Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Jobs is Officially Gone, Apple Slooowws

Jobs is Officially Gone, Apple Slooowws (Page 6)
Thread Tools
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
You remind me of that guy on that Seinfeld episode who asked rhetorical questions and answered them himself.
Haha, yeah me too
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
For consumption? Yes. But people are also willing to carry around a device the size of a laptop. My point is that carrying a laptop with a detachable screen née tablet is better than carrying both a laptop AND a tablet. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that laptops still outnumber tablets.


For consumption? Yes, absolutely.


For creation? Yes. You'd be hard pressed to argue otherwise. Maybe subego will do it for you. I hope he does, that would be interesting and a lot more civil


Save your breath, it's a good device, for consumption. I notice you only listed consumption activities, and that's because you must. People do use it for creation, but no one is going to argue it's actually better for it. There are more content consumers than content creators. But that doesn't mean creation isn't important.

I haven't bought a tablet, haven't even considered it (unless you count an ipod touch?). And it's because content creation is hopeless there. Subego once mentioned that the spelling-predictor or whatever it's called is vital for typing on iOS. I want to write code on my portable, you can't do that in iOS. Even if the software was there, you're not going to get the workarounds like spelling-predictor that apparently make it usable in the first place. That's why from my perspective, the iPad is a failure, and I'm using an atom-based hackintosh instead. It's dog slow and cramped and heavier, but at least it meets the bare-bones requirements that I need, and the iPad doesn't.

Of course, I also use it for consumption, and for those times it would be insanely great if I could just leave the keyboard/base in my backpack and carry the 10-inch screen around. I'm not going to travel with two 10-inch screens just for that purpose though.
Content creation:

I use Apple's bluetooth keyboard and Pages when I want distraction free writing capability. I've actually made entire, interactive presentations using just the iPad and had fun doing it. I've edited photos with iPhoto on the iPad, and sketched user interface designs with it. I've managed spreadsheets and input data on it.

I use Pivotal Tracker on it to manage user stories for software development. Hospitals use the iPad for charting and inputting data.

Would I say the iPad is better than a computer in all of these cases? No, but in some it is. And for consumption it's very good at a set of things as discussed. In other words, the iPad does have a reason to exist.
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2012, 11:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Haha, yeah me too
Do I feel like responding to Skeletor? Yes, yes I do. Do I feel like watching YouTube right now? No, no I don't.

Do I feel like potato chips, the ketchup kind right now? Yes, yes I do. Do I like the Microsoft Surface? No, not really. Does Bill Gates watch porn? I don't know. Should we be worried about global warming? No, not really.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
In other words, the iPad does have a reason to exist.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
You remind me of that guy on that Seinfeld episode who asked rhetorical questions and answered them himself.
Donald Rumsfeld?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Another good counter-example is the plain old camera-phone. The act of combining them doesn't make it a better phone, and it definitely does makes it a worse camera. But the tangible benefit of simplification is HUGE. People want to snap crappy pics on the mobile device in their pocket, but they don't want to carry two mobile electronic devices everywhere. The mere combination of it with something they already have with them offers a great deal of tangible benefit, despite being a slightly worse (larger, heavier, more expensive and reduced battery life) phone and significantly worse camera.
So you're completely agreeing with me.

What is the tangible benefit of carrying around a desktop-class computer in your tablet THAT YOU CANNOT USE unless you're at a desk?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:52 AM
 
Honestly, I have no idea what any of you people are trying to say anymore.

It's got to the point where it's just about disagreeing with others.

You've all been freudling'ed.

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:16 AM
 
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
What is the tangible benefit of carrying around a desktop-class computer in your tablet THAT YOU CANNOT USE unless you're at a desk?
Exactly. Thank you for summarizing it so succinctly.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:08 AM
 
But....you could use it when and wherever you can currently use a laptop.

Are you suggesting you need a desk to use a laptop?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
But....you could use it when and wherever you can currently use a laptop.

