Mac OS X.7 "Lion" preview(apple.com)
apple.com
Mac OS X.7 "Lion" preview
http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/
22 comments
I wrote a post about this a while back:
http://dangrover.com/2010/05/29/indie-developers-and-crossin...
When I speak of the triumph of the app, I don't mean it as a synonym for
"program." That definition has become archaic.
I'm talking about "the app" as the unit of software in popular perception.
It is the monad. It is the atom. It is the cell. It is the brick.
Software is abstract. An app is concrete.
Apps obey basic laws. You can install or uninstall their functionality
completely. Apps are indivisible. Apps do not come with other apps, they
stand alone. Apps do not touch other apps' data without being allowed.
In short, the term "app" could best be defined, more broadly, as the
finest, most granular level of control over the computing experience that
most users can consistently and comfortably exercise.It's amazing how far desktop machines have been from dragging and dropping icons to install/uninstall software. OSX was the closest to this I think, and hopefully they'll get closer? I tend to just assume now that the longer I have a desktop machine, the more miscellaneous bits of old programs will be scattered throughout the system.
Well, what's nice about the way OS X does it is that dragging the icon isn't a proxy for a bunch of magical installing/uninstalling. You're literally dragging the app from one location in the filesystem to another.
But I think the iOS model is good too because the abstraction is not leaky (in the same way that package managers and and installer/uninstallers on windows are)
But I think the iOS model is good too because the abstraction is not leaky (in the same way that package managers and and installer/uninstallers on windows are)
I've been using Hazel with OS X for a while now to further facilitate my bordering on obsessive compulsive desire to keep my machine clean. Hazel takes care of preference files etc. that can be left over after trashing a piece of software on OS X.
I still remember the moment it dawned on me that my new Mac didn't have a registry, I think I almost shed a tear of joy.
I still remember the moment it dawned on me that my new Mac didn't have a registry, I think I almost shed a tear of joy.
I tend to prefer that old preference files be left around - they don't cause me any harm (not even a feeling of clutter, since it's not like I'm poking around ~/Library/Preferences all the time) and if I ever reinstall the app, I'm right back where I was. I can understand that it does bother some folks, though.
I can indeed understand your sentiment also. Hence my description of my behavior bordering on something close to OCD. I think I get that "feeling of clutter" a lot more easily than many people :P
For whatever reason though, I guess I don't really reinstall apps very often. Once I decide to remove something, it's almost always after pondering the issue for a little while and making a decision that I very rarely go back on. The only time I can remember reinstalling something on my Mac was Filezilla. I got myself a new FTP client, removed Filezilla as I didn't think I'd be using it anymore and then found out that my new FTP client had a bug that prevented proper connectivity via FTPS. So I went back to Filezilla and as luck would have it, Filezilla's preferences are stored in ~/.filezilla and they were all still there (because I didn't know about this directory). That was a small time saver.
I suspect a great deal of my attitude towards being (likely overly) careful about what I install/uninstall and what's left behind afterwards comes from my many years as a Windows user. I remember it even took me a while to figure out that you can usually just drag stuff to the Applications folder to install on a Mac, I kept thinking to myself "I'm missing something, it can't be this simple..."
For whatever reason though, I guess I don't really reinstall apps very often. Once I decide to remove something, it's almost always after pondering the issue for a little while and making a decision that I very rarely go back on. The only time I can remember reinstalling something on my Mac was Filezilla. I got myself a new FTP client, removed Filezilla as I didn't think I'd be using it anymore and then found out that my new FTP client had a bug that prevented proper connectivity via FTPS. So I went back to Filezilla and as luck would have it, Filezilla's preferences are stored in ~/.filezilla and they were all still there (because I didn't know about this directory). That was a small time saver.
I suspect a great deal of my attitude towards being (likely overly) careful about what I install/uninstall and what's left behind afterwards comes from my many years as a Windows user. I remember it even took me a while to figure out that you can usually just drag stuff to the Applications folder to install on a Mac, I kept thinking to myself "I'm missing something, it can't be this simple..."
John Scalzi really nailed it a few months back: "So the new hotness is a screen on which icons are used to access the programs they represent? Just like the Macintosh in 1984?" http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/07/23/todays-cane-shaking-on...
I am also reminded of Homer Simpson's "they have the Internet on computers now?"
I am also reminded of Homer Simpson's "they have the Internet on computers now?"
Back in my university days one of my lecturers told me that if you're in the computer industry for long enough you will see the same patterns repeat themselves.
The computer industry started with mainframes and time-slicing. We then moved to personal computers. Recent years have seen the rise of cloud computing, which is analagous to... mainframes and time-slicing.
Web browsers and mobile devices are used in a way very similar to how thin clients and terminals were once used.
Part of it is that technology changes the value proposition of many approaches. We now have more computing power on a desktop PC than most reasonable people will ever need. Microsoft has never recovered from this lack of built-in obsolescence to churn old versions of Windows.
But part of it is that the grass is always greener and people are constantly chasing the next big thing that will make everything better. You see this in programming too. C++ is the ultimate proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Apart from the rise of garbage collection, very few things have made real productivity differences in programming in the last 10-20 years.
