Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OS X Mountain Lion Out Tomorrow

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the keep-track-of-dogs-and-small-children dept.

OS X 230

Apple revealed in its third quarter earnings release today that OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion will be released tomorrow, July 25th. "As a quick recap, the $19.99 software update brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps. It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration, Apple's Game Center and iMessage services. There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed." The release also noted that iOS 6 will be coming out this fall, and that the company sold 17 million iPads in the third quarter, up 84% from sales in the third quarter of last year.

cancel ×

230 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wifi (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40755843)

Will they finally fix their WiFi woes?? My brand new macbook pro drops connections more than I drop the end of

Re:Wifi (3, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756035)

get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

Re:Wifi (0)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756207)

get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

Re:Wifi (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756245)

Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.

Re:Wifi (4, Insightful)

Jeppe Salvesen (101622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756337)

After upgrading to Lion, my 2008 iMac suddenly started dropping the wifi connection periodically, while my 2010 MacBook Air is rock stable. Anyhow, that's my experience. Anyhow, we'll need a bigger sample in order to determine if Macs really have more wifi-issues than Windows computers. Statistics matters.

Re:Wifi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757763)

Your alleged problem with an earlier release certainly has nothing to do with Windows, unless you're out to troll Apple. Your statistic of one doesn't help us. Had it actually been an Apple OS compatibility with Apple Wireless card problem it would have been widespread. It wasn't. If it had been, the problem would have been corrected long ago and would still be irrelevant to this discussion. If it had been relevant you should have included full details of the cause and a description of the fix.

I once saw a change in wireless behavior after an OS update. On noting that others with the same laptop and wireless configuration were not affected I dug deeper and found that it was a easily corrected non-standard timing setting in the (non-Apple) router. The OS change improved wireless reliability in congested areas.

Please try to keep posts useful. Thank you. Slashdot and other sites are suffering from too many corporate, political, or government related shill/troll/spam submitters, posters and moderators as it is.

Re:Wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756457)

Hear hear. The wireless connectivity on my 2009 MacBook has never been anything other than awe inspiring. Solid as a rock from start to finish.

MOUNTAIN LION IS OUT?! (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756773)

I didn't even suspect it had teh gay!

Re:Wifi (3, Informative)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756777)

Rubbish. I've routinely been able to connect to wireless networks with my various MacBooks over the years whilst PC using friends were struggling.

I wasn't very specific in my original post, but there are known issues with Apple's 802.1x authenticator code. WPA Enterprise is less commonly used with Macs than consumer-level wifi, which is probably why our experiences are so different. For what it's worth, I've never had a problem using wifi anywhere where there was WEP/WPA-PSK security (or no security). I'm perfectly happy with the MBP I use for work, as are thousands of others who use them at my company. And the WPA supplicant in Lion works better than SL, but isn't quite 100% yet.

Re:Wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756343)

I know some HP models are notorious about WiFi issues, I've never heard of that issue with Macs..

I've had 3 MBPs and work in a Mac exclusive office that runs WiFi, you'd think we'd have more issues.

Re:Wifi (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756369)

Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

That's the exact opposite of my experience, where I've had no trouble passing traffic on an overloaded conference network where some nearby non-Apple weren't even able to get a DHCP lease. In my office environment, I can't recall ever hearing a Mac user complaining about Wi-Fi issues where it didn't turn out to be an actual network outage. I'm not saying that Macs are magic or have some special hardware that no one else in the world gets to use, but I'll assert that they're solid machines with good hardware that performs well.

You know, it could be that you've read complaints from the stereotypical Mac hipsters who were annoyed that their expensive new machines didn't magically solve the network problem they already had. That probably wouldn't surprise me. They seem to work well enough for the rest of us, though.

Re:Wifi (1)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756507)

Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

Ahahahahahaha, yeh... No.

Macs are notoriously good at just working on wireless, something that microsoft didn't get sorted for a long time in windows due to hundreds of different bits of hardware, each with its own crappy driver and stupid branded control centre to connect.

