And you use it as a clapper slate. That's one heck of an expensive clapper slate and in fact I wouldn't recommend using a laptop as a clapper slate anyway. I guess the iPad found its niche.

Strangely enough, none of our staff are 10 years old and strangely enough the iPad helps us to be more responsive, more nimble and ultimately to create higher quality work.

I don't doubt that, but could you explain those 'synergy' talking points beyond it sounding like a soundbite from a generic computer ad? I'm already more responsive, nimble and ultimately able to create higher quality work! Oh yes.

At the end of the day, we're a business and as such we need to be profitable. Everything we buy, equipment wise, needs to earn its keep and the iPad does that in spades.

I'm sure there was no cheaper clapper available. I can see that. Good move.

Your personal experience is just that, your personal experience. While no doubt true for you, there are many others out there, experiencing the world on their own terms.

True! Agreed, but my personal experience coincides with your personal experience in that the iToys have in no way replaced actual computers, but peripherals, shopscanners, clipboards and clappers are in great danger!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So you're faulting Apple because of the speed in transitioning to what you refer to as the iToys as their primary products?

To be honest, your argument is fairly incoherent at this point.

Point is simple besson, a child could understand it. The Mac is in a poor state today. That is a policy decision by Apple, not by necessity or reality. Just lack of interest.

I'm not faulting Apple for any imagined transition. Apple can and should market its iToys as aggressively as they can IMO. No need to disregard the Mac just because Steve Jobs doesn't have the attention span or interest in it any more.

Did you have a point yourself in this discussion, or did you expect me to join the halleluja choir on the "future" of computers being iToys?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

And you're completely off-base with Fusion-powered notebooks. It's like you're using the argument against Atom for Fusion.

No not really, just pointing out the obvious, that the Fusion notbooks are not a success - the why of it is IMO that they are underpowered (CPU/GPU fusion) and unappealing when people can buy an iPad or even a clunkier yet more powerful notebook for the same price.

But I don't really care either way, because neither low powered note/net books or iPads can replace the Mac. Which is my point.

"Good enough" is not good enough and smaller, thinner, lighter is almost never better.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No it's not short sighted at all. In the very near future, nobody will actually have or need a computer. You'll take your phone or tablet home and dock it in a station and use it as a computer. The Motorola Atrix has a dual-core 1.4 GHz processor for example and runs Linux and Firefox when docked. The desktop computer is rapidly becoming obsolete and useless, apart from that very small percentage of users who actually need the power of a desktop computer. Most iMac buyers aren't even going to be taking advantage of the power of a i3 as it is, so why not work on ways to redefine exactly what it means to have a desktop computer?

The Atrix dock is certainly a neat concept, but I'm not sure how practical it is. What happens if you're working on a document in a word processor, and the phone rings? It seems that to pick up the phone, you'd have to take it out of the dock and disrupt what you were working on.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

The Atrix dock is certainly a neat concept, but I'm not sure how practical it is. What happens if you're working on a document in a word processor, and the phone rings? It seems that to pick up the phone, you'd have to take it out of the dock and disrupt what you were working on.

I was just using the Atrix as a reference. It's obviously not perfect. But you can answer the phone while it's docked via speaker phone, or if you pick it up it will save your location in the Linux environment. HP had a press room at their event set up with the TouchPad on their TouchStone dock (which can hold the TouchPad in an upright landscape or vertical orientation) with a bluetooth keyboard. Jon Rubinstein also said that mouse support is coming soon. It's very clear where this is going.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Point is simple besson, a child could understand it.

There is no need for this.

The Mac is in a poor state today. That is a policy decision by Apple, not by necessity or reality. Just lack of interest.

I'm not faulting Apple for any imagined transition. Apple can and should market its iToys as aggressively as they can IMO. No need to disregard the Mac just because Steve Jobs doesn't have the attention span or interest in it any more.

Did you have a point yourself in this discussion, or did you expect me to join the halleluja choir on the "future" of computers being iToys?

Things that are being phased out are always in poor states as they are killed by attrition. Is this something you disagree with?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no need for this.

Indeed, nor this: "To be honest, your argument is fairly incoherent at this point."

Things that are being phased out are always in poor states as they are killed by attrition. Is this something you disagree with?