Joel Spolsky[1] covered this:
> A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.
The computer industry started with mainframes and time-slicing. We then moved to personal computers. Recent years have seen the rise of cloud computing, which is analagous to... mainframes and time-slicing.
Web browsers and mobile devices are used in a way very similar to how thin clients and terminals were once used.
Part of it is that technology changes the value proposition of many approaches. We now have more computing power on a desktop PC than most reasonable people will ever need. Microsoft has never recovered from this lack of built-in obsolescence to churn old versions of Windows.
But part of it is that the grass is always greener and people are constantly chasing the next big thing that will make everything better. You see this in programming too. C++ is the ultimate proof that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Apart from the rise of garbage collection, very few things have made real productivity differences in programming in the last 10-20 years.
Joel Spolsky[1] covered this:
> A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it's not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we've had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. It can be with reference counting or garbage collection; it can be Java, Lisp, Visual Basic (even 1.0), Smalltalk, or any of a number of scripting languages. If your programming language allows you to grab a chunk of memory without thinking about how it's going to be released when you're done with it, you're using a managed-memory language, and you are going to be much more efficient than someone using a language in which you have to explicitly manage memory. Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they're probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it.
[1] : http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.htmlYou'd be surprised at how many people didn't know there were programs other than Internet Explorer and Word, and maybe in an office, Outlook, Excel and QuickBooks.
Apple has done the job of making independent app developers into (pardon the phrase) rockstars.
Apple has done the job of making independent app developers into (pardon the phrase) rockstars.
//'App' is definitely a better term than 'application' or 'program' from a UI perspective if more people can so easily understand it, but I don't understand why or how this happened. They're the same thing! It's strange
I think it's a change in perspective. A 'program' is how a programmer would describe what he codes. An app, is what it should look like to someone who is interested in just using it.
Since those using "an app" should outnumber those who wrote "the program", it is better if it's called an app. It's like how the term 'bacon' is better suited than 'pig's belly'.
I think it's a change in perspective. A 'program' is how a programmer would describe what he codes. An app, is what it should look like to someone who is interested in just using it.
Since those using "an app" should outnumber those who wrote "the program", it is better if it's called an app. It's like how the term 'bacon' is better suited than 'pig's belly'.
I think the perception different between "app" and "application" can mostly be credited to Apple's (successful) marketing.
In a lot of ways I think the web has informed this. You could describe this as the desktop fighting back.
Obviously many of the web genes have come via the ipad/iphone.
Obviously many of the web genes have come via the ipad/iphone.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone looking at Launchpad for the first time would be surprised that their macbook "has apps now", even though they are looking at the same applications that have already been on their mac for months.
Exactly. They needed Launchpad because (1) the App Store means that people will have more apps than can comfortably fit on the Dock and (2) average users aren't comfortable finding the Applications folder.
Exactly. They needed Launchpad because (1) the App Store means that people will have more apps than can comfortably fit on the Dock and (2) average users aren't comfortable finding the Applications folder.
Yes, but how applicable is that when you have 22 inch, dual monitors? For a 15 inch mac book laptop screen it will work tho.
I wonder if they'll start shipping keyboards with a big button at the bottom ;)
I'm seriously underwhelmed here. There's four new features on that page:
The Mac App Store
Maybe this is a naive point of view, but I can't see the value proposition for third-party devs to have their software in this store. Maybe I'm wrong and it'll be huge.
Launchpad
A touch interface for a screen that isn't touchable. Anyone I know that doesn't use Quicksilver or Spotlight uses an application stack in the dock. Nifty eye-candy feature, but I'm not seeing the usability gains.
Full Screen Apps
Not bad, but there are very few applications I want to run fullscreen at all, and even fewer I want to run fullscreen all the time.
Mission Control
Exposé, except there's a spaces overview at the top. A minor feature bump. Oh, and you can access the dashboard with it.
I understand this is a preview intended to excite people who aren't geeks, but still, it just seems so anticlimactic.
The Mac App Store
Maybe this is a naive point of view, but I can't see the value proposition for third-party devs to have their software in this store. Maybe I'm wrong and it'll be huge.
Launchpad
A touch interface for a screen that isn't touchable. Anyone I know that doesn't use Quicksilver or Spotlight uses an application stack in the dock. Nifty eye-candy feature, but I'm not seeing the usability gains.
Full Screen Apps
Not bad, but there are very few applications I want to run fullscreen at all, and even fewer I want to run fullscreen all the time.
Mission Control
Exposé, except there's a spaces overview at the top. A minor feature bump. Oh, and you can access the dashboard with it.
I understand this is a preview intended to excite people who aren't geeks, but still, it just seems so anticlimactic.
> The Mac App Store
I think you're dead wrong on that one. Having a single, official, centralized place where users (and not only some of them, basically all OS X users) can find, rate and buy your product is a blessing for developers, especially smaller shops. I expect we'll see some of the "success stories" that happened on the iP* platform through the AppStore, because it gives considerable exposure to people that would otherwise probably struggle to get it. That part is probably worth the 30% cut — not so much for big brands like Adobe though. If it also provides updates for all software, as the App Store does, it's an awesome feature. I'd say it's basically the equivalent of a Linux repo, with built-in sales.