Re:Wifi (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756517)

Dont need to. I know a LOT of people with mac's and they dont have ANY problems. most of the time it is a crap access point and you will find that Windows people are having the same problems. If I listened to the "internet" then all Segate Momentus XT drives were crap. less than 2% had problems yet that 2% was 100% of the noise screaming about the problems with OSX and Macbook Compatibility.

Re:Wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756859)

Macs are notoriously finicky about wireless connectivity. Before you reply with [citation needed], just do a quick web search for crying out loud.

The odd thing about web searches is that you can make it appear there are widespread problems of many things:

http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+pro+keyboard+backlight+problem
http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+pro+dial-up+doesn't+work

etc, etc.... neither of the results from these searches means these things are 'notoriously' problematic. It just means you're *LOOKING* for people with that problem.

edit: find it funny that the CAPTCHA is 'rhapsody'

Re:Wifi (1)

Meeni (1815694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757039)

It happened to me. One of the numerous MacBook I had over the years would just not connect to channel 11. Worked flawlessly with other channels, but not with 11. The "genius" fix was to set my access point to another channel. Too bad the airport authorities were not so keen on doing the same. Anyway, hardware and/or software issues that are never resolved are very common on mac models, if you are unlucky, and don't hope on the genius to help you if it is expensive.

Re:Wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756377)

get your hardware fixed.

Get... get it what? FIXED? I'm not sure I understand. Are you telling me the GP paid a not-insignificant markup for a luxury, premium laptop which proponents will consistently reiterate is made of superior parts and Just Works(c), and it's flawed?

And for fuck's sake, just take the damn router down like a civilized human being next time. Maybe you wouldn't be paying for housing repairs (i.e. fixing gaping holes in walls where wireless routers used to sit) or stepping on loose pieces of plastic and silicon (i.e. from smashed routers) so often if you didn't go apeshit over every minor inconvenience you see in electronic devices. Your hyperbole does not serve you well.

Re:Wifi (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756429)

Are you telling me the GP paid a not-insignificant markup for a luxury, premium laptop which proponents will consistently reiterate is made of superior parts and Just Works(c), and it's flawed?

In related news, there's a BMW repair shop near my house. There's a difference between "well made" and "magically impervious to any kind of damage or defect imaginable".

Re:Wifi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756585)

retard, please READ before letting your assburgers take over.

Re:Wifi (2)

Tapewolf (1639955) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757449)

get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

No, for me at least, it's definitely failing inside the operating system (which ATM is still 10.6).

For starters I've used three different types of Wifi module on this mac mini, and as many different brands of AP. I'm currently using an Airport Express as the access point, and for a long time I ran both the internal wireless and an external USB dongle on the mac to try and give me some failover capability.

What always happens is that the Wifi stack reports station disconnection "due to inactivity", which is perverse because it normally happens while watching youtube or some other high-bandwidth operation (hence, downloading 10.7 is going to be impossible). Once the failure has occurred the entire network stack will go down permanently, taking out all the wifi modules and making it impossible to bring them back up again without rebooting the mac.

A Google search found that it is possible to prolong things by setting a terminal to ping the router continuously in the background. IME that will usually get you about a week of connectivity before it crashes again. If you don't, expect to have the network stack die several times a day.

Re:Wifi (1)

edelbrp (62429) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756895)

I thought it was par for the course to have iffy WiFi on my MBP until I spent an afternoon testing each component. I found two culprits: A bad ethernet router which was effectively cycling one of its ethernet ports continuously, and elsewhere in the network, an old cat-3 cable that was trying to run at 100-baseT speeds.

Besides that, I used to have a wireless telephone that would kill the network each time I used it, but I have long since replaced that. Also beware that each WiFi channel spans two additional channels up and down (e.g. channel 5 is actually using 3,4,5,6,7) so beware of conflicts with other networks in the area.

In short, do your due diligence and find the source(s) of your problem. What you are experiencing isn't normal if everything is working and configured correctly. And I hate to sound like I am pushing Apple products, but you might be safest to use an Airport base station vs. a third party WiFi router. It at least is easier to configure with a Mac and gives the benefit of Airplay and printer sharing, if you need it.