I agree it's being done, i.e. that the Mac is being phased out. I disagree it's being done out of any necessity, because no matter what the future may bring, today PCs are the dominant computer platform and will be for the foreseeable future.. on the horizon there are nothing but promises of the supremacy of iToys. Even downloaded movies have a clearer future versus physical media than iToys versus PCs.

In fact I feel that the entire thing is set up with the false premise that it's a zero sum game, that one will be dominant and the other will retrieve to obscurity. That may be the case with the Mac, because of Apple policy, but in reality there's nothing that indicates that will happen to the IBM-compatibles or Linux.

I maintain that both can 'win' at the same time. The iToys complement the 'desktops' (normal laptops included), but don't replace them. Only at Apple (and with some of its most ardent fans) the iToys *are the future* (whenever that will be).

The fact is, as many have pointed out, Mac sales have never been as good. And that's when Apple gives up on the Mac. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

The sooner the notion that iToys are here to 'replace' normal computers is corrected, the better. Small and cheap devices that are good at what they do will continue to be popular, but they are no answer - probably because the question was never asked, i.e. "why isn't there a small tablet like touchscreen device that can do limited things in a protected environment to replace all those versatile and powerful 'normal' computers".

I'm happy that Apple is selling more Macs. I'm displeased that Apple interprets that as the last days of the Mac, so it's better to phase it out. If Lion will be anything like the demo Steve gave the other day, then that's exactly what is happening to the Mac - combined with the stagnation of OS X software development and innovation.

Apple tries this almost every time, that they are predictable.

Step 1. Introduce elements of the product you are *now* selling on what you consider a competing platform (e.g. iTunes interface in Windows, iOS Lion UI, iLife)

Step 2. Phase out anything that isn't current focus and claim the 'market' has spoken when nobody wants your outdated 'old' and unsupported product. (e.g. classic iPod, FCP, XServe, Shake etc.)

Step 3. Always talk in hyperbole, no matter how stupid it is (e.g. desktops are "trucks", nobody wants to watch video on an iPod screen .. what next, Apple toasters? haha - S.J., this is the year of the HD .. 2005 and now it's gone etc.)

I can't be the only one to see the pattern. Maybe the RDF just doesn't work for me any more.

[voodoo]

Actually, what surprises me is that so many defend Apple over the Mac. Pointing even to increased Mac sales, while Apple is winding the Mac development (i.e. OS X) down.

(oh the iToys in their various iterations are TEH future111)

App development (oh they were never any good at it anyway)

Enterprise development and support (oh they never had a chance anyway)

OS X development (oh it's perfect now, I can't imagine how it could be better)

etc.

All the while pointing out that Apple is making hand over fist in $$s now. They MUST be right, they're making money111

I remember lots of banks making immense amount of money not that long ago. Was that proof of a long term profitable strategy? No of course not.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Steve needs good people like you!!

Someone who buys a Mac every 7 years, doesn't have an iPhone and still uses a 6 year old iPod?

Stop painting me as an Apple sycophant who buys everything they make. I've used Macs for a long time, as have you, and I am not nostalgic in the least for what the platform used to be. The modern age of the Mac, spurred by the overwhelming success of Apple's 'iToys', is the best time to be a Mac user no matter what you say.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Someone who buys a Mac every 7 years, doesn't have an iPhone and still uses a 6 year old iPod?

Stop painting me as an Apple sycophant who buys everything they make. I've used Macs for a long time, as have you, and I am not nostalgic in the least for what the platform used to be. The modern age of the Mac, spurred by the overwhelming success of Apple's 'iToys', is the best time to be a Mac user no matter what you say.

You may not buy everything they make, but you seem to buy everything they say. .. Setting that aside, I'm not nostalgic for anything the Mac used to be. Far from it, I want more. I want innovation, I want the Mac to do well and I want Apple to focus intensely on OS X development along with Mac hardware development for the foreseeable future. It's the future that concerns me, not the past.

The modern age of the Mac is the poorest time to be a Mac user since perhaps 2003. I applaud the success of the iToys, but reject that it means we are heading into a 'new' era or somesuch. I reject that for the iToys to dominate, the Mac needs to be phased out or taken out of focus.

