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!

Google's Growing Love For the Mac

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the the-multi-color-apple dept.

222

An anonymous reader writes "While browsing the 2007 Macworld speaker bios, I found an interesting Google+Mac piece of news. Looks like Google has appointed the famous Amit Singh in charge of their Mac Engineering (also confirmed on Singh's website). While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility they have been offering some native Mac software. We earlier heard Google CEO Eric Schmidt's joining Apple's board of directors. Then following Microsoft MacBU's lead, Google started their own Mac Blog a few weeks earlier. Google's jobs website also lists several Mac openings. If Singh's technical expertise and history of OS X wizardry any indication, we can hope for some cool Mac software from Google. Also wondering if all this is just Google's response to Apple's market growth or maybe a more serious partnership is coming? ;-)"

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

Sounds like a good thing to me. (5, Insightful)

Zarniwoop_Editor (791568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735697)

Anytime we get wider acceptance of platforms other than Microsoft it is a good thing. It's not that I'm anti-microsoft so much as I prefer to have choices when it comes to computing platforms. Any effort made by companies to support more than just microsoft properly is a good thing in my books.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (0, Flamebait)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735721)

"choice" ?
between pc-os and pc-os ?
stfu, you're as relevant on slashdot that your people are in Iraq.
I hope you choke on a pretzel ands die of suffocation.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16735847)

"PC-OS" and "PC-OS"? Sort of like saying *nix and Windows are the same just because they both run on the same type of PC, isn't it?

You must be the smart one in your family.. I'd hate to meet the dumb one..

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735833)

Indeed it is. But I think Google will do more to help this by making more tools Web Based then making Applicataions that run on different OS's While it is good that they are doing that. Making more Platform Independant Web Application Will do much more making all OS irelevlant and people can choose what platform and OS based on their personal needs and less of well this App only run on windows so I need windows.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (5, Insightful)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735949)

Web apps are a great thing - if you have reliable, very fast, Internet access 24/7. I suspect the killer app is some hybrid of web and client apps. The data would get still stored locally. Not everyone is comfortable with losing access to data whenever the net goes down, plus the privacy implications and the fact that local storage is faster. As far as the applications themselves, they'll be in Java or some other platform-independent language, but they'll be cached locally for the most part. Again, you wouldn't want to be stuck with a brick when the your net access breaks. Perhaps updates and seldom-used features would download on demand from the net, but things like MS Office more or less do that already.

Going to all web apps would be going back to the mainframe/dumb terminal days of the 1970s. It would negate most of the advantages of owning a PC.

-b.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

uncadonna (85026) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736087)

I suspect the killer app is some hybrid of web and client apps.


iTunes? Google Earth? the Flickr upload tool?

I use at least three such (mass-market) applications regularly.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737029)

iTunes is still very much like a traditional app with net access though. I'm sure iTunes wouldn't be nearly the sucess that it is if you had to stream all media from their site rather than downloading it, or (in a full web scenario), if it was just a website where you streamed stuff across.

I think the internet is a wonderful thing, and we have only begun to tap it's potention. But IMHO, the most potential still lies in local applications that access the internet for external data, not in applications that actually live completely on the net.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736363)

For office purposes, it would be great if OpenOffice could be configured to regularly (every 5 or 10 minutes) send the active document to your Google account to be used with Writely and whatever else GoogleDocs has, so that when people are away from their machine wanting to open an OOo odt in a Microsoft Office only shop, they could still have their documents (without having to worry about syncing the latest with a usb-drive).

I dunno, just thought maybe some people would have a use for that...

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

ejp1082 (934575) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737469)

While I understand these complaints (sort of), they always struck me as unfounded. As far as connectivity goes - I've had hard disks fail more times in the last year than my net connection has. If we're not yet in the age of ubiquitous internet connectivity, we will be pretty shortly.

I think for the average user, web based applications are an ideal solution. Most of the "advantages" of the personal computer have been a disaster for the average joe - it puts them in the pilot's seat when the best place for him is really back in the passenger area. Here's how I see it, with Gmail as the example:

- Google uses redundant storage and backip schemes. Any email sitting locally on the average joe's computer likely isn't.
- He doesn't need to install the application, just point to a web site.
- Upgrades are automatic, there's nothing for him to maintain.
- Google removes viruses, he's not dependent on keeping his symantec/mcafee subscription up to date and making sure all the software is working as it should.
- He can't crash or break the application.

Then there's the features desktop software can't match, like universal accessibility, synchronization across PC's, collaboration and sharing abilities (not so much with email but with other applications). For enterprises, it makes a lot more sense to use a bunch of dumb terminals and keeping all the application logic and data where it can be centrally managed.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (2, Interesting)

b0s0z0ku (752509) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737745)

I think for the average user, web based applications are an ideal solution. Most of the "advantages" of the personal computer have been a disaster for the average joe - it puts them in the pilot's seat when the best place for him is really back in the passenger area. Here's how I see it, with Gmail as the example:

I'm still advocating local caching of applications and data, at least for frequently used stuff. It's grossly inefficient to keep downloading the same data over and over again. There's also stuff (like financial records) that should not be stored anywhere but under the control of the owner. I don't trust never-delete-anything Google that much with my personal data. The problem of hard drive failure can be dealt with via smaller (1.5?") drives running on a Raid 1 scheme. Yes, even on a laptop. Or perhaps automated software that does backups to flash disk...