> Launchpad
I'm not sure about that one either. We'll see.
> Full Screen Apps
I'd tend to agree. Most app I would want to run fullscreen already have the possibility to do so (Aperture, web browsers, and that's basically all I can think of right now).
> Mission Control
Agreed.
I think you're dead wrong on that one. Having a single, official, centralized place where users (and not only some of them, basically all OS X users) can find, rate and buy your product is a blessing for developers, especially smaller shops. I expect we'll see some of the "success stories" that happened on the iP* platform through the AppStore, because it gives considerable exposure to people that would otherwise probably struggle to get it. That part is probably worth the 30% cut — not so much for big brands like Adobe though. If it also provides updates for all software, as the App Store does, it's an awesome feature. I'd say it's basically the equivalent of a Linux repo, with built-in sales.
> Launchpad
I'm not sure about that one either. We'll see.
> Full Screen Apps
I'd tend to agree. Most app I would want to run fullscreen already have the possibility to do so (Aperture, web browsers, and that's basically all I can think of right now).
> Mission Control
Agreed.
> The Mac App Store
You skipped over an important aspect of the current iPhone app store - updates. A unified update experience for 'all' our apps should be a pretty easy sell. (Not that there aren't already frameworks that do this like Google's Update Engine - http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/ )
You skipped over an important aspect of the current iPhone app store - updates. A unified update experience for 'all' our apps should be a pretty easy sell. (Not that there aren't already frameworks that do this like Google's Update Engine - http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/ )
> Not that there aren't already frameworks that do this
Like Linux package managers since... ever. On my Ubuntu box I have the official software sources (OS and applications) but also have Skype, VirtualBox and Google repositories registered. It makes the machine self-update soon after an update is published.
I really wish Apple integrated that kind of behavior into OSX's core.
Like Linux package managers since... ever. On my Ubuntu box I have the official software sources (OS and applications) but also have Skype, VirtualBox and Google repositories registered. It makes the machine self-update soon after an update is published.
I really wish Apple integrated that kind of behavior into OSX's core.
Announcing auto-updates only for store apps feels like a poke in the eye when they could have developed (any time in the last decade) an auto-update system for all apps.
I think this is a very narrow view of it all. At the risk of sounding like someone who has drunk too much of the Apple kool aid, here's the big picture potential of all of this together...
If apple makes this a cohesive environment. Download, Launch apps, and full screen modes, then we are looking at the next step past the window/mouse GUI -- at least for the masses.
iOS and the iPad has been successful in part because of how simple it is to use. Touch metaphors make a lot of sense to non computer people. Not sure if it necessary makes as much sense abstracted to a trackpad interface but certainly one window at a time is much easier for novices to understand.
Think of the mom test where I want to talk my mom through installing an app. It's crazy how hard it can be with freely floating windows and disk images and downloading off the internet. App store and launched interface? I think this could be very big.
Now that said this sort of interface simplification has been tried for years... So we will see if it sticks this time.
If apple makes this a cohesive environment. Download, Launch apps, and full screen modes, then we are looking at the next step past the window/mouse GUI -- at least for the masses.
iOS and the iPad has been successful in part because of how simple it is to use. Touch metaphors make a lot of sense to non computer people. Not sure if it necessary makes as much sense abstracted to a trackpad interface but certainly one window at a time is much easier for novices to understand.
Think of the mom test where I want to talk my mom through installing an app. It's crazy how hard it can be with freely floating windows and disk images and downloading off the internet. App store and launched interface? I think this could be very big.
Now that said this sort of interface simplification has been tried for years... So we will see if it sticks this time.
It's not entirely dissimilar to the package management stuff found in lots of Linux distros -- or perhaps even Valve's Steam. Except Apple can wrap a payment system around it and monetize it.
If they provide the same kind of value through it like Steam has for gamers, it'll be big.
If they provide the same kind of value through it like Steam has for gamers, it'll be big.
I'm seriously underwhelmed here.
What I am excited about is that Apple looks heading to truly "it just works" model for Mac.
I did not see anybody so far in comments mentioning thing that Jobs presented as things they have learned from iOS: instant-on, no explicit save, apps preserving state on closing. I think that's what Lion is going to be, allowing to combine power of full-fledged Macs with the user experience of iP*s.
At least full screen apps will satisfy Windows users who complain that Macs can't "maximize" a window.
Actually, I think it's a nice productivity boost myself. Of course, the app I most want to fullscreen is Terminal.
Actually, I think it's a nice productivity boost myself. Of course, the app I most want to fullscreen is Terminal.
You can simply map the menu item "Zoom" under "Window" to your preferred keyboard shortcut. I use Cmd-Enter. It'll even toggle between "fullscreen" and normal screen. It's not true fullscreen, but close enough.
is there any reason not to use iTerm?
Vizor, and iTerm seems slow (last I checked, which was a while ago).
I just use Visor with the terminal (not iTerm) and it works fine for me.