No matter what I say, indeed. That's making your opinion a fact. Which it is .. not.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I agree it's being done, i.e. that the Mac is being phased out. I disagree it's being done out of any necessity, because no matter what the future may bring, today PCs are the dominant computer platform and will be for the foreseeable future.. on the horizon there are nothing but promises of the supremacy of iToys. Even downloaded movies have a clearer future versus physical media than iToys versus PCs.

In fact I feel that the entire thing is set up with the false premise that it's a zero sum game, that one will be dominant and the other will retrieve to obscurity. That may be the case with the Mac, because of Apple policy, but in reality there's nothing that indicates that will happen to the IBM-compatibles or Linux.

I maintain that both can 'win' at the same time. The iToys complement the 'desktops' (normal laptops included), but don't replace them. Only at Apple (and with some of its most ardent fans) the iToys *are the future* (whenever that will be).

The fact is, as many have pointed out, Mac sales have never been as good. And that's when Apple gives up on the Mac. Makes absolutely no sense to me.

The sooner the notion that iToys are here to 'replace' normal computers is corrected, the better. Small and cheap devices that are good at what they do will continue to be popular, but they are no answer - probably because the question was never asked, i.e. "why isn't there a small tablet like touchscreen device that can do limited things in a protected environment to replace all those versatile and powerful 'normal' computers".

I'm happy that Apple is selling more Macs. I'm displeased that Apple interprets that as the last days of the Mac, so it's better to phase it out. If Lion will be anything like the demo Steve gave the other day, then that's exactly what is happening to the Mac - combined with the stagnation of OS X software development and innovation.

Apple tries this almost every time, that they are predictable.

Step 1. Introduce elements of the product you are *now* selling on what you consider a competing platform (e.g. iTunes interface in Windows, iOS Lion UI, iLife)

Step 2. Phase out anything that isn't current focus and claim the 'market' has spoken when nobody wants your outdated 'old' and unsupported product. (e.g. classic iPod, FCP, XServe, Shake etc.)

Step 3. Always talk in hyperbole, no matter how stupid it is (e.g. desktops are "trucks", nobody wants to watch video on an iPod screen .. what next, Apple toasters? haha - S.J., this is the year of the HD .. 2005 and now it's gone etc.)

I can't be the only one to see the pattern. Maybe the RDF just doesn't work for me any more.

Okay, I think I understand your point now, and I actually agree with it.

Your point is that Apple is neglecting their current Mac systems while they are devoting resources to the iToys. Where I was hung up in the "why" part of this. The why part of this is clear - the iToys are very much a part of not only the future of Apple, but the future of all of computing.

However, in the present, Apple has definitely slacked off on their Mac stuff. While there are a few things that would be nice to be conducted differently, capabilities that would be nice to have, etc., for the most part they have gotten away with this slacking off, in large part because they can - OS X is good enough for most people.

While "good enough" is a depressing state of affairs for a company that once reached for the stars with OS X, as a business there are business decisions that involve resource allocation. Rewriting OS X to make it more responsive than it is is not just a little thing, and would perhaps require more resources than would result in a return on investment for Apple.

This is not to excuse Apple, it would be nice if Apple did a lot of things differently including more OS X performance optimization starting years ago, server products that strived to be more than "good enough", a better MobileMe, fixes to long standing problems, etc. However, when you buy into Apple you are buying into a profit motivated company that is going to do what it needs to do as a business. Apple is not necessarily into creating ideal computing, but computing that is profitable to them by embracing ideals that can be used to provide tangible benefits to a large number of users that in turn lead to higher profits.

So, all of this being said, I don't quite understand allowing frustration and other emotions to be a part of this (if they are) - it is what it is, Apple is a company interested in making profits. Its long term growth and sustainability is dependent on the iToys, every company is on constant lookout for future "stars" and not being satisfied with cash cows. Sometimes the cash cows are affected by all of this, I don't think this is a terribly unusual predicament.

[Laminar]

3 down, 7 to go...

[besson3c]

Do you like Muslims, Laminar?

[Laminar]

STAY ON TOPIC allcaps

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

However, in the present, Apple has definitely slacked off on their Mac stuff. While there are a few things that would be nice to be conducted differently, capabilities that would be nice to have, etc., for the most part they have gotten away with this slacking off, in large part because they can - OS X is good enough for most people.