Re:Wifi (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757273)

No problem here. My netbook can connect to networks under OSX without any problem. Funny thing is sometimes XP has issues connecting to the same network, on the same hardware.

Re:Wifi (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757419)

I had that problem. Forcing DHCP renewal helped. Please see the following articles for more information (I hope this helps you and other Mac-using Slashdotters!):
  • http://osxdaily.com/2011/11/06/lion-wi-fi-problems-solution-mac/
  • http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/os-x-lion-serious-wi-fi-disconnect-problems-for-macs-and-solutions/

What? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40755879)

Why the hell the launching of a OS of such shitty patent-ptrolling company had to happen on my birthday?

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40755979)

With hundreds of slashdot commenters, this is bound to be true for a handful of those*.

*: Assuming regularly distributed birthdays, since AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to birth date.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756727)

Assuming regularly distributed birthdays, since AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to birth date.

AFAIK technical prowess isn't linked to slashdot readership either...

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756017)

Why the hell the launching of a OS of such shitty patent-ptrolling company had to happen on my birthday?

If gives you something to do with that $20 gift card that your grandmother will give you.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756295)

Because you're an insignificant twit. Now go buy some iShit products and some skinny jeans so you can show off at Starbucks.

Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (3, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40755903)

We keep replacing our desktop environment every once in a while, now recently with Unity/GNOME3. Have we actually gone anywhere? At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago.

Can the Linux desktop survive that long?

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40755987)

Are you implying the GNU/Linux world revolves around Unity/GNOME3?

For shame.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756151)

I'm not a fan of Unity/GNOME3 myself, but when you took a look on the statistics on distrowatch.com [distrowatch.com] you could see, that for top 5 distros Unity/GNOME3 is main DE. So basically yes, it revolves around it ;)

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756077)

X is almost that old. It started in 1984.

You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756105)

Sure but how many share your choice of DE?
I guess we're talking twm or similar.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756165)

I do not know and I do not care. I would assume plenty though, has its own version of ubuntu.

XFCE if you really care.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (3, Interesting)

DdJ (10790) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756533)

You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

So's mine, even though it basically is OSX.

Ever since about 1989 or so, my favorite GUI environment has been NeXTstep. My employer got prerelease access (since we're Carnegie Mellon, where the Mach kernel came from), and it's essentially been my favorite desktop environment since version 0.8 or so, back when I taught myself Objective-C programming on it.

I pretty much hated "classic" MacOS and didn't like most Apple products except HyperCard and the Newton, right up until Apple required NeXT. So much of what was great back then is still here. I wish they'd managed to keep the old application remote display mechanism (NXHOST =~ DISPLAY), but the unreasonably-licensed Adobe Display PostScript pretty much put an end to that... alas.

If Apple screws it up too much (and signs are that they might, though I don't think they have yet), well, I'll probably end up switching to Ubuntu with GNUstep.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756157)

I gave up using Linux and switched back to OS X as my main machine because I can still install maybe 80% of the command line tools and libraries I need, plus I still have a decent UI to fall back to and the usual array of commercial binaries etc. I can also run a decent amount of games and don't need to worry about driver support. If I need to use Linux, I just ssh into a box somewhere or use a VM. Homebrew makes package management a cinch.

The only desktop environment I've enjoyed using in Linux is Cinnamon. KDE is fine and productive, but I still think needs to look a bit more slick.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756247)

I went the other way. Bought a Macbook air and had to install linux. Even after getting FFM to work using a pay for product and installing fink and iterm2 it was still a pain in the ass. I could never get the 10 key input working in vim on any server I connected to, lack of X style highlighting and middle click paste, and so on.

To each his own.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (4, Informative)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756279)

Have we actually gone anywhere?

Yeah. When I started using Linux in 1995 it was rather challenging to get X to run at all. To get a good functioning X people often had to buy a commercial X server. There were 0 GUIs. Microsoft announced they would not be porting their IE for Unix to Linux and people were upset. There were real questions as to why would anyone use Linux when for not much more money you could get an SGI or Sun workstation, there were also alternatives like SCO on x86 and AIX.

