Jobs on OS X: "We’re going to hit the pause button on new features"
Summary: Today a reader sent me a link to an article on the NY Times Bits blog. The piece was reporting on Apple's growing emphasis on parallelism in the next version of the Mac OS X operating system (dubbed Snow Leopard). One bit, however, caught my eye ...
Today a reader sent me a link to an article on the NY Times Bits blog. The piece was reporting on Apple's growing emphasis on parallelism in the next version of the Mac OS X operating system (dubbed Snow Leopard). One bit, however, caught my eye ...
"We’ve added over a thousand features to Mac OS X in the last five years," he [Steve Jobs] said Monday in an interview after his presentation. "We’re going to hit the pause button on new features."
Instead, the company is going to focus on what he called "foundational features" that will be the basis for a future version of the operating system.
"The way the processor industry is going is to add more and more cores, but nobody knows how to program those things," he said. "I mean, two, yeah; four, not really; eight, forget it."
Apple, he claimed, has made a parallel-programming breakthrough.
These few lines have a huge significance and I could say a lot, but I'm going to start off with the most obvious commentary - Wow! Hit the pause button on new features and concentrate instead on foundational features. That has got to be one of the bravest statements I've ever heard applied to a consumer operating system. But it raises a number of quite interesting questions:
- Does OS X, as it currently stands, have enough features to keep users satisfied?
- How will Mac users respond to a pause on features?
- Does the pause button really need to be pressed on features? Can't foundational features be developed alongside new features?
- Is OS X up against the wall now in terms of being able to access more computing power without resorting to parallelism?
- What does this mean for Windows and Linux? Is the amount of power available to these OSes hitting a wall too? Does this explain maybe why the performance of XP is so similar to that of Vista?
This could turn out to be very interesting and exciting indeed.
[UPDATE: Just found the press release relating to this. This deepens the mystery because rather than seeming to confirm that Apple has hit the pause button on features, I'm seeing some pretty hefty features mentioned. For example:
- QuickTime X
- Out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange 2007
- Support for Open Computing Language (OpenCL)
Also, there are some very vague statements. For example:
Snow Leopard delivers unrivaled support for multi-core processors with a new technology code-named “Grand Central,” making it easy for developers to create programs that take full advantage of the power of multi-core Macs.
Sorry, but that comes across as a whole load of nothing to me. It's vague at best.
Still, Snow Leopard is a year away, so it's early days.]
Thoughts?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
I hit the pause button with Tiger.
Thanks
Time Machine saved my rear the other day.
Now you thank me for sharing, and we'll be back to Leopard
neutrality.
Leopard has me (almost) sold
I find the Finder Cover Flow view and Quick View a real time saving when accessing files; Spotlight seems faster and more powerful; it screams (contrary to uninformed slams and lies by the typical Apple critics (ie xuniL_z)); appreciate the default "Downloads" & "Documents" folders in the Dock (the oft criticized Dock (and iPhone like features) making an appearance on the latest HP Touch 2 GUI); I'm getting used to Spaces to organize my work flow... and other small differences I notice vs Tiger. I haven't explored Time Machine yet but it looks promising and useful.
When working in Tiger at home, I'm beginning to miss those features I've become accustomed to using in Leopard.
My only "doubt" is the "don't fix it if it ain't broke" fear with any upgrade. Tiger just works but I suspect I'll make the "leap to Leopard" (ahem) sometime soon.
...
This is not directed at you. With that said I hope people...
...will remember this when it comes to discussions about Vista and XP.
Competition
Competition does not happen within a company, it
happens between them. There is no competition between
either XP and Vista, or between Tiger and Leopard, its
called cannibalization. The only agenda worth setting is
the the one that addresses real competition, that is the
one between Apple and Microsoft. We are clearly moving to
a place where multi-platform or platform transitions are
now on the table. For anyone with a shred of intellectual
curiosity, this discussion has to be about the review and
comparison between these two differentiated offerings, not
more intra-platform naval gazing.
RE: Jobs on OS X:
Don't Blame Apple...
:)
It's not about multi-tasking.