While "good enough" is a depressing state of affairs for a company that once reached for the stars with OS X, as a business there are business decisions that involve resource allocation. Rewriting OS X to make it more responsive than it is is not just a little thing, and would perhaps require more resources than would result in a return on investment for Apple.

Just to say, I disagree with you here on two points.

First, where do you find OS X unresponsive? I haven't found it such for several years.

Second, I don't think Apple was "aiming for the stars" with OS X. Apple was, IMO, desperately trying to claw its way out of the grave. The company had been trying to replace the classic Mac OS as early as 1989, with the start of the Pink project. By the time OS 8 was released, the deficiencies of the OS were becoming very apparent, and, IMO, OS 9 was just a series of bandages whose objective was to keep an OS working until OS X could be released.

The first three or four releases of OS X were, essentially, bringing OS X into the modern computing age, reengineering or replacing things from OpenStep/BSD which were legacy pieces in themselves. True, Apple was building a modern, best-of-breed OS, but it's important to remember they were doing this, in part, because they had failed to keep the OS modern while MS released far better operating systems, not because they are determined to be the best, no matter what. I personally can't think of a feature which is missing from OS X which isn't one included solely to score nerd points. Just because an OS has more blinkenlights doesn't mean it's a better OS, and if you need proof, look at Linux. Lots of blinkenlights, still a usability nightmare.

I also think it's important to remember how Apple defines being the best. It's not about having the most blinkenlights, or about always having bleeding edge features in your OS. It's about presenting the best, vertically integrated package, which makes the computing experience the most expansive for the widest number of people. If you want an example, look at copy and paste in iOS. Apple took a lot of flack for taking their time in releasing it, but if you've used copy and paste on Android (in which the steps you go through to copy and paste can change depending on what content you're looking at) it's hard to argue that Apple taking their time wasn't the exact right choice.

I understand people's desire for bleeding edge stuff, but I think it's important to remember that the pursuit of features without first engineering them into the OS in a holistic way can seriously detract from the usability of the OS as a whole.

And, as an aside, anyone who thinks Apple is phasing out the Mac hasn't read Apple's latest 10K. You don't phase out billions in revenue. A company may respond to market pressures and shift resources to what is, obviously, the future of computing, but this isn't 'phasing out'. This is just admitting that all things change, and companies which don't change, die.

For the past year or so, I have been saying that, in the future, tablets and their ilk will become the dominant form of computing because, quite simply, they provide all the computing power most people need. And, as tablets and whatever they morph into become more and more powerful, they may eventually completely replace what we now think of as desktop PCs. However, that day is a long way away. The segment of the general computing market which needs serious computing power--retouchers, production/pre-press, audio, video, programmers, scientific visualization--will continue to buy Mac Pros like the one I'm typing on. But this market segment isn't particularly large--I'd guess maybe 15% of the total--and never has been. What has happened, simply, is that technology and form factor have caught up with you average person's computing needs.

This isn't a new phenomenon, by the way. In fact, it's how the computing industry works.

My dad, who's an aerospace engineer, has been using computers since the days of punchcards and magnetic tape. Twenty years ago he and his colleagues had to rent time on Crays to run their finite element analysis software, because Crays were the only machine which could produce performance of 500+ MFlops. Nowadays they can get 20+ GFlops from $2,000 in hardware, and they don't rent time on Crays any more. Supercomputers have moved from general purpose engineering machines into a very specialized niche, their place taken by cheap clusters of *nix machines.

Ten years ago I lugged my Pismo around with me so I could have mobile computing. Now all I need is my iPod Touch. Fits in a pocket much better.

So, it's nothing personal. It's just progress.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Just to say, I disagree with you here on two points.

First, where do you find OS X unresponsive? I haven't found it such for several years.

It is responsive on fast hardware, and we've had fast hardware for many years, but the fact that it was unresponsive on lesser hardware doesn't mean that OS X is suddenly optimized, it just means that this doesn't cause as many headaches.

OS X consumes a ton of RAM, that is one tangible way that its resource consumption can impact us, and it will certainly make virtualization difficult should Apple eventually permit this on a wider scale. OS X is far from the lightweight OS that iOS is.