Today there exist 2 major GUIs with large suites of applications. There exists a full office productivity suite which is capable of stealing market share from Microsoft Office, on the Windows platform. With the exception of Trident all the major browser engines are either open source of available for LInux. The server space is dominated by Linux and Linux desktops play an important role in server development. SGI, Sun and SCO are all dead, AIX is weak. No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux. The Linux kernel is arguably the most advanced kernel available.

That's real progress. Maybe not enough to beat Windows and OSX but there is no question there has been progress.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756681)

ah good times - remember spending days just trying to get your scroll wheel working with X? I think my scroll wheel was button 7 and 8.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756691)

Odd. I had no problems with X11R5 on linux in 1994-1995. in fact... yggdrasil had everything you needed. you did need a decent video card, and the bigest annoyance was that I could not afford a 17" monitor to run at 1024X768 that most apps and GUI's wanted. Again you mention there were 0 GUI's. TCL/TK was alive and well. and FVWM was a fine window manager back then in 1995...

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756855)

Hi Lumpy.

You might have been saved by being at 640x480. Often the higher video resolutions had chip specific settings but VGA was a standard.

There were plenty of window managers. I used (and still often use) WindowMaker. TK is a graphical toolkit, so was Motif. But a GUI is much more.
-- Consistent Policy
-- Higher level widgets
-- An object broker
-- Sound support
-- desktop applications

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (1)

AaronLawrence (600990) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757109)

My impression was there was huge progress from 1995 to (say) 2005ish. But after that things slowed. Essentially the Linux desktop was good enough, but Linux as a platform is now held back by other non-technical things: the kernel "no ABI" philosophy, the fragmented distributions, Windows is now also "good enough", specific applications that businesses rely on (Office, Photoshop, etc) even if there are equivalents.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757415)

No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux.

That's a big surprise to those of us who bought a Mac so we could have a nice Unix workstation.

I can run a Linux desktop (or a thousand, if you want me to) but I switched so that I could stop messing around with my desktop and spend my time using it.

Re:Mac vs. the Linux Desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757621)

You had to buy a commercial X server if you were using some odd hardware. If you read the documentation and you bought hardware that was compatible with Linux, or 386BSD, then you were good to go.

So, in 1995 SGI and Sun were anywhere near the price of a commodity Linux workstation? Are you serious? They were more than ten times the price of comparable PC hardware, on a good day.

designed to fend off malware (0)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40755957)

Why would you need this on a Mac?

Re:designed to fend off malware (2)

ThePeices (635180) | more than 2 years ago | (#40755995)

designed to fend off malware

Why would you need this on a Mac?

to um...fend off the malware?

Seriously dude, did you even read what you just wrote?

Re:designed to fend off malware (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756021)

But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

Re:designed to fend off malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756071)

But that's because you're running the thing designed to fend off the malware.

Re:designed to fend off malware (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756083)

Yes because it *fends* the, off.
Didn't you pay attention?

Re:designed to fend off malware (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756185)

But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

Because the system is designed to fend off malware perhaps? ;-)

Re:designed to fend off malware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757319)

But, but, but, it's a MAC! We don't GET malware!

Oh you might want to rethink that, apparently Macs (and Linux boxes for that matter) tend to be crawling with malware making them a very significant threat vector according to the windows admins where I work. The funny thing (as in Haha! Schadenfreude!) is that 99.999% of this malware our *nix boxes are apparently crawling with is Windows malware (scanned my boxes, didn't find any but if they say so...). For this reason it seems Mac and Linux desktop boxes must be eradicated from the company network wherever possible which has made for some interesting interdepartmental meetings since my department does a lot of Unix/Linux server and some workstation development and the majority of the *nix geeks haven't used Windows for a decade or more. So you see, Macs and Linux boxes are a serious malware menace.

Year of the Linux desktop (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756127)

Designed to fend off malware. Why would you need this on a Mac?