Also, fast wireless Internet access for laptops isn't that ubiquitous just yet. In urban and suburban areas, yes, but elsewhere you often revert to a slower mode or have no access at all. Even many tunnels for trains and buses still don't have cell service.

For enterprises, it makes a lot more sense to use a bunch of dumb terminals and keeping all the application logic and data where it can be centrally managed.

Agreed for within a business, depending on how critical it is to have some ability to do work 24/7. Intranets are very reliable and fast these days. Not so the internet, IMHO. HOWEVER, with dumb terminals you're introducing a single point of failure (the network and the server room) that will render multiple machines incapable of use if it fails. Not so with apps running or at least cached locally.

-b.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735965)

Web applications are useful for some situations, but I wouldn't want to run e.g. SketchUp inside a browser window. Like it or not, OSes aren't irrelevant now and won't be for years to come.

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

dwightk (415372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736283)

Any effort made by companies to support more than just microsoft properly is a good thing in my books.


Here's to hoping that Adobe catches up in this dept. soon.

(who would have thought that that would ever happen?)

Re:Sounds like a good thing to me. (1)

milimetric (840694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737713)

I'm thoroughly impressed with Google services. That being said, Google "software" sucks. Only Google Desktop and Google Earth stand out, and Google Earth was acquired from Keyhole. Furthermore, compared to X1 or spotlight or even good old slocate, Google Desktop sucks. It took up 2 gigabytes of hard drive space to index a 40 gig drive, that's really really bad.

So I don't really care that Google would partner with any specific OS vendor, because their value is in their services which can be accessed with a browser.

smiley face (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16735739)

:)?? fag

Re:smiley face (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736277)

Winking face... even more gay. 75% of the time a winking smiley is attached to a limp-wristed unfunny joke used to make a point in some debate.

Come on, what about Linux (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735813)

I would like to see two things from Google... firstly, some gee whizz apps appearing first for Linux, and secondly, them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux...

Re:Come on, what about Linux (2, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735861)

Linux is so Early Decade come on it is the End of the Decade get with the times OS X is the new champion.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

Afecks (899057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736003)

Champion of what? Apple stock?

Let's all switch from an OS that locks you into software, to an OS that locks you into hardware...

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737203)

Champion of 4% of the marekt share...

You want them to buy Suse? (1)

Courageous (228506) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735929)

them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux...

You mean you think Google should buy Suse?

ba-da-ding
ba-da-boom
cha-cha-cha

C//

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735945)

Your munch more likely to see something for OS X before Linux. Regardless of superiority its simple economics... there are more OS X users than Linux users out there regardless of how many machines run Linux.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

Weedlekin (836313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736249)

There are more OS X desktop users than Linux desktop users, not more OS X users overall.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

delire (809063) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737383)

I wouldn't be so sure. Google are mid-development of their in-house developer desktop OS Goobuntu [wikipedia.org] , an Ubuntu [ubuntu.com] derivative made by Google for the task. Furthermore don't forget that Google's next biggest 'market' is in Asia, where Linux desktop growth is formidable to say the least, far surpassing desktop Linux growth we've seen elsewhere in the West. Don't forget also OS X isn't a migration target for whole governments and their administrations either - comprising a large chunk of the so-called enterprise market.

OS X growth is still very much confined to the (comparably small) western world domestic market by and large.. Vendor lock-in (of which Apple offers the most extreme given the marriage of hardware and software) is increasingly unfashionable large desktop deployments. Linux is the 'people's OS' - free for the public - fast moving and enjoying rapid growth on the Desktop. Google appears very aware of that with their recent and growing support for the Linux desktop (Picassa, Google Earth, upcoming Google Desktop for Linux).

Finally I'd be very surprised if there are in fact more OS X users than Linux desktop users. If that is the case, it certainly may not be that way for long given the growth we've been seeing - albeit of the radar of retail-market quantified 'market share'.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736007)

"Partnering" with Linux (is that even possible?) would not be as smart a business decision. Apple has handheld devices in millions of consumers' hands, a growing number of computers on peoples' desks and partnerships within the entertainment industry -- all things Google wants. Their pockets also just happen to be lined deep with cash. If you haven't noticed, Google has been making huge inroads into video and community collaboration -- why not partner with the company that has already done much of the dirty work forming the relationships?

A Linux "partnership" (with RedHat? Mandrake?) would buy them what, exactly? An OS still primarily used by server admins and tech elite. A hodgepodge of competing standards.

I wouldn't be surprised if the geeks at Google (and I'm sure there's still a ton of them) are pushing their own Linux projects. But the company as a whole is designed to make money, and Apple makes more sense than anything right now, given the direction they're heading.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737571)

Google is a Linux company.

They build their own, internal linux distribution. They run all their heavy metal on Linux.

They'll never, ever switch to OS X, at least internally.

What does make sense is for them to better support OS X client apps. But at it's core, Google is a Linux company.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736159)

"Firstly, some gee whizz apps appearing first for Linux," Why? More people use Windows than Linux. I would be happy if they came out at the same time.