Second, I don't think Apple was "aiming for the stars" with OS X. Apple was, IMO, desperately trying to claw its way out of the grave. The company had been trying to replace the classic Mac OS as early as 1989, with the start of the Pink project. By the time OS 8 was released, the deficiencies of the OS were becoming very apparent, and, IMO, OS 9 was just a series of bandages whose objective was to keep an OS working until OS X could be released.

It started by clawing its way back to the grave, but once it had at least matched Windows for a while Apple was very interested in putting a distance between it and Windows. They marketed this like crazy with all of the Windows photocopier sort of ads/marketing.

I personally can't think of a feature which is missing from OS X which isn't one included solely to score nerd points.

It depends on how you look at it. Many features in OS X are appealing to nerds because they have no direct benefit on average users, but this doesn't mean that they aren't vitally important, they just manifest in different ways. Something like Quartz Extreme is a good example of this.

Just because an OS has more blinkenlights doesn't mean it's a better OS, and if you need proof, look at Linux. Lots of blinkenlights, still a usability nightmare.

It depends on how you classify "better". Linux is a better server operating system than OS X Server, in my opinion, and evidently the opinion of many others as well.

And, as an aside, anyone who thinks Apple is phasing out the Mac hasn't read Apple's latest 10K. You don't phase out billions in revenue. A company may respond to market pressures and shift resources to what is, obviously, the future of computing, but this isn't 'phasing out'. This is just admitting that all things change, and companies which don't change, die.

You're right, it might be too premature to use the term "phasing out".

[Spheric Harlot]

There's Never been a better time to be a Mac user.

Not a geek lusting for cool stuff or cred - that would be 2003-5 (OS X to about 10.4) and the 90s (ResEdit hacking), respectively.

I mean actual use.

I'm not actually missing any features, and I've never been happier using the Mac (I no longer tinker or lust after New and Shiny unless actually paid by my clients).

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is responsive on fast hardware, and we've had fast hardware for many years, but the fact that it was unresponsive on lesser hardware doesn't mean that OS X is suddenly optimized, it just means that this doesn't cause as many headaches.

Not sure where you're going here. It's responsive on my 6.5 year old G5 as well.

OS X consumes a ton of RAM, that is one tangible way that its resource consumption can impact us, and it will certainly make virtualization difficult should Apple eventually permit this on a wider scale. OS X is far from the lightweight OS that iOS is.

In my experience it doesn't actually consume that much more RAM than Windows Vista/7 or Linux + X 7.x + Beryl/Compiz. I'm not sure what the advantage of being a 'lightweight' OS is. If you have the hardware and RAM, then put it to use.

They marketed this like crazy with all of the Windows photocopier sort of ads/marketing.

Marketing != truth even for Apple. I remember all those ads, with carefully picked Photoshops tests, showing how a dual 450 MHz G4 was faster than a 1.5 GHz x86 machine. We all know they weren't.

Something like Quartz Extreme is a good example of this.

Actually, I think it's a poor example, simply because, with modern CPU/GPU power, Quartz GL doesn't really add anything to the user experience. From my understand, 1) Apple never got the bugs worked out and 2) technology advanced sufficiently to render any advances it might have given essentially moot. So, while Quartz GL may be fun to play with, I don't think it offers any advances in day-to-day computing. I think it's another blinkenlights thing. It sounds cool, but it actually adds very little to the overall experience.

By not turning it on by default, I think Apple has avoided a lot of the problems MS has had with Aero and the various Linux distros have had with Compiz/Beryl.

It depends on how you classify "better". Linux is a better server operating system than OS X Server, in my opinion, and evidently the opinion of many others as well.

True. And it's an infinitely worse desktop OS, and I've been using it off and on for years. This is because, I think, the features which make a good server OS are, in many ways, features which make a poor desktop OS.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Not sure where you're going here. It's responsive on my 6.5 year old G5 as well.

What is your frame of reference? Responsive in comparison to what? Responsive at all times, no matter what you do? Not even my newer Macbook Pro is responsive 100% of the time.

In my experience it doesn't actually consume that much more RAM than Windows Vista/7 or Linux + X 7.x + Beryl/Compiz. I'm not sure what the advantage of being a 'lightweight' OS is. If you have the hardware and RAM, then put it to use.