Because of users. When the year of the Linux desktop arrives Linux will need to do the same thing. :-)

Re:designed to fend off malware (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756581)

There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed.

In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine. That's why it's "needed".

Re:designed to fend off malware (3, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756959)

In other words, Apple will control what third party software you're allowed to install on your own machine.

If you don't like it, uncheck the box and install anything you wish. That's what I'll be doing.

For the typical home user, though, I think it's a reasonable limitation that's not likely to impact what they can do *at all*.

Re:designed to fend off malware (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756983)

No, it's a setting that you control and can override on a per-app level.

Now more Chrome-y (-1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40755961)

Version updates every 10 minutes, just like Chrome? I'll pass.

Apple has officially jumped the shark.

Re:Now more Chrome-y (2)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756475)

By the time Mountain Lion launches, it will have been a few days over a year since the previous major release. Hardly 10 minute updates. Plus, it's rare that you meet someone who is aware and legitimately cares about a difference between Chrome version X and Chrome version X+1. In contrast, Apple added a few hundred new features, a few of which people have been requesting for years.

iPad sales up 84% (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756089)

Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

Google and Amazon selling tablets at cost (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756531)

iPad sales up 84%. Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

You can't look at iPad sales in isolation. You have to also look at how the tablet market has grown year-over-year. For example if the tablet market is growing at a faster rate then Apple would be "falling behind". That is what happened with respect to personal computers back in the day. Apple had a huge share of the early adopters but as the rest of the population entered the personal computer market they chose IBM compatibles. Apple sold more computer each year as their market shrunk. With google and amazon selling tablets at cost a similar pattern may emerge.

extraordinary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756099)

Revolutionary release.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756101)

A leopard never changes its spots.

Can't complain... (1)

mlts (1038732) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756215)

What I am going to be curious about is how the GateKeeper signed executable functionality will help in the wild against Trojans.

Assuming users are smart enough to not turn it off because a Web ad for a "pr0n viewer" or a free iPad told them to.

Re:Can't complain... (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756285)

It won't, and never will. But it is something. And with enough somethings the sum of somethings may become fairly large.

Re:Can't complain... (4, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756315)

There's a simple lock and unlock function for system preferences panes. So, for instance, you could have GateKeeper turned on for the family Mac, which would give the kids the freedom to install any software that is signed, but you would need the admin password to install unsigned software. It's a step up from the admin-only software install approach.

gatekeeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756225)

I can't wait to ctrl-shift and click on the pi symbol

GateKeeper eh (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756229)

Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

Re:GateKeeper eh (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756415)

Maybe. Its still rather hard to do since OSX is a dev machine. Macports needs to keep working. But I assume the barriers are high enough that this is a useful out.

On the commercial side: the combination of pushing customers to the App Store and the App Store imposing restrictions is starting to change the software culture. On several products I buy the App Store version and the downloadable versions are different. I'd imagine those companies are going to be switching to App Store only within a few years.

That being said, the walled garden on iOS isn't too bad so far.

Re:GateKeeper eh (4, Insightful)

MoronGames (632186) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756635)

...and that's a good thing for most users. Consider this: Most users don't care about whether or not they can run unsigned software. Many of those users don't know how to install software that they can't buy from a store, or through something like an app store (since they now know about app stores from smart phones and Apple pushing their app store on Macintoshes.) These people are not going to go poking around online to try to find software to install. Many of them wouldn't know how to install software that they did download! The walled garden is arguably better for these people. Want to extend your computer's functionality? Go on the App Store and download a new piece of software by clicking install and putting in your password.

As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to install and use software outside of the Mac App Store, it's my opinion that an OS X "walled garden" is a hugely excellent feature for the majority of users.

Re:GateKeeper eh (4, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757397)

Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

There are three settings to Gatekeeper.

First is the walled garden - Mac App Store apps *only*.

Second is the default secure - Mac App Store apps AND verified developer ID signed apps. The latter is a program where developers buy a signing cert from Apple, then the developer can sign anything with it. Just like the current code signing certificate Microsoft has, except the OS enforces the signature.