In poking around for this Visor program, I stumbled across TotalFinder made by the same folks, and holy crap is it awesome. Chrome style tabs for my finder? Hotkey for sliding it in and out of focus? Who hasn't struggled to rearrange two or three Finder windows for some d&d? Yes please!
http://totalfinder.binaryage.com/
http://totalfinder.binaryage.com/
And the Mac AppStore is not even a Lion's exclusive feature.
Concerning the full screen feature: Notice that the lowest end of the Mac laptop lineup is now 11 inches (only slightly bigger than an iPad!) instead of 13. The smaller your screen gets, the more apps you will want to run full screen.
The 11" MBA has a screen solution of 1366x768, wider than the 13" MBP at 1280x800.
Am I the only former Performa owner on HN?
Launchpad = Launcher (with a bit of a facelift)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tg.online/apple_cps/applemenu/i...
Launchpad = Launcher (with a bit of a facelift)
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tg.online/apple_cps/applemenu/i...
And much like Launcher was a clunky version of a pinned folder, I'm not sure I see the utility of the Launchpad over keeping a folder of all your apps in the Dock.
I love the idea of the Mac App store, however I'm not sure some indie devs will like taking a 30% hit. For example, would TextMate want to be here?
Also, it's not like CS5 is going to show up in the Mac App Store.
Also, it's not like CS5 is going to show up in the Mac App Store.
Apple cannot stop Indie devs from releasing apps in the normal fashion.
Unlike with iPhones, where iTunes is the only installation point.
If I was an indie developer, I'd say 30% would be worth the extra exposure.
Unlike with iPhones, where iTunes is the only installation point.
If I was an indie developer, I'd say 30% would be worth the extra exposure.
A simple payment system that users trust and that you don't have to think about it is worth the 30%, IMHO.
Bump your price up to cover Apple's cut.
And shut down your servers / payment processor / update system, and enjoy your new found time to work on TextMate2 instead of maintaining infrastructure for TextMate 1.
TextMate is a great case study. It'd be very high up on the Top Grossing list, and therefore massively visible to many new eyeballs that are not Ruby on Rails hackers. I'd wager that it'd move a lot of new licenses if it was in the App Store.
And shut down your servers / payment processor / update system, and enjoy your new found time to work on TextMate2 instead of maintaining infrastructure for TextMate 1.
TextMate is a great case study. It'd be very high up on the Top Grossing list, and therefore massively visible to many new eyeballs that are not Ruby on Rails hackers. I'd wager that it'd move a lot of new licenses if it was in the App Store.
> The Mac App Store
Think of apt-get that also includes commercial software. Convenience is king for consumers. And for software makers, they gain one more distribution channel besides Google.
Think of apt-get that also includes commercial software. Convenience is king for consumers. And for software makers, they gain one more distribution channel besides Google.
The "full screen apps" thing is a minor enhancement imo. Everything that was interested in full-screen already has it baked in; I never full-screened Firefox and thought "This isn't full-screeny enough; I wish OS X had native support for full-screening so that my fullscreen mode was more full-screeny."
One thing I like is that the full-screen feature bakes in a better approach to virtual desktops; instead of futzing about selecting an empty desktop and getting the app I want to full-screen onto that desktop and then finally full-screening it, the act of full-screening creates a vitural desktop that I can jump out of at any time.
Subtle by nice.
Subtle by nice.
The interesting thing about this feature is it makes full screen applications first class citizens in a way I'm not sure we've seen before on a desktop OS. I'm thinking you're probably right that for existing applications it's a minor feature but it may drive more applications to offer a full screen mode which is a good thing in my opinion. Being able to quickly switch between full screen apps probably lends this feature to being used as a type of heavy duty widget. If you check Facebook constantly maybe you'd want to always have the Facebook app running a gesture away from your full screen Twitter app.
Hey, I know, they could add a feature where you drag the menubar down to see the full screen app partially exposed running behind it. And the same for that app, etc. Wouldn't that be cool?
Oh wait.... :-)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workbench_(Amiga))
Oh wait.... :-)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workbench_(Amiga))
They could call it Multifinder.
I guess it's underwhelming because I've already had this for years on almost every window manager I've tried. Support is even better in awesomewm, which I am currently using (you can fullscreen apps that have no native fullscreen mode). I fullscreen something and can just Super ← (or various other key-combos) to another desktop. It's nice that OS X is getting these features now I guess, but shouldn't they have been included with Spaces?
The ability to switch between full screen apps will be quite useful sometimes.
Launchpad < command + space - type app name
I feel like the Launchpad was obsolete with the advent of Spotlight.
I feel like the Launchpad was obsolete with the advent of Spotlight.
You have to remember, different people think in different ways. I'm a search focused user, and use Spotlight extensively, however my wife much prefers to navigate around the operating system in a more visual manner.
The Mac App Store is a sort of "minimum viable upgrade." It's the lowest hanging fruit for something worthy of a Mac event (i.e. compare this to Snow Leopard which just started shipping one day).
For me, it's sort of hard to see many iOS apps being particularly a big game changer on a desktop or laptop (so long as Macs continue to ship with Flash). There are simply a lot of existing alternatives for location based services, social networking, etc.
Part of me suspects that it's a response to Phone 7. What I mean is that it extends the "Apple technology stack" from phone to desktop somewhat like Microsoft does - of course the "Apple technology stack" doesn't extend up into enterprise and down into embedded devices so the analogy may be a bit weak depending on the terms one uses.