Windows I can't speak to, and Linux + the 3D stuff I can't speak to either, but how many gigabytes of RAM do you think are included in an iPhone? The advantage of a lightweight OS is that it runs better on mobile devices or devices that don't have a lot of horsepower, and it requires less money to build these devices. On the server end of things being lightweight has a whole host of other advantages as well.

Actually, I think it's a poor example, simply because, with modern CPU/GPU power, Quartz GL doesn't really add anything to the user experience. From my understand, 1) Apple never got the bugs worked out and 2) technology advanced sufficiently to render any advances it might have given essentially moot. So, while Quartz GL may be fun to play with, I don't think it offers any advances in day-to-day computing. I think it's another blinkenlights thing. It sounds cool, but it actually adds very little to the overall experience.

What is the Apple branded name of the technology that provides things like the flipping windows on the iPhone or Dashboard widgets?

True. And it's an infinitely worse desktop OS, and I've been using it off and on for years. This is because, I think, the features which make a good server OS are, in many ways, features which make a poor desktop OS.

Which is why I don't always like the term "better" when comparing platforms. I think that consumers tend to have a narrow view of computing in equating the stuff they do to the entire computing world, and probably the same works in reverse when it comes to enterprise/high performance computing. Simple is what we are all after in all software design, but not everything can be as Grandma-friendly simple, and it is unfair to say that these things are inferior just because of this reality. The shorthand way of saying this: the best tool for the best job, and there are many different kinds of jobs, some of which even lowly Windows might be the best suited for the task!

[P]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Originally Posted by besson3c

It depends on how you look at it. Many features in OS X are appealing to nerds because they have no direct benefit on average users, but this doesn't mean that they aren't vitally important, they just manifest in different ways. Something like Quartz Extreme is a good example of this.

Actually, I think it's a poor example, simply because, with modern CPU/GPU power, Quartz GL doesn't really add anything to the user experience. From my understand, 1) Apple never got the bugs worked out and 2) technology advanced sufficiently to render any advances it might have given essentially moot. So, while Quartz GL may be fun to play with, I don't think it offers any advances in day-to-day computing. I think it's another blinkenlights thing. It sounds cool, but it actually adds very little to the overall experience.

Not really. Apple's branding doesn't help, but

1) Quartz is two things, the new 2D graphics rendering language to replace old Quickdraw for drawing inside windows and the compositing engine (which combines all the windows, as drawn by each app, into a 2D image on the screen).
2) Quartz Extreme is a a quite ingenious idea, where considering each rendered window (or region, if you want to be picky) as a texture in a 3D environment lets you use OpenGL commands for the compositing. This in turn lets the compositing be accelerated in hardware. This idea wasn't Apple's (it came from ATi), but Apple was the quickest to implement it. Vista does something similar. It's a brilliant idea and it really offloads a heavy task from the CPU.
3) The other part of Quartz, Quartz 2D, was also accelerated although much later. This was called Quartz 2D Extreme, eventually renamed into Quartz GL, and it means offloading the actual 2D rendering operation to the graphics card. This was partially a failure, because even after all the hardware acceleration, Quickdraw was still faster. Quartz has more features in areas like transparency, but the simpler Quickdraw is faster for most real-world scenarios.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

By not turning it on by default, I think Apple has avoided a lot of the problems MS has had with Aero and the various Linux distros have had with Compiz/Beryl.

Quartz Extreme is on by default. Quartz GL is off (and enabled by the developer on a per window basis), but the problems MS had with Vista were not related to anything like that. Vista's 2D graphics performance sucked because the old graphics rendering language - GDI, comparable to Quickdraw in all of this - wasn't accelerated at all. Win 7 fixed this, which was a big reason for the improved perceived performance. I don't know enough about Combiz/Beryl to comment, but the Wikipedia description makes it sound like Quartz Extreme rather than Quartz GL.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your frame of reference? Responsive in comparison to what? Responsive at all times, no matter what you do? Not even my newer Macbook Pro is responsive 100% of the time.

We may be talking about different things here. How are you defining "responsive"?

The advantage of a lightweight OS is that it runs better on mobile devices or devices that don't have a lot of horsepower, and it requires less money to build these devices. On the server end of things being lightweight has a whole host of other advantages as well.