Third is the "full open" mode - any valid executable can run. Developers probably will use this mode to avoid needing to get a signing certificate (and we'd hope developers are smart enough to not click on any random executable that comes their way...).

The second is default because there are a whole class of programs that cannot work under the Mac App Store. First - the Mac App Store has a limit of $999.99 as the maximum price - some programs cost more than that (e.g., AutoCAD 2012 vs. AutoCAD 2012LE (which IS on the Mac App Store)). Second - big names don't want to be subject to the Mac App Store terms - they want to do things their own way. You know, a little company called Adobe who makes a little-used program call Photoshop. Or a tiny Washington-based company who makes an insignificant productivity suite they called Office.

Finally, another reason is utilities - disk defragmenters, disk repair tools, data recovery suites, even things like hardware drivers cannot be done via the Mac App Store - they must be distributed separately.

Hell, developers cannot distribute a DEMO version of their app via Mac App Store - they have to host those themselves.

I think for a good 60% of users, the Mac App Store is all they need. For another 35% the default setting is perfect, and the last 5% are hopefully smart enough to be the ones to turn it off completely and not do stupid things.

As for the signing requirement - well, a developer can't sign any old binary as their name is attached to it. If they sign some malware, it won't be long until said certificate is revoked by Apple and all apps signed by that developer stop working (until overridden by the last option, or they approve the app again). So developers have an interest in not signing everything.

Heck, Firefox did the smart thing and got TWO certificates - release builds are signed with one, and nightly builds and such are auto-signed with the other. This prevents the revokation of one key from disrupting firefox development.

Re:GateKeeper eh (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757739)

Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

Walled garden can be nice. I had a fox regularly coming into my garden shitting on the grass. It stinks. Badly. Didn't quite need to put a wall around the garden, put some spikes on top of the bit of fence that the fox or foxes used.

You can choose three settings: 1. Allow only apps from the App Store (known maker, vetted to some degree). 2. Allow only signed apps (maker of the app is known to Apple). 3. Allow anything. Signed apps also have the advantage that the OS knows when the app is upgraded that this is indeed the same app, so it can trust the upgraded app in the same way as the original.

Gatekeeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756271)

Controlling what software can and can not be installed is not malware protection its ridiculous. Why not set up an equivalent to MSE, it minimally interferes with the user's experience and its updated by the people who wrote the OS.
 
  Mac OS X: Now more restrictive!

Re:Gatekeeper (2)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756513)

Yeah, it's so restrictive to have the choice of what sources you want to trust for installing software.

Re:Gatekeeper (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757341)

Dont' feed the trolls. There are plenty of them in this discussion.

Re:Gatekeeper (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756745)

Huh? Optionally restricting the OS to running only signed binaries, and checking certificates haven't been revoked is ridiculous? What fantasy land do you live in?

Re:Gatekeeper (2)

acoustix (123925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756905)

Is this anything like Gatekeeper from The Net [wikipedia.org] ?

If so, stay away! ;)

Not ready. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756303)

Developer forums filled with show-stopping (kernel panic inducing) bugs.

I can't believe they're releasing this. It's almost as bad as the time they released Xcode and upgraded the default debugger from GDB to LLDB, but LLDB included a serious bug that made it virtually useless (you couldn't print out variables without it screwing them up).

Sometimes I wonder if Apple has a working Q/A department anymore. Oh well, at least we got Twitter and Facebook integration- who cares if your machine panics a few times a day. Last I heard, panics don't require you to forcefully shut down the machine anymore- the kernel just dumps to NVRAM and reboots. And with auto-resume you should be right back where you were before the entire machine went down! Reminds me of that Microsoft powered in-dash car system that rebooted itself every so often as "regular system maintenance"...

-AC

Out of cats (3, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756333)

What will they name releases when they run out of cats? I mean, "10.10 Housecat" just doesn't sound like a product people would be enthusiastic about...

