- Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os 11
- Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Download
- Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Operating System
- Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Update
We don't have any change log information yet for version 5.17.1 of LINE for Mac. Sometimes publishers take a little while to make this information available, so please check back in a few days to see if it has been updated. This computer still runs great. Sad the latest OS no longer supports it, but at least we still get security updates for awhile. Unlike my 2009 Mac Pro which I can never upgrade past 10.8 due to Avid being a bunch of donkeys when it comes to updating drivers for ProTools 002 Rack LOL. Mac Reqs MinimumSupported Will It Run? Mac OS X: 10.11: Download the MacGameStore App to compare your Mac's information in real-time. Get the Mac App: 64bit Support: Unknown: CPU Type: Intel Mac Only: CPU Cores: Any: CPU Speed: 1 GHz: System RAM: 2 GB: Drive Space: Unknown: Video RAM: Any: Video Card: Any. You don't know when you are going to die—or like Wayne, just not wake up again. Those who have been given a terminal diagnosis can surprise the medical world by living years longer than expected. And at the other end of the spectrum, any of us can be hit by that proverbial bus at any moment.
Classic Mac OS, as it's now known, had a decade-long honeymoon period. From its release in 1984 until 1994, it enjoyed a healthy development life that included several major revisions. But by 1994, the limitations of the OS were apparent to technophiles both inside and outside Apple. Sure, there was a lot of legacy cruft from the 80s in what was then known as System 7, but the real problems were more fundamental. Circle mate 0.0.3 mac os. These problems were so well-known that I'm sure anyone who was a 'PC enthusiast' back in those days can rattle them off. Classic Mac OS lacked two very important features. Say it with me, folks:
Memory protection and preemptive multitasking
In the early 1990s, Apple created the Copland project to add these two features to its operating system. Yes, a lot of new end-user features were going to be added as well, but memory protection and preemptive multitasking were Copland's raison d'être.
Funny story—as it turns out, it wasn't too easy to add these features to classic Mac OS while also maintaining backward compatibility with existing software. Oh, and did I mention that Apple switched processor architectures around this time as well? By 1996, the Copland project was dead, and classic Mac OS still lacked memory protection and preemptive multitasking.
Thus began a downward spiral that included several more frantic, abortive attempts to solve Apple's OS dilemma. We all know how it ended. A series of unlikely events led to the return of Steve Jobs and the refashioning of NeXTSTEP into Apple's new operating system—yes, an operating system with memory protection and preemptive multitasking. Phew.
So, here we are in 2005, with severalmajorrevisions of Mac OS X behind us. Maybe we Mac users are feeling a bit smug, knowing that we once again have The Best Operating System™. Of course, I felt that way in 1991 when System 7 was released, too. But a mere five years later, things were going downhill fast. Hm.
Will Mac OS X suffer the same fate? Surely not, you say. Mac OS X is The World's Most Advanced Operating System! But this is exactly the kind of thinking that lets an OS crisis sneak up on you. It's worthwhile to think about what Mac OS X will need in order to remain competitive two, five, even ten years in the future.
AdvertisementObviously Mac OS X will need (and will get) a ton of new features in the coming decade or so. The trick is to find the equivalent of 'memory protection and preemptive multitasking.' That is, the features that will be essential in the future, but that are very hard to add while still supporting existing software.
I'm tempted to make this a two-part post, asking the readers to write their opinions in the comments area first, and then revealing mine in a follow-up post. But that'd be cruel (or lame, take your pick), and I'm sure plenty of people would have the same ideas I do. Why let them steal my thunder?
So, here it is. Here's what I think will quickly become Mac OS X's most glaring technical limitation, and what could lead to another Copland-style disaster if Apple isn't careful. Here's what Mac OS X is missing today that will be very difficult to add later without causing big problems for existing software and developers:
A memory-managed language and API
Both of Mac OS X's primary application development APIs require the programmer to manually manage memory. Carbon is a C-based API, and memory management doesn't get much more manual than plain-old C these days. Cocoa uses Objective-C, which abstracts memory management with a retain/release system, but the programmer must still explicitly trigger or schedule these actions. Under the covers, Objective-C is just a runtime engine on top of C anyway, so it's no surprise that manual memory management is still part of the development experience.