"and secondly, them to come out with a Google branded Linux with full indemnity against any patent(s) that Microsoft may allege to be infringed by Linux..."
Why? Really why would Google do that?
Google isn't a charity it is a business. How would this help Google make one cent of income?
I could see IBM doing this. IBM does make a lot of money from Linux and let's face it they have a large enough patent portfolio that Microsoft would never have the guts to sue them directly. See SCO vs IBM to see why.

I have to wonder if the Microsoft/Novell deal isn't a way for Microsoft to make nice with IBM. If Microsoft really did shall we say encourage SCO to go after IBM they may be a little worried that IBM may bring out it's portfolio to go after them. Not only that but Microsoft is depending on IBM for the XBox360's CPU. IBM and Suse/Novell have a long history and this might be a way for Microsoft to bury the hatchet.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736439)

Google isn't a charity it is a business. How would this help Google make one cent of income?

Companies regularly make strategic moves that make them money in the long term, via an indirect route. Google throwing their support and development behind a desktop Linux distro could do a number of things. It could provide a stable target for other developers. It could promote a commoditization of the OS, and thus remove MS's largest weapon against them. It could save Google money internally by providing a cheaper platform for their employees internally.

I'm not saying it is a good idea, or the best option available to them, but there are lots of reasons it might be.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736923)

"It could provide a stable target for other developers. " How? Linux is the least stable target by nature. Anyone can change or modify anything. That is why OS/X is so easy. It is the lease open so it is the most stable target.
"It could save Google money internally by providing a cheaper platform for their employees internally."
Ubuntu, Open Suse, and even Gentoo are all good enough for for Google to deploy internally. This is Google we are talking about."
Frankly I am having less hope for a Desktop Linux by the minute. The new GPL 3 is a disaster. The lack of a stable binary driver interface is also a disaster. Even if you where going to require the drivers to have the source available making it easy to install shrink wrap drivers is vital to Linux on the desktop.
Until a device maker can stick a CD in the box with a driver they know that the end user can install supporting Linux just isn't worth the trouble.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737069)

How? Linux is the least stable target by nature.

Well if Google picked or made one distro, that would make for a stable target for them and anyone else who wanted to contribute. We're talking about the benefits to Google of Google sponsoring a distro.

Ubuntu, Open Suse, and even Gentoo are all good enough for for Google to deploy internally.

Sure, but it is a lot easier to standardize on one distro than many.

Frankly I am having less hope for a Desktop Linux by the minute...

You go on to list symptoms. Linux on the desktop will only really take off if a major company or group of companies takes the money they would be spending on Windows and OS X and dumps it into making Linux right for them. I have hope for Linux on the desktop, but it needs real support, and that support is vanishing from some sources. I know a lot of people who have abandoned Linux on the desktop and work from OS X, while contributing to Linux on the server. If Linux on the desktop is to survive, it should be looking at OS X and copying the real underlying innovations. Linux distro developers who want a desktop instead of a server should be going out of their way to be compatible with OS X to allow cross platform improvements. I doubt this will happen because of the biases within the remaining community, however.

Re:Come on, what about Linux (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737515)

Frankly the problem is the open source faithful.
People WANT TO BUY Photoshop. They do not want to learn GIMP. They want the FREEDOM to buy software.
People want to buy nvidia and ATI video cards. They do not care about binary blobs. And they do not want to be educated about how evil closed source is. Want to know why? They will never look at the source. If they did they would never understand it.
OS/X gives people the choice to buy the stuff they want instead of hoping that someone will write it.

I love FOSS as much as the next guy. The problem I have is when the religion of FOSS gets in the way of people using it.
Just what percentage of people compile FireFox for Windows? What is the ratio of source to binary downloads?

Big companies! (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735817)

One massive multinational corporation working with another. Why should I be excited about this? Is this news? Is this a good thing?

Re:Big companies! (0)

Kyokugenryu (817869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735983)

1. You shouldn't.
2. No.
3. No.

Re:Big companies! (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736165)

One massive multinational corporation working with another. Why should I be excited about this? Is this news? Is this a good thing?

You should be afraid [sequoiacap.com] .

CC.

Re:Big companies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736459)

sheeeesh! another "is this news?" whiner.....

Re:Big companies! (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737335)

Seeing as: 1)Both are obviously highly important tech companies 2)The products of tech companies are generally of interest to nerds, and 3) /. is about "news for nerds" If you don't think this is "news" based on the above three, you should: 1) Visit other sites, or 2) Shut the hell up. You guys bitch when there's a dupe, you bitch when their isn't. You're the reason for some of the categories available to mods.

Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16735841)

I want a Mac version.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735923)

Top right corner.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16735977)

Spotlight != Google Desktop

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736691)

They are sufficiently similar (especially with Dashboard Widgets making up the slack) that it wouldn't make a lot of sense to provide Google Desktop for the Mac, though.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737455)

Does Spotlight support searching multiple computers across the internet?