Are you suggesting you need a desk to use a laptop?
Not with Uncle Skeleton's design. That's why we think the design is so useless.

P.S. Are you Dakar or someone else?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
So you're completely agreeing with me.

What is the tangible benefit of carrying around a desktop-class computer in your tablet THAT YOU CANNOT USE unless you're at a desk?
That's not what I said at all. If you're carrying it, then you can use it. If you can't use it, it's because you're not carrying it.

Just think of it like your power cord or your earbuds. If you came up to the current iPad and said "what's the point of carrying around a power charger on your iPad THAT YOU CANNOT USE UNLESS YOU'RE AT A POWER OUTLET?" You'd be a fool.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:07 AM
 
It's not me. The clue is in his surname.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Not with Uncle Skeleton's design. That's why we think the design is so useless.
I don't know why you guys can't understand this. It's a regular laptop, but the screen comes off and contains just enough stuff to make it work like an iPad. The rest is just software.

P.S. Are you Dakar or someone else?
I don't know why people are having trouble with this either
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Not with Uncle Skeleton's design. That's why we think the design is so useless.

P.S. Are you Dakar or someone else?
Whoops, this is my non-Pol Lounge form. Really need to get myself out of there but sometimes I just get sucked in.

I understood Skeleton's "design" to be, literally, a laptop. With a slightly heavier screen that could be removed on the fly and used as a standalone, touchscreen iPad.

I'm not sure why that would preclude using the laptop version on something other than a desk. It would be no different than a current laptop, except (presumably) slightly heavier. Given the lightweight 13-inch laptops out these days, I don't see 5 pounds as unreasonable, or product-killing.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I understood Skeleton's "design" to be, literally, a laptop. With a slightly heavier screen that could be removed on the fly and used as a standalone, touchscreen iPad.
That's sort of Microsoft's design for the Surface Pro actually. However, that's not Uncle S's design.

I'm not sure why that would preclude using the laptop version on something other than a desk. It would be no different than a current laptop, except (presumably) slightly heavier.
Read his posts. Building on the comments of the for-some-reason-now-not-permabanned Ca$h, Uncle S advocates a machine with both ARM and x86 in the same housing, to run different forms of the OS (or two different OSes) depending upon whether the thing is docked or not. Basically what you get is an iOS iPad in tablet form, and a full-fledged x86 Mac OS X laptop in docked form.

Given the lightweight 13-inch laptops out these days, I don't see 5 pounds as unreasonable, or product-killing.
Given today's Apple laptops, 5 lbs for a Mac 13" laptop would be a total fail. Apple's current 13" full fledged laptop is 4.5 lbs, but that's likely to drop to 3 - 3.5 lbs by next year, when they introduce the Retina 13".

Remember, Apple's 15.4" Pro laptop is 4.5 lbs, so having a 5 lb 13" laptop would make no sense at all. Welcome to 10 years ago.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
That's sort of Microsoft's design for the Surface Pro actually.
No, the Surface Pro doesn't leave the heavier laptop parts behind when it goes tablet

Read his posts. Building on the comments of the for-some-reason-now-not-permabanned Ca$h, Uncle S advocates a machine with both ARM and x86 in the same housing
No, different housing

to run different forms of the OS (or two different OSes) depending upon whether the thing is docked or not.
No, depending on user control. Most users would choose iOS if and only if in tablet mode, but if you don't want to then there's no reason to force you.

Basically what you get is an iOS iPad in tablet form, and a full-fledged x86 Mac OS X laptop in docked form.
Yes. What exactly is wrong with wanting that?
     
freudling  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:13 PM
 
Oh god now people are doing the old break up the posts and respond. I think we've lost the plot here. Ha. I had nothing to do with it!
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 12:37 PM
 
What's wrong with that? You don't send a pair of arrays to do a hash table's job.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Read his posts. Building on the comments of the for-some-reason-now-not-permabanned Ca$h, Uncle S advocates a machine with both ARM and x86 in the same housing, to run different forms of the OS (or two different OSes) depending upon whether the thing is docked or not. Basically what you get is an iOS iPad in tablet form, and a full-fledged x86 Mac OS X laptop in docked form.
Thinking logically, wouldn't the ARM processor be in the "iPad/screen", and the x86 processor in the "laptop base"? How would you be able to use the iPad/screen without its processor attached?