For me, it's sort of hard to see many iOS apps being particularly a big game changer on a desktop or laptop (so long as Macs continue to ship with Flash). There are simply a lot of existing alternatives for location based services, social networking, etc.
Part of me suspects that it's a response to Phone 7. What I mean is that it extends the "Apple technology stack" from phone to desktop somewhat like Microsoft does - of course the "Apple technology stack" doesn't extend up into enterprise and down into embedded devices so the analogy may be a bit weak depending on the terms one uses.
I'm willing to bet that they went with what was ready to demo, rather than what they have planned. The stuff they've displayed seem fairly simple all things considered. However, I think they have a problem, what with twenty ways of doing things. Expose, Mission Control, the Launch Pad, the Doc, App folder, Spotlight, Spaces.
However...
Mac App Store will be huge. Their is every reason to think this.
Touch interfaces: it's not so much touch as reacting to touch inputs. This is already accomplished in an abstract way with a mouse. Left and right click, moving around, scrolling the mouse wheel. This is a continuation on what's been happening already. Personally, I think this will be really nice for apps. I already use touch features for navigation where I can, and it's frustrating when an app doesn't support it.
However...
Mac App Store will be huge. Their is every reason to think this.
Touch interfaces: it's not so much touch as reacting to touch inputs. This is already accomplished in an abstract way with a mouse. Left and right click, moving around, scrolling the mouse wheel. This is a continuation on what's been happening already. Personally, I think this will be really nice for apps. I already use touch features for navigation where I can, and it's frustrating when an app doesn't support it.
Lion is a year away. I think we can guess the next iteration of the Air will have touch screens :)
Also, there are probably a hundred other details to Lion they aren't sharing just yet. They are just giving us some glitter to drool over.
Also, there are probably a hundred other details to Lion they aren't sharing just yet. They are just giving us some glitter to drool over.
Touch screens on a laptop or computer are a stupid idea and Steve explained why right in the speech.
They don't need a touch screen they already have a fantastic horizontal touch space on the device: the trackpad. Personally I would look to see trackpads getting more and more functionality.
They don't need a touch screen they already have a fantastic horizontal touch space on the device: the trackpad. Personally I would look to see trackpads getting more and more functionality.
So they have:
1.A control in the lower left corner on the screen that let's you access your apps.
2.A screen full of shortcuts.
3.A maximize button that works as expected.
It's Windows 95!
-- wait a minute! where's my task bar?
1.A control in the lower left corner on the screen that let's you access your apps.
2.A screen full of shortcuts.
3.A maximize button that works as expected.
It's Windows 95!
-- wait a minute! where's my task bar?
Except without the crashes...and more transitions between stuff.
I wish they'd let me resize windows from any corner.
I wish they'd let me resize windows from any corner.
I wish they'd let me resize windows from any corner.
Windows 98 with GPU card
This looks horrible. I don't want my Macbook to be an ipad. If I wanted an iPad, I'd buy an iPad.
(Actually, I do want an iPad, but that still doesn't mean I want anything near a similar UI on my Macbook.)
(Actually, I do want an iPad, but that still doesn't mean I want anything near a similar UI on my Macbook.)
I think that's part of the reason they've kept all this features separate. From the demo it appears if you don't want to use them you don't have to.
I must have overlooked that bit. That's good to know. I'm sure some of the features will be useful in some instances, but I would hate to have them as my only options.
A little innovation never hurt anybody!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av1JPq0Qmy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av1JPq0Qmy4
I'm all for innovation, and I don't mind change. I just don't particularly think this is a good one.
I expect this is a precursor to touch-screen iMacs and MacBooks.
The keynote video is worth watching, especially the part where they explain why they would never want to do this.
It is still possible that they haven't figured out how to do touch-screen in a satisfying way for these machines. Taking Jobs at his word doesn't always work. In a year or two he may emerge to declare that they've come up with a "magical" solution.
This is more analogous to multi-tasking. First they poo pooed it, then they came out with a variation that wasn't what people asked for (but was plenty) and then explained why they wont do exactly what people asked for.
They can't do a satisfying touch-screen on computers because it can't be done. There are certain tasks that are fundamentally "mousy" today. Can you imagine doing those tasks with your hands stretched out in front of you? Imagine a designer working in photoshop all day having to hold his arms out in front of him for 8+ hours a day.
And there's no reason to. We're already long used to the indirection of a mouse. The trackpad suitably acts like a touch screen that just isn't the actual screen.
They can't do a satisfying touch-screen on computers because it can't be done. There are certain tasks that are fundamentally "mousy" today. Can you imagine doing those tasks with your hands stretched out in front of you? Imagine a designer working in photoshop all day having to hold his arms out in front of him for 8+ hours a day.
And there's no reason to. We're already long used to the indirection of a mouse. The trackpad suitably acts like a touch screen that just isn't the actual screen.
I don't believe that they're going to aim to totally replace mice. I think they're going to allow/encourage touching for relevant applications. It doesn't really matter what they say here, they've said that they had no interest in a lot of different things only to implement them a year or two later.