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (2, Informative)

saha (615847) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736107)

That would seem really redundant. One could argue Apple's Spotlight is better than Google Desktop because it is more extensible to multiple file formats (allows developers to write plug-ins). Spotlight was indexing more file formats before Google Desktop first version. Spotlight will index a document up to 10MB, Google indexes only the first 5,000 words in a file, while MSN indexes one megabyte. Also Dominic Giampaolo who created BFS for BeOS, shortly worked in Google and now Apple developing Spotlight to work on top of HFS+. I like Picasa on Windows, because it is light weight and fast, but Google probably realizes that iPhoto does a decent job. There are features on both sides that I like, but iPhoto on the Mac is good enough and probably why Google won't have Picasa until iPhoto becomes a slow and lumber behemoth program.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (1)

fritzk3 (883083) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736921)

The one glaring sin that I have found in Picasa is that when you import pictures from a camera/media card, Picasa ERADICATES the time/date stored in the EXIF information with the time and date that the picture was imported into Picasa! This, to me, is unforgivable... and the main reason why I will not use Picasa.

(My personal favorite photo browser/editor is FastStone Image Viewer [faststone.org] . No, I don't work for them. Just a satisfied user.)

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737453)

google desktop also allows users to write plug ins for other file formats.

Re:Yes, but where's Google Desktop? (1)

mjjw (560868) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736563)

Not the same, but QuickSilver is an awesome search and run utility. Although I have started to think of it as Start -> Run on steroids rather than a search tool.

http://quicksilver.blacktree.com/ [blacktree.com]

Google Loves Apple (1)

as400tek (609382) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735897)

While I do not know anyone who works for Google I have been a fan of Google and where they are going in the market for my own personal financial reasons....STOCK. I notice every time they take a camera inside Google or have photos of Google people they are using Macs. I am a Mac user and I understand that the majority of desktops are Windows, but I always wondered why Google we not publicly more PRO-Mac since they subscribe to that philosophy internally. I know I read somewhere about 3 years ago they employees were encouraged to choose a mac Desktop due to the ease of use and security of the platform. I would like to see more Pr-Mac companies out there or at least offer your employees the options to pick what they run....Windows, Linux or Mac?

Re:Google Loves Apple (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736407)

Have you thought that they always show Macs when they take cameras in because the Macs look better and the 'image' of the Mac fits closer to the image they would like to project of the work environment?

Re:Google Loves Apple (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736657)

On TV shows and ads I can see how that would be a valid reasion. But I highly doubt that anytime Google is giving a presentation or a tour they're going to make everyone stop working. Swap out their desktops and swap in Macs for a day or so. Then make them swap back. It just doesn't make sense.

All for it. (1)

ReiDragon (1018072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735955)

I've just recently switched back over to mac from working with a PC for a while after selling a mac mini. The one thing i've had a problem with both then and now is finding software that i used on the PC and finding a worthwhile replacement on the mac.

With google joining the team with mac development it seems that other companies may join them and start to develop programs for the mac platform, or would that be too far fetched to see? I guess it may turn into a version of "monkey see, monkey do" for some companies now that google shows that there is a large market for a different system other than windows.

Re:All for it. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736561)

If you don't mind my asking, what software did you have a problem finding?

I'm not saying that there is a replacement, but in 15 years of owning a mac, I've never had this problem other than in the Engineering realm. AutoCAD, Matlab (yes it exists, but it sucks), etc...

Re:All for it. (1)

ReiDragon (1018072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736855)

At the moment it's my school software that's causing a problem for me. But that's easily fixed using an emulator for a windows OS. One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partions on my mac (i only have one drive so i don't know if there's anything possible for that. Overall i agree there's a lot of programs for the mac that replace PC apps, but there's some that are released just for PC when it's not assumed that people would use otherwise (my school lab software for example).

Mac Apps, Partition software, etc (2, Informative)

green pizza (159161) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737233)

You might be interested in iPartition. It's not free, but it's more flexible than /Applications/Utilities/Disk Utility. There are others, but this is the only one that quickly comes to mind. Don't bother asking Powerquest/Symantic to make a Mac version of Partiton Magic, ports of existing Windows utilities generally suck on other platforms.
http://www.coriolis-systems.com/iPartition.php [coriolis-systems.com]

As for other Mac Applications, there are several websites you can check out for various Mac apps. I have never found a shortage of Mac (or Linux) applications, once I avoided the pitfall of finding a "port" or "perfect replacement" for my favorite Windows applications. Things are a little different in the Mac and Linux world, so you might need to find similar, but significantly different applications to meet your needs.

Check out:
http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/ [apple.com]
http://www.versiontracker.com/macosx/ [versiontracker.com]
http://www.macorchard.com/ [macorchard.com]
http://www.macupdate.com/ [macupdate.com]
And if you want games:
http://aspyr.com/product/product_listing [aspyr.com]
http://www.destineerstudios.com/macsoftgames/mac_l isting.html [destineerstudios.com]
http://www.feral.co.uk/ [feral.co.uk]
http://www.ambrosiasw.com/games/all.html [ambrosiasw.com]
http://www.pangeasoft.net/index2.html [pangeasoft.net]
http://www.freeverse.com/ [freeverse.com]
http://www.apple.com/games/ [apple.com]
http://www.macgamefiles.com/ [macgamefiles.com]

Re:All for it. (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737253)

One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partions on my mac...