I imagine the concept was that when you use the iPad, it's an ARM machine using iOS; when you dock it, it's an OS X machine using x86. (I have no idea if it's possible to use both processors concurrently, but maybe that's so for an additional benefit.)
Given today's Apple laptops, 5 lbs for a Mac 13" laptop would be a total fail. Apple's current 13" full fledged laptop is 4.5 lbs, but that's likely to drop to 3 - 3.5 lbs by next year, when they introduce the Retina 13".

Remember, Apple's 15.4" Pro laptop is 4.5 lbs, so having a 5 lb 13" laptop would make no sense at all. Welcome to 10 years ago.
Okay. It was just a random number pulled out of a hat. Basically, it would have to involve a laptop with a heavier "iPad" screen (presumably, an iPad that might not need to be as completely independently functional as a "normal" iPad, and thus lighter). Also presumably, having the iPad for a screen might also reduce some of the components that might normally be in a laptop body itself, further shaving some weight. (Yes, I'm just making shit up here, but it sounds logical.) On the other hand, there would have to be some sort of connection interface that would add weight - so who knows, maybe a pound more than a "regular" laptop of the same size?

At the end of the day, I would think that one machine that is both a laptop and an iPad could be done in a way that's lighter and more efficient than, say, having both a laptop and an iPad in your bag. Which is essentially what you seem to be proposing, by the way - "different tools for different jobs".

How is that a Bad Thing? Really, to me, there are a bunch of design problems I could see - having a much heavier screen might result in balance issues on the laptop hybrid for example - but I don't mind the basic concept in the slightest......
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:09 PM
 
Thank you! I'm glad someone is paying attention
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Thinking logically, wouldn't the ARM processor be in the "iPad/screen", and the x86 processor in the "laptop base"? How would you be able to use the iPad/screen without its processor attached?
So you're advocating two relatively independent motherboards, too.

I imagine the concept was that when you use the iPad, it's an ARM machine using iOS; when you dock it, it's an OS X machine using x86.
Yeah, and that makes no sense. The files and software you're using on x86 suddenly cannot be used in iOS mode, unless you limit yourself to tablet-compatible software.

(I have no idea if it's possible to use both processors concurrently, but maybe that's so for an additional benefit.)
No.

That's why the MS ARM-based Surface runs Windows 8 RT and only a limited amount of cut-down software (just like iOS), and why the x86-based Surface Pro runs the full Windows 8.

Okay. It was just a random number pulled out of a hat. Basically, it would have to involve a laptop with a heavier "iPad" screen (presumably, an iPad that might not need to be as completely independently functional as a "normal" iPad, and thus lighter). Also presumably, having the iPad for a screen might also reduce some of the components that might normally be in a laptop body itself, further shaving some weight. (Yes, I'm just making shit up here, but it sounds logical.) On the other hand, there would have to be some sort of connection interface that would add weight - so who knows, maybe a pound more than a "regular" laptop of the same size?

At the end of the day, I would think that one machine that is both a laptop and an iPad could be done in a way that's lighter and more efficient than, say, having both a laptop and an iPad in your bag. Which is essentially what you seem to be proposing, by the way - "different tools for different jobs".
The iPad is already heavy enough as it is. If the iPad were significantly heavier it'd be a major design flaw. If anything Apple should be shaving weight off the iPad for future versions.