Yeah well, they never wanted to do full screen apps, phones, tablets or netbook form factors either.
I don't see how this will ever fly... your arm will get so tired!
I expect that they would probably still include keyboard+mouse, just add support for touch too.
perhaps with the imac, but if you can create a macbook that elegantly swivels a la the HP and Lenovo laptops, it would just be a big heavy ipad.
I really hope that the Launchpad is the only way to access your applications, i.e. that the old Applications folder is hidden and that the OS, not the user or app developer manages its content.
I just despise that phony two-level way of organizing your applications that is so prevalent on Windows, i.e. their applications folder(s) and the Start Menu.
If the old Applications folder continues to be accessible I really hope that there is, unlike in the Windows Start Menu, a 1:1 mapping, i.e. folders created in the Launchpad are also created in the Applications folder and applications deleted in the Launchpad are also deleted in the Applications folder.
I just despise that phony two-level way of organizing your applications that is so prevalent on Windows, i.e. their applications folder(s) and the Start Menu.
If the old Applications folder continues to be accessible I really hope that there is, unlike in the Windows Start Menu, a 1:1 mapping, i.e. folders created in the Launchpad are also created in the Applications folder and applications deleted in the Launchpad are also deleted in the Applications folder.
I'm having a hard time imagining how this whole thing works with a multi-user Mac. Right now, every user account has one iTunes account associated with it, such that different users own different iOS App Store apps. Does that mean that the Mac App Store will only install apps per-user? It didn't seem to suggest that (they said that the app licenses are "per computer", though they also called them "personal.")
I would bet it still installs stuff in /Applications and just has a per user preference for showing the arrangement of the apps in launch pad.
Oh, haven’t thought of that. It sounds as though apps are installed for all users, just as before.
I’m not sure whether I’m a fan of keeping both prominent file system access around and adding the Launchpad which would then presumably store all its folders and arrangements in a preference file and not in the filesystem. That’s just so damn inelegant!
What I would like, though, is if they gave developers who don’t want or can distribute their app through the App Store some way to easily hook up with the way the real App Store is doing things, i.e. you download a file, open it and the app is installed. You don’t have to run an installer or drag the App to your folder. That would be nice but I’m not expecting it.
I’m not sure whether I’m a fan of keeping both prominent file system access around and adding the Launchpad which would then presumably store all its folders and arrangements in a preference file and not in the filesystem. That’s just so damn inelegant!
What I would like, though, is if they gave developers who don’t want or can distribute their app through the App Store some way to easily hook up with the way the real App Store is doing things, i.e. you download a file, open it and the app is installed. You don’t have to run an installer or drag the App to your folder. That would be nice but I’m not expecting it.
Apps will, according to the keynote, be licensed like iOS apps, for all your personal computers.
Which does nothing to answer the above question. My wife and I have two computers we share interchangeably. We each have an iPhone, share an iPad, and have an AppleTV (not the latest). If I had to go by the past, the App Store on the Mac is going to have abysmal support for multi-user environments. Hopefully this is not the case. Hopefully the apps I buy work on both accounts on both devices.
I'm not 100% on board with the direction they're taking this, but at least they're taking it in a direction.
What?
To elaborate -- mainstream computer UIs have been mostly stagnant for years, with small innovations here and there. 10.7 seems like a bold step in a new direction. I dislike the idea that the iPad is some kind of magical UX unicorn that they want to spread all over their devices, but at least it's something new.
Looking at it, am I wrong in thinking that I should remove all the apps I can from my dock? It seems like launch pad takes over the app selection part and the dock will then have only the running apps.
I do that anyway. Apple+spacebar is how I open an application that's not already open.
I've also hidden my dock. I use it to empty the trash and that's pretty much it.
>Apple+spacebar
How?
How?
He's talking about using Spotlight as a way to launch applications…
LaunchBar (ctrl+space): http://www.obdev.at/products/launchbar/index.html
Sorry, command. I still think of it as "open-apple."
So that's what the edition is all about? Order software icons and you get a new major version of an operating system?
Comparing XP to Windows 7, there are really awesome reasons why I should make the switch. Improved performance, graphics, the pin bar, windows search, easy network management and a plethora of other useless/useful features.
Comparing XP to Windows 7, there are really awesome reasons why I should make the switch. Improved performance, graphics, the pin bar, windows search, easy network management and a plethora of other useless/useful features.
No, this is characterized as a "sneak peak". The main objective seems to have been to get the Mac App Store rolling. There is plenty of time (and at least one regularly scheduled press event) between now and next summer for Apple to pace the revelations.
There is a precedent for this in Leopard, where a significant UI overhaul and some other features were actually announced and demoed many months after the initial showing.
(Also: it's amusing that you skipped Vista.)
There is a precedent for this in Leopard, where a significant UI overhaul and some other features were actually announced and demoed many months after the initial showing.
(Also: it's amusing that you skipped Vista.)
Yeah, I came out quite underwhelmed too.
I really like Mission Control, but I want to hear about a finder that's finally good (tried the alternatives, didn't like any of them) or resolution independence.
None of these features had the whiz-bang appeal of past innovations like Time Machine, etc.
I really like Mission Control, but I want to hear about a finder that's finally good (tried the alternatives, didn't like any of them) or resolution independence.
None of these features had the whiz-bang appeal of past innovations like Time Machine, etc.
This is only what they have announced thus far, I'd bet there is more to come.
I'd bet the likelihood of Apple finally finishing resolution independence is much higher now, considering how fine the resolutions of the new Macbook Airs are (which, as Jobs said, are probably going to become their most popular computer in the near future).
Comparing XP to Windows 7 is like comparing OSX 10.1 to OSX 10.6
I wonder how this simple interface -- which looks awesome! -- integrates with the complexity of Mac OS X, both the good (unixy bottom layers) and bad (long start-up time, error-prone interactions between drivers, network services, etc.). In other words, is it an iPad with the start-up time of a Mac, that sometimes pegs my CPU collecting file-system metadata? Or a Mac with less BSD and more iOS? Hopefully neither.
Another question -- is there a "low end" in Apple's world? Are they building an ecosystem that cheap PCs won't be able to participate in? What about old Macs? It would be ironic if my parents had to buy a fancy new 64-bit Mac in order to have a more iPad-like experience when they share photos with me.
Another question -- is there a "low end" in Apple's world? Are they building an ecosystem that cheap PCs won't be able to participate in? What about old Macs? It would be ironic if my parents had to buy a fancy new 64-bit Mac in order to have a more iPad-like experience when they share photos with me.
Frankly, I'd be _extremely_ happy if they just changed the damned Finder so that I can right-click a folder and create a new folder within it instead of placing it alphabetically so that I have to go find it and drag the new folder into the folder I want it in.
In every new release I'm still stubbornly hoping for a few new features.
1. A new window management model. Cascaded windows don't do it for me.
2. 256 colors in Terminal.app.
256 colours will never happen. I'm stuck with either urxvt or settling for the SIMBL terminal colours plugin.
A new model for managing windows wouldn't be too far fetched though and I was really holding my thumbs during the talk. I shone up when they started talking about full screen applications but it fell kind of flat. Please Apple, if you're going to force me to work in 8 colours, at-least add a means to tile windows and navigate between them with sensible, configurable keyboard shortcuts! :)
1. A new window management model. Cascaded windows don't do it for me.
2. 256 colors in Terminal.app.
256 colours will never happen. I'm stuck with either urxvt or settling for the SIMBL terminal colours plugin.
A new model for managing windows wouldn't be too far fetched though and I was really holding my thumbs during the talk. I shone up when they started talking about full screen applications but it fell kind of flat. Please Apple, if you're going to force me to work in 8 colours, at-least add a means to tile windows and navigate between them with sensible, configurable keyboard shortcuts! :)
256-color xterms work in MacTelnet (which I wrote). Despite its name, MacTelnet can be used to replace Terminal on Mac OS X.
I've been waiting for 256 colour support for so long. I've given up now though, and configured iTerm2 instead. iTerm2 also lets me use my mouse in vim over ssh, which is a nice bonus.
Wow, if I could only have sloppy focus I would be happy to take the dust off my mac mini.
If command line work is such a large portion of what you do with your mac, why aren't you using X11?
Because I don't like how X11.app behaves when tabbing in and out of it. And there are a few bugs in the version of X11 supplied by Apple.
I have Arch Linux installed on a VirtualBox instance, but then it's the hassle of moving files between computers.
I'll come up with something that works for me eventually, but right now Terminal.app is the best option.
I have Arch Linux installed on a VirtualBox instance, but then it's the hassle of moving files between computers.
I'll come up with something that works for me eventually, but right now Terminal.app is the best option.
Just makes me smile how "Full-screen apps." is a marketing 'feature' in this day and age of supposedly mature OS's.
that's a feature that ms-dos had!
The Mac App Store - I guess Dashboard apps will be going away?
Launchpad - I firmly believe technology is to help save time. Launchpad doesn't do that. There's already an app called Quicksilver that will get your app opened, without you having to move the mouse or even swipe
Full-screen apps - Great. But have an option not to go fullscreen as well. Not all apps need 1080p equivalent resolutions to work.
Mission Control - Can't say anything much without using this. But meanwhile the CMD+Tab has been serving me very well.
----------------------------------
Voice recognition/Voice command, that's what I would like to see. The ability to launch apps or menu commands just by saying their name.
Launchpad - I firmly believe technology is to help save time. Launchpad doesn't do that. There's already an app called Quicksilver that will get your app opened, without you having to move the mouse or even swipe
Full-screen apps - Great. But have an option not to go fullscreen as well. Not all apps need 1080p equivalent resolutions to work.
Mission Control - Can't say anything much without using this. But meanwhile the CMD+Tab has been serving me very well.
----------------------------------
Voice recognition/Voice command, that's what I would like to see. The ability to launch apps or menu commands just by saying their name.
Regarding full-screen apps, I'd like to bring this old thread back up http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1721650
Lion looks lackluster. As an app developer, I'm excited for the Mac App Store (and eventual Apple TV App Store) but the rest of the OS does not seem like a major leap, as they are claiming it to be.