Re:Out of cats (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756413)

With their new naming strategy it's likely to be *The New OS X*

Re:Out of cats (1)

Zemplar (764598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756425)

10.10 will be hailed as "Calico" - not only just your typical domestic cat, but another ho-hum OS "upgrade" as well.



I'm only so bitter as my 2006 Mac Pro won't be supported. Boo. Hiss.

Re:Out of cats (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756563)

What will they name releases when they run out of cats?

Slang terms for portions of the female anatomy.

Duh.

Re:Out of cats (5, Funny)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756615)

I dunno, but for the 40th Anniversary of Apple (2016) I'm betting they put out a Cougar release.

Re:Out of cats (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757315)

A new major revision number? OS 11.0

The problem is that Apple does all of its Mac OS updates incrementally, so they haven't had a major revision in years. One might argue they should have done it with either the 32->64 bit transition or the end of PowerPC compatibility. Maybe greater integration with iOS will be the catalyst for a new major revision number.

Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756481)

Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.? Or will they start calling it OS-XI, and ten versions later OS-XII? Or will they do what M$ seems to be trying to do, of merging their desktop hegemony and their tablet "OS", and try to strong-arm/strangle the tablet market. They might release iOS-X, the "i" differentiating between regular OS-X, and a new OS for desktops, laptops, etc., that has a more iOS-like interface, allowing them to start at 1.0 again? It could be as iOS devices become powerful enough, they could get a full OS that could power a desktop... and they could add features to the MacAirPowerNoteBooklet (or whatever) to allow use as a tablet OR as a real computer, which would probably drag people in even more...

Imagine for a moment if Apple's new laptop could be interfaced with via a touch-screen, OR using the mouse/track-pad or whatever, if you could hop back and forth between the iOS environment, and the OS-X one on a single machine... you know they could do it, even if they had to break down and make some kludge, of slapping an iOS environment emulator on top of OS-X... probably would be easier than trying to augment iOS to have OS-X's full capabilities. It could be kind of like (and I know I'm dating myself here...) when you typed "Go 64" into the Commodore 128 console, and got an emulated C-64 machine, capable of natively running any software written for the 64, or which a 64 could run even if it had originally been written for the Plus 4, etc. It would probably be great if for no other reason than to let dev's test out their iOS apps. Or are they already doing this? Anyone know anyone at Apple? Tell them if they're not, they SHOULD!

Presumably the big-wigs at Apple have already made their decision... or maybe not. If the legacy of Steve Jobs taught Apple anything, it should be that any potentially embarrassing, stupid move they might make should be accidentally "leaked" in advance, to test the waters and see what their cult-members think of it first, THEN announce it's true. I think they've done that more than once. It's Apple's half-baked idea of market research by direct experimentation. OTOH, look at their bottom line and market dominance... it seems to have worked, so... how's that saying go? If it's stupid, but it works... it's not stupid.

Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756547)

No, it will be called "The New OS X".

Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756913)

Is Apple painting themselves into a corner, or preparing to corner the market? Next major release version, whatever pithy name they give it, will likely be OS-X 10.9. What follows that? Will they just keep incrementing the tenth's place, as 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.?

Probably. It's not as if there's some Iron Law that some particular component or components of a version ID are limited to one digit.

Re:Is Apple painting themselves into a corner... (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757467)

Yes they have made their decision. They believe the desktop form factor and the tablet / phone form factor are fundamentally different and will stay different. The two can borrow for one another but they should have different functions and thus different types of applications. Microsoft is choosing an opposite approach. Consumers are going to get a real choice.

Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756543)

Snow Leopard seems to the gold standard within the OS X universe. I *had* to upgrade to Lion and noticed that its much buggy. Would like a return to the overall performance and stability of SL.

Also when is Apple going to improve Finder. Its in dramatic need of a long overdue overhaul. Its so bad that the Linux desktop actually has a window of opportunity to surpass the Mac in terms of usability.

Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40756569)

I thought FTFF was to just remove the notion of files altogether and replace it with Launchpad.

Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? (1)

Meeni (1815694) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757231)

And do something with the way keyboard shortcuts are handled. The inconsistent behavior that is the mark of OS-X is ruining productivity.

Re:Will it be as good as Snow Leopard? (2)

zoloto (586738) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757399)

SL is great, but ML is leaps ahead of Lion. After running the GM since its release I can say it's noticeably faster on my early 2009 mac mini.

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40756631)

what?

Upgrading immediately is a BAD idea. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757003)

I "upgraded" from Snow Leopard to Lion at the urging of a friend who had it already and
that upgrade has been an unmitigated disaster. I then spent many hours getting things
which had "just worked" working again. The loss of productivity which resulted was significant.

Snow Leopard was stable, and did everything I needed to do.

Lion includes a bunch of iOS mimicry which is a stupid mistake and which makes me
regret being an Apple user because it feels like I have been duped into thinking I was
buying great design when I have been hoodwinked into buying consumer-level crap.

Apple's attempt at forcing the merging of iOS device and laptop interface design is
beyond merely annoying ; it has degraded the usefulness of my machine in a permanent
manner and there is no fix short of going back to Snow Leopard.

There will be no further "upgrades" for me, not when reduced functionality at the expense
of satisfying the idiotic design decision which makes my high-end laptop act like an
iPad.

I may be a bit premature but I think this is the beginning of the end of Apple's run of
making great operating systems and great laptops ( glued-in battery ? No thanks ! )

Tim Cook is going to be famous for leading Apple into the abyss.

Mark my words.

ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac Pro (-1, Flamebait)

Rougement (975188) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757199)

Here's the text of my letter to Tim Cook. After 12 years as an Apple customer, I'm done. Luckily, my Mac Pro will run Windows just fine. I'd go the Linux route but pro audio on that platform isn't happening. Mr Cook, I am writing to express my dismay at Apple's refusal to support the Mac Pro 1,1 with the upcoming Mountain Lion release. When I bought this machine, I distinctly remember a flashy badge on your website proclaiming the machine was "64 bit", now I hear the machine can't run ML because it isn't 64 bit. Please tell me which is true? I don't see any way Apple can legally claim a machine is 64 bit and then 5 years later say, "oh, we didn't mean that kind of 64 bit". As I'm sure you're aware, this machine is still perfectly capable and I'm very disappointed that Apple has decided to stop supporting it, especially given it's status as the top of the line Apple workstation, with a premium price tag attached. I had no plans to upgrade any time soon, especially as your current Mac Pro offerings are somewhat long in the tooth. Now my dilemma is whether I should stick with Apple at all. A premium product, with a significant monetary investment, demands premium support from the vendor. Apple abandoning this machine makes me question Apple's values regarding it's professional customers. After all, why pay more for a top of the line product given the knowledge that your company may decide to drop development for it at any time?

Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P (3, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757259)

The machine is 64 bit but some components aren't.

Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P (1)

Rougement (975188) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757389)

I know, I've been taking a crash course on 32 bit EFI, etc. The bottom line seems to be that this is a completely arbitrary decision from Apple. The Mac Pro was sold to me as a "64 bit workstation" and now they say it isn't. I'd say they're on shaky legal ground there. Earlier version of ML also had a working 32 bit kernel and lots of people who are more adept than i have managed to successfully install and run ML using a custom boot loader so it is possible. Apple have dropped the ball here.

Re:ML drops support for my perfectly capable Mac P (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757879)

You should go to MacRumors where they have a guy keeping on and on and on and on posting exactly the same nonsense as you do. You could make a friend and drown your sorrows together.

I should care why? Apple's a bitch to deal with. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757233)

If Apple has done anything right it's been to give people something to latch onto. It's products largely suck. It's not to say Microsoft's are any better. But... come on. Apple goes out of the way to make things difficult for people over 30 (and I'm only 25).

"Gatekeeper" (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757249)

There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed

Apple must think people are really too stupid to know where this is going.

Re:"Gatekeeper" (1)

NIK282000 (737852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40757301)

Have you looked at their product line? Their motto isn't "Think Different" its "We think different so you don't have to."

Twitter integration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40757849)

What is it with all you idiots?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?