How is that a Bad Thing? Really, to me, there are a bunch of design problems I could see - having a much heavier screen might result in balance issues on the laptop hybrid for example - but I don't mind the basic concept in the slightest......
The key is to incorporate power-efficient CPUs AND have the ability to run real software that will solve the problem. MS is attempting this by incorporating the look and feel of Windows 8 RT, or Metro, into Windows 8, and allowing that Metro interface to work with touch screens on full x86 machines. The important thing to realize here though is that the hardware is constant. The portable tablet without keyboard still runs x86 and can switch to full mode if necessary, cuz it's actually more logical to build the unit that way.

The bigger change here is in the software, not the hardware. You either scale up the mobile OS to do more, or you scale down the full OS to be less bloated and work better on lesser hardware, with an interface that works with touch screens.

What I see in the future is iOS that is much more capable of productivity, both because of the OS design and because of the available software made possible by the improvements in that OS design. Furthermore, by that time, ARM will actually be capable of doing much more than it can do now, to support that productivity. In that era I could see an iPad but with a plethora of seamlessly integrated accessories, including a lightweight Apple-branded keyboard. However, the basic hardware will be a single platform, without the bizarre forced mating of two incompatible chip architectures to run two different sets of software and OSes.
( Last edited by Eug; Jun 20, 2012 at 01:21 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
So you're advocating two relatively independent motherboards, too.


Yeah, and that makes no sense. The files and software you're using on x86 suddenly cannot be used in iOS mode, unless you limit yourself to tablet-compatible software.
Most file types can be accessed by iOS compatible software, just more for reading than writing. Improving this situation (the software) is also part of the vision of this proposal, obviously.


No.

That's why the MS ARM-based Surface runs Windows 8 RT and only a limited amount of cut-down software (just like iOS), and why the x86-based Surface Pro runs the full Windows 8.
It seems like you're suggesting that an ARM processor is not able to execute code compiled for OS X or Windows 8, and that's why it's an answer to the question of whether that cpu could contribute to system performance. But I run OS X on an atom processor, so I know that's not true. Therefore, I have no idea what you mean by this.


The iPad is already heavy enough as it is. If the iPad were significantly heavier it'd be a major design flaw. If anything Apple should be shaving weight off the iPad for future versions.
Shortcut said nothing about making the iPad part any heavier, and in fact he said it could possibly be even lighter.

The key is to incorporate power-efficient CPUs AND have the ability to run real software that will solve the problem. MS is attempting this by incorporating the look and feel of Windows 8 RT, or Metro, into Windows 8, and allowing that Metro interface to work with touch screens on full x86 machines. The important thing to realize here though is that the hardware is constant. The portable tablet without keyboard still runs x86 and can switch to full mode if necessary, cuz it's actually more logical to build the unit that way.
That must be why you appear to be physically unable to hear the words that it might actually be done another way. Everything you hear is preceded in your brain by "because the tablet runs x86, " (and of course followed by "in bed"). That's why you keep making so many reading comprehension mistakes in this thread.

What I see in the future is iOS that is much more capable of productivity, both because of the OS design and because of the available software made possible by the improvements in that OS design. Furthermore, by that time, ARM will actually be capable of doing much more than it can do now, to support that productivity. In that era I could see an iPad but with a plethora of seamlessly integrated accessories, including a lightweight Apple-branded keyboard. However, the basic hardware will be a single platform, without the bizarre forced mating of two incompatible chip architectures to run two different sets of software and OSes.
And at that future time, the future you would scoff at it as outdated "crippled" technology, and of course you'd be right because the regular laptop computers would be so much faster than that by then. Today we can do mini-computing at the standards of 5 years ago, and in 5 years we'll be able to do mini-computing at the standards of today. Why is this acceptable for the future and not for the present?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 02:02 PM
 
So you're saying that convergence is inevitable? I don't think it's going to happen.

It certainly won't be implemented by fusing two disparate platforms.
If that's the "solution" that's possible today, then today is not the day this is going to happen.

Microsoft is betting that this is the way to go, but they're completely confusing the platform by building this ****ed-up hybrid monster and calling it "pro" because they couldn't afford to make a consequent software decision.