Have you tried Applications: Utilities: Disk Utility.app? I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but the disk utility can manage partitions on your mac and if you have an Intel machine, can nondestructively partition them.

Re:All for it. (1)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737719)

AFAIK the GUI can only destructive repartition. You have to use the command line version to nondestructively repartition.

That being said, there are many excellent Linux live cd's that can be used to repartition drives. Take a Look [digg.com]

These will boot just fine on an intel mac, and I'm sure you could piece together a PPC version.

Re:All for it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737495)

"One thing that you might be able to help me with is maybe a utility along the lines of partition magic to configure partitions"

I assume you mean resizing partitions on the fly? OSX has a partition utility that's very easy. But only for reformatting, IIRC. A Google search finds this: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20041 130014827278 [macosxhints.com] Maybe it's what you are looking for.

Re:All for it. (1)

Oliver Defacszio (550941) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736957)

For me, as a fairly recent Mac convert (about four or five months), these are the applications I've not been able to recreate well on the Mac:

1. FrameMaker
2. PIC programming software
3. Winamp (yes, I know that there are countless a/v players for Mac, but none seem to be as simple and intuitive to me)

Other than those, I've often found it easier to find tools to "do things" for OS X than it was for Windows.

is this substantive? (1)

macurmudgeon (900466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16735973)

Does this hint at an alliance of the "enemy of my enemy is my ally" type or it just the currently cool kids getting together to be, well, cool?

makes sense (2, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736027)

Mac's don't enjoy a huge portion of the market share when looking at the overall picture, but when you look at some key professional markets -- music, video, and web design and programming, Mac's are actually pretty popular. Only makes sense that Google, who has catered unconditionally to developers would do such a thing. Not to mention, it just makes sense to support a platform that is in direct competition with Google's own competition, that being Microsoft.

Re:makes sense (1)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736811)

Mac's don't enjoy a huge portion of the market share when looking at the overall picture, but when you look at some key professional markets -- music, video, and web design and programming, Mac's are actually pretty popular.

And also note that the the Mac marketshare is on the rise. For notebooks, especially, it's becoming significant. Any time I'm in a local coffeeshop or other place where there are people using notebook computers, 30-50% of them are Macs (typically iBooks and non-pro MacBooks). Five years ago this was unheard of.

Re:makes sense (1)

williamstome (1001708) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737215)

What market growth? from 3% to 4%?

anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.

Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer

I'm not dissing macs, I'm just correcting people who think that Macs are better for video editingm programming, etc.

Macs have superiority when it comes to basic media jobs.

If you want anything serious, professional, or want to play any games, you want a PC

Re:makes sense (3, Insightful)

pivo (11957) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737581)

anywho, Macs don't have any advantage in the field of programming, seeing as C# is fairly popular today, which is written with Microsoft's Visual Studio.

Hey, that's the stupidest comment I've seen in days. Congratulations!

Almost as bad as: (1)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737681)

Also, when it comes to video editing or music mixing, macs only have an advantage in basic amateur jobs. If you want to do anything serious, you'll want a windows computer
Now THAT was funny. Show me any professional shops using Windows for serious video or audio production, and I'll show you the most miserable, mislead team of designers in the World...

Say wah? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736029)

"Then following Microsoft MacBU's lead, Google started their own Mac Blog a few weeks earlier."

Me confused. Time travel available now?

Amit Singh at Google? (1)

camt (162536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736033)

Only good things can possibly come from that.

That must be the coolest job in the world: working on Macs for Google.

$$Money$$ (1)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736055)

All business endeavors are about money. Google is getting edged off the windows desktop, so they partner up with Apple to reduce the exposure to risk.
A cool possible side-effect: Google helps boost Mac onto more desktops.

just curious (1)

General Lee's Peking (954826) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736081)

Also wondering if all this is just Google's response to Apple's market growth or maybe a more serious partnership is coming?
When you're talking about Apple's market growth are you just talking about Apple's stock prices going up? Unless Apple actually gets a larger chunk of the desktop, I don't see what benefit this would be to Google. Is Apple actually getting a larger chunk of the desktop? As a fan of both BSD flavored Unix and the Mac GUI, I had always been hoping that companies would develop for the Mac just because it's so cool. I've just had to accept that things just don't work that way. Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

Re:just curious (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736243)

Is Apple actually getting a larger chunk of the desktop?

From the numbers I've seen, yes, kinda. They are gaining ground in the US and Europe (from 4% to about 6%) in sales at least. They are slightly losing ground worldwide as they can't keep up with the growth rate in computer use around the world.

Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

This is changing as well, from what I've seen. In the last few years a lot of the UNIX/Linux crowd has moved to OS X laptops and I think the move to intel will bring even more. Hardcore developers are still contributing to Linux/UNIX, but focused more on the server. I've seen a lot of CLI utilities starting to get support for new features first on OS X, and then on Linux. I've seen a fair number of projects start up that are Mac only, since the users are on that platforms and coding multiple GUIs is time consuming. I find this somewhat discouraging since I'd rather have portable applications, but realistically I'm one of those OS X on the desktop people, so it does benefit me.

I anticipate some serious brain drain in the Linux on the desktop community unless there is better support for portable applications or some heavyweights really pour effort into making Linux desktops (probably for enterprise use).