Agreed. I don't see how this has any bearing on our discussion, tho. There is a lightweight version of OS X for the iOS devices. However, I don't need that version on my Mac Pro.

What is the Apple branded name of the technology that provides things like the flipping windows on the iPhone or Dashboard widgets?

Quartz Compositor/Window Manager, far as I know. Quartz Extreme/Quartz GL is something else, yes?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by P 

Not really. Apple's branding doesn't help, but

1) Quartz is two things, the new 2D graphics rendering language to replace old Quickdraw for drawing inside windows and the compositing engine (which combines all the windows, as drawn by each app, into a 2D image on the screen).
2) Quartz Extreme is a a quite ingenious idea, where considering each rendered window (or region, if you want to be picky) as a texture in a 3D environment lets you use OpenGL commands for the compositing. This in turn lets the compositing be accelerated in hardware. This idea wasn't Apple's (it came from ATi), but Apple was the quickest to implement it. Vista does something similar. It's a brilliant idea and it really offloads a heavy task from the CPU.
3) The other part of Quartz, Quartz 2D, was also accelerated although much later. This was called Quartz 2D Extreme, eventually renamed into Quartz GL, and it means offloading the actual 2D rendering operation to the graphics card. This was partially a failure, because even after all the hardware acceleration, Quickdraw was still faster. Quartz has more features in areas like transparency, but the simpler Quickdraw is faster for most real-world scenarios.

Then it sounds like we agree: great sounding technology which, in Apple's case, didn't pan out like it was supposed to.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

We may be talking about different things here. How are you defining "responsive"?

Absence of the spinning beach ball, no lag of any sort when interacting with the GUI and getting it to process this request.

Agreed. I don't see how this has any bearing on our discussion, tho. There is a lightweight version of OS X for the iOS devices. However, I don't need that version on my Mac Pro.

The bearing on the discussion is your questioning that OS X is resource hungry.

Quartz Compositor/Window Manager, far as I know. Quartz Extreme/Quartz GL is something else, yes?

I'll let some person more familiar with Apple's marketing answer that

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Absence of the spinning beach ball, no lag of any sort when interacting with the GUI and getting it to process this request.

The only time I encountered any noticeable lag on my G5 was dealing with the iTunes Store.

The bearing on the discussion is your questioning that OS X is resource hungry.

Okay, but I say this is a moot point. As computing resources expand, so does OS footprint. There is no practical reason to have a lightweight OS on a heavy duty machine, and every Mac today is a heavyweight machine. The slowest Mac sold, the 1.86 GHz MacBook Air, is almost as fast as the fastest PPC machine Apple every shipped. The slowest iMac is almost twice as fast as the fastest, quad-core G5s. So, while I can understand the technical beauty of a lightweight OS, I can see no practical reason to ship one on a desktop or laptop.

Even the mainstream Linux distros are no longer lightweight. The kernel has become huge, and if you want to run it with all the GUI bells and whistles, you will need a good amount of RAM and a beefy GPU.

Apple does ship a lightweight OS on its lightweight machines: iOS.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

The only time I encountered any noticeable lag on my G5 was dealing with the iTunes Store.

Consider yourself lucky.

Okay, but I say this is a moot point. As computing resources expand, so does OS footprint. There is no practical reason to have a lightweight OS on a heavy duty machine, and every Mac today is a heavyweight machine. The slowest Mac sold, the 1.86 GHz MacBook Air, is almost as fast as the fastest PPC machine Apple every shipped. The slowest iMac is almost twice as fast as the fastest, quad-core G5s. So, while I can understand the technical beauty of a lightweight OS, I can see no practical reason to ship one on a desktop or laptop.

You do realize that a lightweight OS affects performance in other areas other than GUI responsiveness, right? Lightweight OSes scale better as computing needs and the demand on resources increase. You are stressing CPU speeds here, which makes me think that we are talking about entirely different things. I'm referring largely to RAM consumption. Spinning wheels are often caused by virtual memory usage and disks that can't keep up with this thrashing.

Even the mainstream Linux distros are no longer lightweight. The kernel has become huge, and if you want to run it with all the GUI bells and whistles, you will need a good amount of RAM and a beefy GPU.

That's not true. The only mainstream Linux distros that are no longer lightweight are distros like Ubuntu that attempt to be a Desktop OS.