Apple is working on expanding the capabilities of the iPad line. Much more promising IMO.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It seems like you're suggesting that an ARM processor is not able to execute code compiled for OS X or Windows 8, and that's why it's an answer to the question of whether that cpu could contribute to system performance. But I run OS X on an atom processor, so I know that's not true. Therefore, I have no idea what you mean by this.
Atom is not ARM.

Atom is x86. That's the whole point of Atom after all, to compete against ARM at the lower power end, but provide compatibility to the existing x86 codebase. It's binary compatible.

Atom and ARM are completely incompatible with each other.

BTW, Uncle S, what you describe for fusing two different chips in the same machine actually does exist. For example ARM's big.LITTLE design fuses ARM Cortex A7 with multiple cores of ARM Cortex A15. A7 runs at uber low power (eg. waiting for the phone to ring), while A15 runs at higher power and much higher speed (eg. playing games), all in the same package.

However, the point here is that they're both ARM chips and are binary compatible. If you create a program for A15, it will run on A7 as well, just a heluvalot slower.



Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
So you're saying that convergence is inevitable? I don't think it's going to happen.

It certainly won't be implemented by fusing two disparate platforms.
If that's the "solution" that's possible today, then today is not the day this is going to happen.
Exactly.

Microsoft is betting that this is the way to go, but they're completely confusing the platform by building this ****ed-up hybrid monster and calling it "pro" because they couldn't afford to make a consequent software decision.
The MS Surface Pro is not a hybrid monster in terms of the hardware. As described, it's actually a pretty focused piece of hardware. The clunky part is their OS, as they tried to patch Metro onto a full desktop OS.

Apple is working on expanding the capabilities of the iPad line. Much more promising IMO.
Agreed.
( Last edited by Eug; Jun 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Atom is not ARM.
Oops, my bad. But even without that, it could be possible to make the system states of OS X and iOS overlap (converge), boot both and just keep one in hibernation, and have them access the same shared state variables. The executed code doesn't have to be the same, only the user's experience does. Any 3rd party app that doesn't support both systems will simply appear inaccessible, with a note explaining that you need to go back to laptop-mode in order to resume it.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
So you're saying that convergence is inevitable? I don't think it's going to happen.
So I guess that was directed at me? No I don't think it's inevitable, just that I would welcome it.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Oops, my bad. But even without that, it could be possible to make the system states of OS X and iOS overlap (converge), boot both and just keep one in hibernation, and have them access the same shared state variables. The executed code doesn't have to be the same, only the user's experience does. Any 3rd party app that doesn't support both systems will simply appear inaccessible, with a note explaining that you need to go back to laptop-mode in order to resume it.
And as I've been pointing out all along, that's the fatal flaw. It's a forced exercise in frustration, which is why Apple rightly won't be going that direction.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
The MS Surface Pro is not a hybrid monster in terms of the hardware. As described, it's actually a pretty focused piece of hardware. The clunky part is their OS, as they tried to patch Metro onto a full desktop OS.
Since even Microsoft agrees today that the hardware is meaningless without the software, the MS Surface Pro IS a ****ed-up hybrid monster, since it wouldn't even EXIST if it didn't have to run the hacked-together cluster**** that is Windows 8 Pro.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Any 3rd party app that doesn't support both systems will simply appear inaccessible, with a note explaining that you need to go back to laptop-mode in order to resume it.
And this doesn't strike you as being completely broken?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
And as I've been pointing out all along, that's the fatal flaw. It's a forced exercise in frustration, which is why Apple rightly won't be going that direction.
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
And this doesn't strike you as being completely broken?
How is it any different from the OS 9/X, ppc/intel, or 32/64 transitions? We've already had loads of apps that need a note saying "sorry, not going to happen." Why is it somehow worse if the solution is "go find the other hardware you were just using" rather than "no solution"?

Edit: do you not realize that developers will be interested in updating their apps to be (the latest) "universal" (again)?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:22 PM
 
OS 9 / X was a forced transition. Everyone including Jobs realized it was a broken path, but it was the only option.
PPC / Intel was a forced transition. Everyone including Jobs realized it was a broken path, but was the only option. The difference here though was that it was full-fledged Mac OS X running on both platforms.
32/64 was a much smoother transition, and again was a full-fledged Mac OS X running on both platforms.

Your design is to make us go through that pain again for no good reason. There is no need for it whatsoever. In fact, your solution is even more complicated. It's akin to putting a G3 and a Core i3 in the same machine, and then only running iOS on the G3 and Mac OS X on the Core i3, depending on the attachments. It's just bizarre.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How is it any different from the OS 9/X,
That was unproblematic until they removed Classic mode - five years down the line.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
ppc/intel
Completely transparent until they removed Rosetta - five years down the line.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
32/64 transitions?
Complete non-issue until the newest release of OS X no longer supported 32-bit EFI - five years down the line.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Your design is to make us go through that pain again for no good reason. There is no need for it whatsoever. In fact, your solution is even more complicated. It's akin to putting a G3 and a Core i3 in the same machine, and then only running iOS on the G3 and Mac OS X on the Core i3, depending on the attachments. It's just bizarre.
Agreed.

But which hypothetical variant of a fantasized product that is never going to happen (thank god) are we talking about right now?

I do find it amusing that people are recommending Apple combine yesterday into today's product portmanteau, as opposed to building tomorrow's product and dropping today's, in a thread postulating that Apple has lost its forward drive.

freudling, as wrong as he is about Apple, certainly pulled some people out of the woodwork.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
OS 9 / X was a forced transition. Everyone including Jobs realized it was a broken path, but it was the only option.
PPC / Intel was a forced transition. Everyone including Jobs realized it was a broken path, but was the only option. The difference here though was that it was full-fledged Mac OS X running on both platforms.
32/64 was a much smoother transition, and again was a full-fledged Mac OS X running on both platforms.
For whatever reasons, we're certainly used to it by now, both users and developers.

Your design is to make us go through that pain again for no good reason.
Not "us," because obviously you wouldn't be buying this product regardless

Originally Posted by Spheric
That was unproblematic until they removed Classic mode
Haha! Classic. Now there was a "bizarre" "hybrid" "monster."

people are recommending Apple combine yesterday into today's product portmanteau
I don't know what you're referring to
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Haha! Classic. Now there was a "bizarre" "hybrid" "monster."
Yes. But it didn't fundamentally break the interface, and it worked fine. Apple left it visually jarring to encourage users (not developers) to dump it, but it worked fine (better than native 9.2.2 for me) until Tiger.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes. But it didn't fundamentally break the interface, and it worked fine. Apple left it visually jarring to encourage users (not developers) to dump it, but it worked fine (better than native 9.2.2 for me) until Tiger.
All excellent reasons why a hybrid system can work, and can offer usability benefits over needing to maintain two independent systems (or over choosing one and sacrificing the benefits of the other).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 05:43 PM
 
You missed the part about "not fundamentally breaking the interface".
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:01 PM
 
No, I didn't
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, I didn't
As per your post in the other thread:

Yes, you did.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
As per your post in the other thread:

Yes, you did.
An interface that actually still works is not broken, no matter how much you wish it were.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
An interface that actually still works is not broken, no matter how much you wish it were.
Yes, but if it doesn't work, it IS broken.

How do you control a mouse using touch, Unc? How do you tell it to click, and how do you tell it to move and not click? How do you tell it to click and drag? How do you tell it to mouse-over?

Let's keep the details of this to only one of these two threads.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2012, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes, but if it doesn't work, it IS broken.

How do you control a mouse using touch, Unc? How do you tell it to click, and how do you tell it to move and not click? How do you tell it to click and drag? How do you tell it to mouse-over?
You mean a cursor? Ask your trackpad, they already have it figured out somehow. If you really mean a mouse, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Let's keep the details of this to only one of these two threads.
Then don't
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:43 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,