But why is this a bad thing? Doesn't manual memory management offer more opportunities for optimization? Aren't languages with totally automatic memory management 'slower' than their lower-level brethren? Yes and yes. But 'more abstracted' is a better way to think of those 'slower' languages, and 'more abstracted' always wins in the end, especially when it comes to operating systems and application development.
I don't want to go down the rat-hole of programming language religion, but suffice it to say that languages (and their associated APIs) that support automatic memory management are the future of software development. In fact, in many cases, they're the present. Java has made great strides in the server arena, and languages like Perl, Python, and Ruby are coming from the other direction. C, C++, and yes, even Objective-C, are being squeezed in the middle.
AdvertisementAs was the case with the memory protection and preemptive multitasking crisis, Microsoft is way out ahead on the memory-managed language/API front. MS has its own new programming language, C#, and is working on an all-new memory-managed API to supplant the venerable C-based Win32 API. These are both projects that were started years ago, and that are finally coming to fruition today.
Whither Apple? Back when C# and the API that would come to be known as WinFX were on the drawing board at Microsoft, Apple was kind of busy trying to finally get over that pesky 'memory protection and preemptive multitasking' thing. Today, Carbon and Cocoa are just settling down; Tiger is the first Mac OS X release to be accompanied by a promise from Apple that APIs won't be intentionally broken in future releases.
Put bluntly, Apple is way behind here. Yes, 'Copland' behind.
Even if Apple is smart and 'borrows' an existing memory-managed programming language (hello, C#), there's still that pesky API issue. Apple recently killed their Objective-C/Java bridge, and with good reason. Bridges stink. So forget about an Objective-C/C# bridge. And no, don't talk to me about adding garbage collection to Objective-C. That is exactly the sort of 'half-way' mindset that led to Copland. No, Apple needs to pull a WinFX and rethink the whole widget, so to speak, from top to bottom.
New APIs are extremely risky and hard to pull off, of course. Plus, Apple's just coming off a big transition, moving from the Mac Toolbox to Carbon and, for new development, to Cocoa. It's way too soon to even think about another move, right? Sure, if you're a developer. But if you're Apple, you'd damn-well better be thinking about it—not only thinking about it, but beginning work.
Oh yeah, that's right, there's some other transition going on right now, isn't there? Well, fine, delay the whole memory-managed language/API thing a year or two if necessary. But someone, somewhere at Apple had better be thinking long and hard about this issue. If Apple does get itself into another Copland-style jam around 2010, I'm not sure there'll be any pre-fab 'modern operating systems' hanging around for them to purchase and refurbish this time.
I've noticed something odd about my writing habits here at FatBits. The bigger the story, the less apt I am to blog about it. Big stories elicit big reactions. The bloggers come out in droves. By the time I've actually learned enough about the story to write about it, I feel like everything's already been said. The exception, of course, is when everyone gets it wrong (in my ever-so-humble opinion). Then I still feel like I have something to add to the discussion.
Most big stories about Apple fall somewhere in the middle, with an even mix of astute and asinine commentary. The recent announcement of Boot Camp exceeded my expectations, however. Within hours of the announcement, the entire Mac web had dealt with its initial Windows-induced anxiety attacks and settled on a common analysis of the situation. The remarkable part was not the quick arrival of a consensus, but the fact that it was actually right.
John Grubersummed up the situation beautifully, and I agree with what he wrote in almost every detail. His post is more articulate and lucid than most other Boot Camp commentary on the web, but the content is essentially the same as you'll find elsewhere. We all got this one right.
Perhaps predictably, as my sense of collective satisfaction and pride reached its peak, I stumbled upon a post that must have been created by the Bizarro Gruber. Chris Seibold's analysis of the Boot Camp announcement is exactly wrong in every way that John Gruber's is exactly right.
I'm not going to pick apart Seibold's article. (Gruber already did that preemptively.) It's like the comically exaggerated exception that proves the rule. On the whole, I still say the Mac web got this one right, even after you throw out the highest and lowest scores. But I do have a little bit to say about Boot Camp.
My first reaction to the announcement was relief, not surprise. Ever since Apple joined the Windows benchmarking consortium, BAPCo, I've considered it a foregone conclusion that Apple hardware would eventually run Windows. I mean, duh. Why would any PC hardware maker join a Windows benchmarking consortium unless it wants to benchmark its hardware running Windows? Sure, you can come up with some (remotely) plausible alternate explanations, but Occam's razor applies. Just look at this quote from last month, found on some crazy web site. 'The likely end product of Apple's decision to join BAPCo are Mac OS X versions of the consortium benchmarking apps.' Likely?C'mon, people.
Yeah, I know, look at me, so brave with my 20/20 hindsight. But believe what you want. Resistance to the idea that 'BAPCo Windows on Macs' was built on a massive foundation of denial. Clear heads saw this as the mostly likely outcome by a long-shot.
So, that explains my lack of surprise. My relief came from a much more personal source. Finally, I'll be able to play Half Life 2! And Crysis, and Homeworld, and whatever else strikes my fancy. Yes, for me (and many other Mac users, I suspect), Windows will be a dandied-up game console OS. I've been resisting buying a gaming PC for a long time. Now I won't have to.
This brings me to the most worrying part of Apple's official sanctioning of Windows on Mac hardware. It's the dreaded rebuke, 'Let them use Windows!' Don't get me wrong, I do agree with the common wisdom here. Any vendor that decides to stop development of its Mac applications and directs its customers to boot into Windows and use the Windows version of the software instead is in for a very rude awakening. Mac users will not do this, and they will hate you for even suggesting it. Mac users want Mac software. Hell, even some actual Mac applications are met with an upturned nose. (Take Google Earth—please!) We're a finicky bunch.
AdvertisementThis naturally leads to the fear that Mac users will simply snub themselves out of the software market entirely by rejecting the supposedly inevitable 'just boot Windows' crumbs offered to them. Here's my favorite rebuttal of that scenario, from a comment on Seibold's article page, by Dogger Blue. (Emphasis added.)
Consumers don't compete for developers. It's the other way around. Any developer who wants any significant presence among Mac users needs to release an OS X version. That is never going to change, and any developer who thinks that will change, might as well just write off all their Mac business because some other developer will come along and take advantage of the fact that they have just left the door wide open for competitors.
There is money to be made in the Mac software market. (Just ask Microsoft; Mac Office is incredibly profitable.) As long as the number of people with Apple hardware stays about the same, that's not going to change. And if it increases, as seems likely given the removal of one more barrier to entry ('Can it run my Windows?'), the pool of Mac software money will only get bigger. Software makers are competing for that pool. They have to satisfy us.
Game on?
This realization leads to a dark truth, however. What happens when the directive to 'just use the Windows version' is not met with a derisive sneer, but with an eager smile? 'Yes, please!' Not possible? You just saw it happen a few paragraphs ago when I expressed my willingness to boot Windows to play Crysis, et al. Ah games, always a special case. The grim calculus of Mac gaming is as follows.
Computer games are developed primarily for Windows. With Windows holding down 90% of the PC market, this won't change any time soon. Games are heavily optimized, and those optimizations are at least partially Windows-specific. If a Mac port of a game exists at all, it's almost always slower. Sometimes it has more features or looks better than the initial Windows release, but only when it's released much later. 'Later and slower' are not music to a gamer's ears.
Add to this Microsoft's ongoing campaign to migrate each and every PC game developer to DirectX, an API that does not exist on Mac OS X. This makes porting games to the Mac even harder, and adds another layer of abstraction to further impair performance.
Finally, games usually don't show any part of the OS at all, so they're effectively immune to Mac OS snobbery. All games are equally 'Mac-like' (or 'un-Mac-like,' depending on how you look at it) once they're up and running full-screen. At that point, the OS is no more important to a PC gamer than to a console gamer.
Now, given all of this, imagine offering a Mac gamer complete parity with the Windows game market in terms of software performance, availability, and pricing. All that's required is a reboot (and maybe not even that..more later). Who's interested?
A hell of a lot of people, that's who. Me, for one, and I'm about as die-hard a Mac gamer as you'll find. Transylvania, Lode Runner, Uninvited, Crystal Quest, Dark Castle, Lunar Rescue, Marathon, the worlds beyond the mackerel..I lived the life (such as it was). I live it still, with Quake 3, UT2004, Knights of the Old Republic, you name it. I'm ready and willing to buy Mac games. I'll accept 'a little bit later and a little bit slower.' But fewer and fewer Mac game ports meet even those timid criteria.
There are a few saving graces here. The first is that the pie may get bigger even as the portion of customers willing to pay for Mac game ports gets smaller. Things could even out in the end, or it might even be a net win. And mark my words, I will buy the Mac version of UT2007 if it's at least as good and as timely as the UT2004 Mac port. I hope there are enough Mac users like me to sustain such a product. Adding more total Mac users can only help the cause.
AdvertisementThe second source of hope comes from the Intel transition. Mac game porters should have an easier time with CPU optimization now that they can directly benefit from the work done on Windows. (DirectX is still a thorn in the side of Mac gaming, but presumably developers have been honing their DirectX-to-OpenGL libraries on Mac OS X in recent years.)
Finally, there's the initial reaction from the Mac game porters themselves. It's a mixed bag, to be sure, but remember that this is likely the worst that they'll feel, interviewed mere hours after the Boot Camp announcement. Some of their gloom is probably justified, but they still seem willing to fight the good fight. That's all I ask.
Virtual PC redux
It was probably about thirty seconds between the time most Mac users heard about Boot Camp and their subsequent wish that they wouldn't have to reboot in order to run Windows on their Mac. Everyone wants virtualization, and it looks like Mac users will getit eventually, even if it doesn't come from Microsoft (né Connectix) or Apple. Getting it from Apple would be ideal, of course. It's bad enough to have to pay for Windows itself. It'd be nice to avoid paying even more for the virtualization software.
Speaking of which, the opening paragraph of Apple's Boot Camp web page contains this tease.
Apple will include technology in the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard, that lets you install and run the Windows XP operating system on your Mac. Called Boot Camp (for now), you can download a public beta today.
Hopeful Mac users everywhere have interpreted this as near-confirmation that Leopard will have virtualization built-in. But as with the BAPCo story, I think they're mostly seeing what they want to see instead of what's really there. I want Leopard to include virtualization too, but the text above doesn't support that outcome.
Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os 11
It doesn't preclude it either, of course. It's completely neutral. The only way to view the Boot Camp announcement as a reinforcement of the virtualization in Leopard rumor is if you previously thought that Apple would 'never ever' allow Windows on Mac hardware. But that'd be a pretty silly belief, given Apple's historic support for products like Virtual PC, not to mention its own past forays into selling Macs that run Windows.
Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Download
It's not even that I doubt that Apple is working on adding virtualization to Mac OS X. The question is, will it ship with Leopard? I see Boot Camp just as it's described by Apple: a beta test of dual booting. Early adopters will wring it out, the drivers will be further debugged and improved, and it'll all come together in the form of seamless, problem-free dual booting in Leopard.
I'm not sure Apple's even ready to consider including virtualization in Leopard. You have to walk before you can run, after all. I don't rule it out entirely, but right now I see this shaping up a lot like the resolution independent UI situation in Tiger: one release to lay the foundation, with real support to come in the next.
Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Operating System
Finally, don't forget the Microsoft factor in all of this. I'm sure the ongoing negotiations between Apple and Microsoft regarding the future of Virtual PC are tightly intertwined with the possibility of virtualization built into future versions of Mac OS X.
Don't Let Them Die (yoke) Mac Os Update
The silver lining
Beyond all the obvious benefits and potential pitfalls of Boot Camp, its arrival has made life a lot easier in one important way. The accompanying firmware update reportedly allows Intel Macs to cold-boot from most Windows and Linux installations CDs. In other words, Intel Macs are finally starting to look a lot more like 'regular PCs' from the perspective of other operating systems. That's a far cry from the barren firmware wasteland that the Intel Macs shipped with, which required a $13,000 contest to overcome. (Okay, maybe it didn't strictly require all that money, but it was still pretty hard.)
Cringely has also essentially confirmed that Apple and Microsoft are working together to ensure that Intel Macs can boot and run Vista. This is all good news for non-hackers dreaming of One Computer to Run Them All. In the end, it helps the hackers too. Who really wants to futz with stuff like this? Give me that sweet, sweet official support.