Parallelism
direction. Apple has moved forward with resolution independence, ZFS file system, the support of open
standards, chipset independence, extension of the
platform to handsets, the list goes on. Now it moves towards addressing the thermal barriers to Moores law.
The worlds fastest computer uses the 8 core PS3 cell chip.
The path is being chosen and it has everything to do with
parallel computing.
The relationship Apple now has with Intel is a close and
symbiotic one. If, between the two of them, the complexity
of developing for multiple cores can be reduced or
eliminated, it is huge.
Resolution Independence
Apple, give us some appearance options. The Finder view options are a joke to the point of insulting.
couldn't agree with you more
I guess there is a hack you can run in the terminal but it doesn't work great for everything from what I've read. I'm sure you could Google it and find out.
This is one place where Vista shines though, I was able to up the DPI in Vista and it made a world of difference and looks fine in every app I have used.
RE: Jobs on OS X:
Tiger only missing timemachine!
RE: Jobs on OS X:
Bad idea
The difference between the hardware platforms is that Apple knows what components it is using and can test them to ensure compatibility. If Apple starts supporting "random" hardware, the compatibility level would be "random" and the costs of support would increase, while the stability of the platform would decrease -- thus making OS X look a little more like Windoze, which would be a bad thing.
Also, remember that Apple is a *HARDWARE* company. Their software is used to sell the hardware. Supporting OS X on another company's hardware would be counter-productive. This also helps to explain why Apple's software is priced so low compared to similar software from other companies... look at the $$$ of M$ OSes compared to OS X, it's no small difference.
And while all mainstream OSes tend to deal with managing hardware resources on behalf of the applications (be those resources memory, cameras, or disk drives), the manner in which this is accomplished can vary greatly between them.
Would however Show if Apple is really better than M.S for O.S
Moreover it would give much more freedom for hardware for Mac OS X users.
Last but not least it would enable people who don't want to buy Mac to try Mac OS X.
What does that accomplish?
I have no problem with Apple's hardware, I prefer the way Macs are put together over generic PCs. There is not a whole lot of hardware out there that can't be used on your Mac, especially with Bootcamp and VMs.
If you really want to try out the OS, get a mini, they are quite capable little machines and just as powerful as a similar priced Dell.
RE:What does that accomplish?
Just to see if they can beat M.S on equal ground instead of an unfair ground.
"Apple doesn't NEED to satisfy everyone nor do they need to be like Windows to prove anything. They satisfy their own customers. "
Then why all these attacks toward Windows Vista via Ads ?
If Apple really doesn't need or want to get as many PC customers as possible why do they even need or try to attack in such a childish way Windows ?
"I have no problem with Apple's hardware, I prefer the way Macs are put together over generic PCs."
Yet,the Mac way hasn't helped a lot the development of hardware computer technology,thus why Apple has now to use Intel C.P.U after having insulted Intel for years.
It is true however that Mac has a higher build quality than most PC.
"If you really want to try out the OS, get a mini, they are quite capable little machines and just as powerful as a similar priced Dell. "
What make you think that i want to try a Mac ?
I am perfectly happy with my custom build PC with Vista, Windows 2008 and Linux.
unfair?
anyways... not opening it up to more hardware is one of the ways they keep it better, it makes absolutely no sense saying they must take away a choice they make to help make a better product, just to see if they can do it.
Hmmmmmm.....
If Apple really doesn't need or want to get as many PC customers as possible why do they even need or try to attack in such a childish way Windows?"
I didn't say they didn't want PC customers. They want to focus on their own products and the customers will come. They don't need to make their OS run on everything to do that, in fact it would detract from the experience getting OS to run on everything. That's like licensing the iPhone OS to work on any phone just to have the iPhone OS. Doesn't make sense.
"Yet,the Mac way hasn't helped a lot the development of hardware computer technology,thus why Apple has now to use Intel C.P.U after having insulted Intel for years."
Motorola dropped the ball on that one, Apple wasn't designing PPC chips.
"What make you think that i want to try a Mac ?
I am perfectly happy with my custom build PC with Vista, Windows 2008 and Linux."
Sorry, I was referring to anyone, not really you. But cheers. Running Linux distros, Vista, and Leopard on my Mac Pro, works lovely too. To each his own.
RE: Jobs on OS X: