In reply to a post by AEP:

There's a lot more to an Operating System than just the interface. I think there's a fair amount of room for improvement in all current OSs.

The interface is what matters, not what is under the hood. iOS proved that. Symbian and Windows Mobile were more powerful, more complete and in the case of Symbian more efficient (hence Nokia phones have slower CPUs). But WInMo and Symbian have god awful interfaces.

Computing power has peaked in many senses. There's all that power yet the software isn't written to take advantage of it. Multi-core programming isn't easy.

I don't agree that the day of the desktop is past, but that's another matter. It's a mistake to consider only individual ownership and ignore the corporate world. There is still a lot of room for innovation there to reduce the TCO of computers.

It is past in many ways, big desktop computers that sit on a desk are selling less and less all the time. A laptop can't be carried around and operated while standing. There are many jobs where a computer on a desk limits the efficiency of that job.

Full blown computers are best at creative things, there are plenty of people who just consume and aren't creating.

Anybody who's seen my posts know I'm not a troll. I love macs, I have at least 5 and been buying since the early 90's. I'm just concerned that Apple has gained a good lead in usability and reliability and is not being creative enough. Maybe there is not much that can be added but if anyone could think of new features to add Apple can. One feature I would like would be a full os switcher, just like user account switcher. Parallels et al are good but for games you need to reboot into windows. I'm sure Apple could find a way of running both systems in tandem so there's no need for a reboot.

You know there's nothing wrong in saying Apple or whoever got it wrong on some things. Apple has made many mistakes like most tech companies. It's when the companies don't listen the problem arises. Criticism can be helpful.

Edited by stniuk (Thu 24-Feb-11 23:22:52)

So the one thing you want from the OS is the ability not to use the OS. Apple already offers 2 ways to do that - via BC or virtualisation. M'kay. I'm sure they'll will get right on a third way, rather than encourage, say, Steam and all the game companies developing on iOs to come over to Mac.

Oh, hang on. Angry Birds: started on iPhone, now on Mac.

I don't think Apple is especially interested in playing on last year's pitch, nor on getting into another feature checklist war.

Notice how, on iOS devices it never emphasises ram or clock speed? Because that's last year's pitch. That's the thinking that is coming to Lion and whatever comes after.

Notice how it is letting gaming develop quite happily on iOS? This year's pitch.

"The desktop wars are over. We lost". (S Jobs).

Or as Gruber put it: "So: new developer preview of Lion, new FaceTime app for Mac, and an all-new lineup of MacBook Pros — and none of these things warranted a spot in next week’s event."

No way are you being a Troll by raising the question of whether an OS (any OS) could be improved. That leads to a far more interesting discussion than uncritical praise does.

I'd agree that Apple is moving away from the desktop. As Steve said, they lost that war. But that don't mean the desktop is history - far from it - it's just that Apple realise they can make better profits elsewhere.

The problem is that "the desktop is history" is a meme you made up. strawmanus aepus.

The problem is that "the desktop is history" is a meme you made up.

No it is not. It is a term that you often see bandied about, either in that form, or as "the desktop has peaked", "the days of the desktop are numbered", "the desktop is dead" or similar phrases. If you think that I am mistaken then just Google "The Desktop is Dead"; I cannot claim responsibility for the multitude of articles that you will find.

strawmanus aepus

As ever you feel the need to reduce discussion to personal attack when you are unable to raise objective points. It may be that there is indeed a Troll in this thread, but it's certainly not the OP who raised an interesting topic for discussion.

I'm not sure that I would agree completely with that analysis. In my experience desktop computers have a huge corporate use where simple tasks such as data-entry or word-processing are involved. A laptop doesn't make a lot of sense in such a scenario as they are more expensive and have poorer input and output functionality. Also it is far easier for a corporate IT department to keep control of fixed machines.

It is true that there has been a decline in desktop sales, but this is not entirely unexpected in a time of economic uncertainty. Most desktop computers are easily good enough for the job and so don't need replacement immediately.

But, in any case, an argument between desktops and laptops is peripheral to the issue of OS design. They both use the same OS; it would only be meaningful if you were considering the difference between computers and handheld devices.

Much of the innovation in Operating System design just at the moment is to be found in network operating systems, which the man in the street see little of. This is a market that Apple has now essentially abandoned (not that they ever made any serious inroads anyway). OS X Server still exists, but I can't see there being much of a market for server software that only runs on consumer hardware. IT departments need to be able to rely upon highly redundant hardware to serve internal and external markets.

As ever you feel the need to reduce discussion to personal attack

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. As ever, you seem to find the warmth of the kitchen not to your liking.

And, BTW, any reading of sensible data shows that "the desktop has peaked" is clearly true (as well, of course, as meaning something completely different to "dead" or "history" - that would be the fallacy of equivocation, should you wish to avoid it in future). Business is concerned with where the growth is. MS's big error of the past decade was to rely too heavily on mature markets that do no more than service their own licence base, while failing to exploiy new areas (even Xbox has barely paid for itself) - which is why its share performance has been as it has.

And speaking of personal attacks: read again. I described the post as bordering on trolling (since it made a series of idiotic and false comparisons and statements, that could have been designed to inflame - pretty much a textbook definition). So give it a rest, Mr Pot.

Edited by ian_c (Fri 25-Feb-11 12:42:23)

In reply to a post by ian_c:

As ever you feel the need to reduce discussion to personal attack

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a personal attack. As ever, you seem to find the warmth of the kitchen not to your liking.

And, BTW, any reading of sensible data shows that "the desktop has peaked" is clearly true (as well, of course, as meaning something completely different to "dead" or "history" - that would be the fallacy of equivocation, should you wish to avoid it in future). Business is concerned with where the growth is. MS's big error of the past decade was to rely too heavily on mature markets that do no more than service their own licence base, while failing to exploiy new areas (even Xbox has barely paid for itself) - which is why its share performance has been as it has.

And speaking of personal attacks: read again. I described the post as bordering on trolling (since it made a series of idiotic and false comparisons and statements, that could have been designed to inflame - pretty much a textbook definition). So give it a rest, Mr Pot.

Some statements you might find idiotic, thats your opinion. But none where false.