What's wrong here (1)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736353)

Why is everyone so "Google and Mac? I'm so excited, I'm going to p..."???

One major company (Google) starts to recognize the second largest non-OSS OS of a stylish hardware vendor as a possible field of profit and devotes a few more resources to that area. Great.

Don't misunderstand me, I love my Mac and the GUI is very well designed and Google still is the best search engine out there. So what?

I myself would be happier if there would be more good search engines out there (maybe even one more in a Wiki and/or OSS spirit???), and if OSS would be at the forefront of user-friendly GUI design. (KDE and Gnome have made enormous progress, but they are still way behind the Mac GUI.)

Re:What's wrong here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736709)

Mac GUI well designed? Don't make me laugh. It's better than Windows, but that's like saying that being raped in the ass is better than being raped in the ass and the mouth at the same time. I know people who've used OS X daily ever since it was first released and still haven't figured out how to use the Dock productively.

OS 9 had a pretty good GUI, apart from that silly strip thing (I forget what it was called). OS X blew it bigtime.

Re:What's wrong here (2, Funny)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736945)

It's better than Windows, but that's like saying that being raped in the ass is better than being raped in the ass and the mouth at the same time.

That would make Linux being raped in the ass and the mouth, but it keeps slipping out of the mouth and jabbing you in the eye.

Yeah the OS X GUI sucks, except compared to all the other options.

Mac ports (1)

green pizza (159161) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737431)

As a fan of both BSD flavored Unix and the Mac GUI, I had always been hoping that companies would develop for the Mac just because it's so cool. I've just had to accept that things just don't work that way. Even in the free software world, development for the Mac just means porting from Linux to the Mac, and even then, only after the MS Windows port is finished.

That's on the the reasons why many "Mac ports" simply suck. I've been much more satisfied with Mac work-alikes than I have with Mac ports. Real, Mac-like, native software generally works better for me that some Windows or Linux app that was quickly ported the the Mac platform.

Not the first big news in Apple-Google partnership (1)

jbx (90059) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736083)

You do remember that Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt, recently joined Apple's board, right?

And you do remember Google's place in Steve Jobs' commencement speech at Stanford? And I quote:

When I was young, there was an amazing publication called The Whole Earth Catalog, which was one of the bibles of my generation. It was created by a fellow named Stewart Brand not far from here in Menlo Park, and he brought it to life with his poetic touch. This was in the late 1960's, before personal computers and desktop publishing, so it was all made with typewriters, scissors, and polaroid cameras. It was sort of like Google in paperback form, 35 years before Google came along: it was idealistic, and overflowing with neat tools and great notions.

Sensible (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736093)

The largest threat to Google's online services business is Microsoft. Microsoft can and does illegally leverage their monopoly on desktop OS's to defeat superior offerings from competitors. Microsoft is putting a lot of resources into defeating Google, not only by making comparable services, but by tying those services to Windows and tying the Web in general to Windows by their use of proprietary technologies and their intentional refusal to fully implement standards in IE. Microsoft's plan is obviously to keep Web technologies weak by keeping capabilities on a default Windows install weak until they have a solution that locks people in.

If MS is using their OS monopoly to leverage an attack on Web services, it only makes sense for Google to make an effort to return fire and do what they can to mitigate that threat. The most widely adopted alternative (by most accounts) is Mac OS X. The small amount of cash needed to support it as well as Windows can potentially provide a great deal of benefit. Additionally, it provides a test as to whether or not they are keeping their services portable, something that promotes good coding in general and fits with their long term goals.

Now is that their motivation? I'd say, that is some justification, but probably not their main motivation. The truth is, a lot of people at Google use macs (or so I've been told, I know two people there and one uses a Mac) and they want services to work because of that. Google has been very practical about this. Mac compatibility is not a requirement, especially for Beta software they have acquired, but everything works on the Mac eventually that makes sense on that platform. Keep up the good work guys.

Re:Sensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736257)

"The largest threat to Google's online services business is Microsoft. Microsoft can and does illegally leverage their monopoly on desktop OS's to defeat superior offerings from competitors. Microsoft is putting a lot of resources into defeating Google, not only by making comparable services, but by tying those services to Windows and tying the Web in general to Windows by their use of proprietary technologies and their intentional refusal to fully implement standards in IE. Microsoft's plan is obviously to keep Web technologies weak by keeping capabilities on a default Windows install weak until they have a solution that locks people in."

Do you mind elaborating how exactly Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly to defeat Google? The only concrete example I see here is that they do not implement standards in IE - but pray, I ask you, does Firefox fully implement all the standards? Last time I checked, Firefox 2 did not pass the ACID2 test (if that's any measure of standards). IE7 is a great improvement over IE6 and an indication that Microsoft is listening, and doing something to change themselves. Perhaps they do deserve some credit for it. My point is that with so many eyes watching Microsoft at any given moment and at their every move (DOJ, EU, *every* software company affected by Microsoft), this monopoly thing is getting old. Perhaps when making this statement, you should provide concrete examples on how exactly that is happening.

Re:Sensible (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736801)

Do you mind elaborating how exactly Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly to defeat Google?