Snow Leopard offered more than this coming from Leopard.
Snow Leopard offered more than this coming from Leopard.
Bear in mind that this is only a very early media preview of OS X Lion and that Apple does not traditionally reveal all the juicy details of its new OS X releases this far in advance.
So there's no doubt more to come. For instance, Jobs hinted at some new features and APIs coming across from iOS to enable things like instant-on, the automatic and implicit saving of files and state-preservation on quit, none of which was described in any detail.
So I highly doubt that what we saw yesterday was the sum total of the innovations and updates that Apple is planning for Lion.
So there's no doubt more to come. For instance, Jobs hinted at some new features and APIs coming across from iOS to enable things like instant-on, the automatic and implicit saving of files and state-preservation on quit, none of which was described in any detail.
So I highly doubt that what we saw yesterday was the sum total of the innovations and updates that Apple is planning for Lion.
Of course it doesn't, but it didn't really warrant a preview either.
The even releases are more about new features for developers, the odd releases are more about rolling those features out to everyone.
Hmm, that's odd, because that's how they billed Snow Leopard.
I hope the Mac App Store is not "just like shopping the App Store on iPad", because I've found the organizational approach of the iPad App Store to be very frustrating.
This shows an eventual long term direction of the iOS and OSX desktop/tablet/phone interface and business model merge.
Is anyone else incredibly amused that they are using the old version of the MacBook Air in their promos?
I have no idea if I like this or not. I am guessing it will be a "feel" thing when it comes out.
No ZFS :( This would have made me move.
Whether ZFS was announced at this event has no bearing on whether it's in Lion or not. As you might deduce from the set of features they did cover, this was for the media and public. ZFS is completely uninteresting to them. I guarantee you there will be a ton of back-end changes, but they will never be announced at something like this. We'll see more of that kind of thing at WWDC next year.
But despite all that, dollars to doughnuts ZFS won't be in there. But because of ownership issues, not because it wasn't announced today.
But despite all that, dollars to doughnuts ZFS won't be in there. But because of ownership issues, not because it wasn't announced today.
I still have not figured out what is the actual legal situation of ZFS. Who can use it and at what conditions? Also is now Oracle the "owner"? So confused. I'll dig.
2011, year of the Linux desktop
Five bucks says Apple moves towards touchscreens on even their mainstream laptops/desktops. The Springboard on OSX, and the completely iOS-esque UI on the new iLife suite... it all sets the stage.
Did you read the transcript of the event? Touchscreen laptops were specifically called out as a bad idea in the current form, because your arm gets tired touching a vertical surface.
Apple always disses a feature its competitors have, until they start offering it and suddenly act like they invented it. I'm sure plenty of people would love to have a touch screen on their MacBook.
I was thinking more specifically about the iMac - there was a recent patent application with an iMac that had the ability to lower and tilt up to become flatter (think drafting table).
I thought it was just one of those crazy things that companies patent anyway - but with the iOS-ification of OSX this looks to be more and more likely.
I doubt they'd do this with the laptops - that just seems to close the gap too much between the iPad and the MacBook Air, honestly.
I thought it was just one of those crazy things that companies patent anyway - but with the iOS-ification of OSX this looks to be more and more likely.
I doubt they'd do this with the laptops - that just seems to close the gap too much between the iPad and the MacBook Air, honestly.
What Steve Jobs says and what Steve Jobs does are two separate things. While I don't think touchscreen laptops are coming anytime soon, the fact that Jobs called them out isn't evidence to me that Apple won't make one. There are a long list of things he claims he wasn't interested in that he really was (video on the iPod, making a cell phone, making a tablet, a book store, etc etc).
Did you hear that Steve Jobs once say a desktop App Store was a bad idea?
Touch Screen would work fine on an Air, at least.
Touch Screen would work fine on an Air, at least.
> Did you hear that Steve Jobs once say a desktop App Store was a bad idea?
In general, the idea that Jobs constantly says something sucks and then does it himself mostly seems to come from people over-interpreting what he says. In this particular case, I can't think of what you're referring to. Do you have a link?
This sounds like a real problem to me - my desk at school is too high up, so I've even ditched my laptop stand as otherwise I'd have to lift my arms up to reach the keyboard half the time. I would definitely be uncomfortable constantly touching a screen. And what do you think those enormous trackpads are for?
In general, the idea that Jobs constantly says something sucks and then does it himself mostly seems to come from people over-interpreting what he says. In this particular case, I can't think of what you're referring to. Do you have a link?
This sounds like a real problem to me - my desk at school is too high up, so I've even ditched my laptop stand as otherwise I'd have to lift my arms up to reach the keyboard half the time. I would definitely be uncomfortable constantly touching a screen. And what do you think those enormous trackpads are for?
You'd have a hard time describing what a program or an application is to someone, but if you said the word 'app' they'd immediately know what you are talking about, because apps are these little icons that live on their phone.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone looking at Launchpad for the first time would be surprised that their macbook "has apps now", even though they are looking at the same applications that have already been on their mac for months.
'App' is definitely a better term than 'application' or 'program' from a UI perspective if more people can so easily understand it, but I don't understand why or how this happened. They're the same thing! It's strange.