Bundling IE is the major method, and then what they include and do not include in IE.

The only concrete example I see here is that they do not implement standards in IE - but pray, I ask you, does Firefox fully implement all the standards?

Well, Firefox does implement standards in general. Every time I've followed the W3C spec it has worked in Firefox (and Safari and Opera, etc.) but it has not worked in IE. IE implements about 50% of the standards while other browsers are close to 90% I'd guess. No one is perfect, but IE versus the industry shows a huge difference.

All of this, however, is academic. Firefox is not bundled with a monopoly and what works and what is included and what is broken does not help the Firefox team take over some other market. Unless you have a monopoly, you can't use that monopoly as leverage. If Firefox does not implement some feature, it is just as easy to use Opera. If IE fails to implement something, because it is bundled in Windows, most people will not switch because everything else is harder. It requires education, knowledge, and technical expertise to download, install, and run any browser but IE.

Last time I checked, Firefox 2 did not pass the ACID2 test (if that's any measure of standards).

The ACID2 test is edge cases for the most part, not a test of how comprehensively a given browser adheres to standards. It is like shining a laser on a mirror to see how reflective it is. Firefox and Opera and Safari are all consumer grade mirrors and the ACID2 test is useful for determining which is best. IE is like a piece of aluminum and using the ACID2 test on it is a waste of time.

IE7 is a great improvement over IE6 and an indication that Microsoft is listening, and doing something to change themselves.

I auto-generate some pages. I wrote the code based upon the spec. When I wrote it, I tested it. It worked fine in every single browser I could find, except IE, which completely failed because they did not implement most of CSS2 and any of XHTML that was not coincidentally HTML. When IE7 came out I tested it too. It completely failed to render as well, and added an additional random bug. From reading the IE dev teams comments it seems they're up to implementing about 50% of CSS2 and still haven't implemented any XHTML. They fixed some bugs, but are nowhere near implementing the standards the rest of the industry has had for many, many years.

My point is that with so many eyes watching Microsoft at any given moment and at their every move (DOJ, EU, *every* software company affected by Microsoft), this monopoly thing is getting old.

I agree, MS should stop abusing their monopoly or the courts should actually take meaningful action against them. MS won't stop though, because they're making a fortune breaking the law. The courts won't act though, because MS is one of the largest contributors to both the Republican and Democratic parties and our government is absurdly corrupt.

Perhaps when making this statement, you should provide concrete examples on how exactly that is happening.

I did and I've elaborated upon them, but I find explaining antitrust abuse tedious. I've explained it on Slashdot a hundred times by now, but the vast majority of the people who respond have no understanding of the law or the purpose of the law. Somehow they missed that chapter in Econ 101. It isn't really all that complex, but I'm sick of explaining it over and over again. Five minutes with wikipedia and a reasonably intelligent person can see the obvious abuses from Microsoft and why they are detrimental/illegal. And yet, every time I post about MS's monopoly abuse someone has to respond with an analogy and those analogies always (and I do mean always) reference the actions of a company that is not a monopoly. Maybe these people are astroturfers, but I only have so much time.

Even your post, you compare IE to Firefox, but IE is bundled with Windows, which is a monopoly, while the Firefox team has no monopoly on anything. Why people can't understand how this changes things is beyond my understanding.

Re:Sensible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16737329)

Let's talk about bundling IE with the OS. As a result of the ruling in the anti-trust case against Microsoft, Microsoft was forced to de-couple the browser from the OS so that it could be easily removed/replaced. Microsoft did that. Now, you probably argue that Microsoft should basically *not* ship IE with Windows at all because that would be leveraging its monopoly. I argue that users should have a way to get online (out of the box), find the best browser out there and have the ability of uninstalling the current one and using the one they lile. All of this is possible today. Even OEMs like Dell/HP/Gateway etc. have the ability of modifying the pre-install image of Windows to *remove* IE, add Firefox and ship their systems like that. The options are all out there. The verdict was read, and Microsoft complied. So, is there a problem still? With your understanding, once a particular OS company reaches a particular market share, they can only ship a barebones OS because everything else would be leveraging their monopoly. That is absurd.

I agree that IE7 is still not there yet. But the point is that they are making efforts. They have realized that by isolating their users and themselves, they are only going to be making enemies. The work is not done yet (is it ever?), but they are making headway and by the sounds of it, they are headed in the right direction. In the meanwhile, feel free to convince Dell/HP/etc to bundle Firefox with their systems since it doesn't break your tests.

Not everything is Microsoft's fault. Yes, they are the bigger player out there, but there are many others who are making profit out of the business while Microsoft takes all the blame.

Follow the money... (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736171)

...do you have any idea how much iTMS is worth? Talk about profit...

Speaker BIOS? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736203)

How many BIOSes does it have?? I know these new Macs are hi-end kit but even so....

Macs... (1)

glowingsnowball (973747) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736221)

Macs were so sick of getting there ass kicked they made a good OS.I grew up with Macs sucking hardcore. I always believed that a mac was flashy and didn't do anything. My girlfriends brother in law showed me Mac OSX and it's so amazing it shouldn't count as a Mac OS. I hope that google teams up with Apple becuase Apple is finaly heading in the right direction where microsoft is heading in the wrong direction.

Re:Macs... (2, Insightful)

green pizza (159161) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737345)

Macs were so sick of getting there ass kicked they made a good OS.I grew up with Macs sucking hardcore. I always believed that a mac was flashy and didn't do anything. My girlfriends brother in law showed me Mac OSX and it's so amazing it shouldn't count as a Mac OS.

That's because Mac OS X is more like NeXTSTEP 5.x than it is Mac OS 10.x.

Steve Jobs and his engineers took over when Apple bought NeXT* in 1997. First step was damage control, next step was marketing, and now we're finally seeing the sweet products and solid engineering. Apple was great in the 1980s, but that old hardware sucked on newer versions of Mac OS by the early 1990s, and the new machines then weren't much better. By 1996 the Mac OS world was a hellufa mess.

*Some people say NeXT bought Apple for negative $400M :)

Google and Apple, sitting in a tree.. (1)

bigdaddyhame (623739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736313)

- Apple has the iPod. - Google has YouTube. - the possibilities are lucrative.

Feb. 2007 Slashdot News Item. (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736337)

Google Buys Apple.

Re:Feb. 2007 Slashdot News Item. (1)

DarkestDream (848582) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736605)

that not going to happen, that very much against Google's philology. All they want to focus on search-related.

it's all about TV ads and Google PC (5, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736381)

The way I see it, Google wants to own the multi-billion dollar TV ad revenue market. And Apple is on the verve of owning the way TV is distributed from the internet to the living room.

Google + Apple is natch.

Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.

boxlight

Re:it's all about TV ads and Google PC (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737231)

Additionally, Google has been long-rumored to want a "Google PC" -- if I was google I would OEM Mac hardware and ship it with "mom friendly" software that just does email, photos&tv, and web browsing software clients that only run full screen.

If that were the case, if they just wanted the hardware, wouldn't it make more sense for Google to go to Asus or whoever it is (I forget) who actually manufactures the Apple hardware? The only reason to go to Apple is if they don't want a "Google PC" but want OSX running Google software.

Flying chairs (1)

jhylkema (545853) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736485)

Maybe Google will fucking kill Apple.

Developing for a closed platform is a dead end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736541)

Whether it be Microsoft or Apple, in the end they both offer a closed platform. Don't be fooled by Mac fanbois, develop for REAL open platforms like Linux and FreeBSD.

Google for web services, mac for desktop (1)

bommai (889284) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736547)

With people getting annoyed with .Mac outages, the $100 annual fee, etc. I propose that Apple outsource/partner .Mac services to google and may be google can reduce the annual fee or eliminate it. Then, google can write desktop equivalents for windows while Apple writes all the Mac desktop specific stuff (with google input). So, Picasa integrates with iTV on the PC side, iPhoto integrates with iTV on the Mac side, you get the idea. Now, that Apple is trying to expand beyond the mac market share, products like the iTV, any future iPods, iPhones should be able to integrate with Windows as well as Macs. Google can probably help with this. Content management works well for Google.

Would somebody think of the janitors!!! (1)

flatass (866368) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736621)

If what the OP is alluding too, a possible merger/purchase involving these two companies, actually happened, there simply would not be enough rolls of paper towels to stuff down the ./ communities collective pants to prevent a catastophic biological speciman spill. Oh the humanity.

My prediction for 2010? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736697)

GSlashdot!

No, seriously.

Re:My prediction for 2010? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736871)

You mean Gashdot?

I smell... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16736703)

I smell Apple iTV appliance work with these jobs. We already know that Google is partnering with Apple for some of the video playback.

lagging behind in Safari compatibility (1)

bunions (970377) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736853)

> "While Google generally seems to lag behind in Safari compatibility..."

everybody has been lagging behind in Safari compatibility because it's only been 4 months or so since Apple released a simple goddamn javascript debugger for it.

Not to mention my growing love for Google. (1)

pkulak (815640) | more than 7 years ago | (#16736869)

Once Spanning Sync is released, they will be able to completely replace .mac for me, and for free.

Glad I bought my MacBook (1)

TheoCryst (975577) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737301)

Considering that I've been unofficially promised an internship at Google's Phoenix office this coming summer, maybe it's time I start to learn a little Cocoa/Xcode. After all, I've had Hillegass's book sitting on my shelf for a few months now... *starts reading*

many google employees seems to be mac users (2, Interesting)

quisxt (462797) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737339)

It seems like every other Google employee I meet is using a Mac laptop. That probably has something to do with it.

They need more OS X wizards... (1)

OhBoy! (842699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737353)

...or even just some half-baked apprentices. Google Notifier for Mac takes 100MB of RAM and constantly takes around 1/2% of CPU time, just sitting there idle.

What I see in this (1)

dan20164 (959806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737377)

Apple demos iTV. Google and Apple form a relationship. Google buys YouTube. Will YouTube be a menu selection on the iTV ? Me thinks yes..

Microsoft (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 7 years ago | (#16737567)

Microsoft is starting to lose ground on the desktop. Apple is eroding market share from the top with expensive, trendy systems. Linux is coming from the bottom with the tech savy crowd that wants something flexible and Free.

Things look good :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?