Grex Systems Conference

Item 118: The Mac OS X Item

Entered by cross on Thu Oct 14 10:34:35 2010:

23 new of 37 responses total.


#15 of 37 by remmers on Fri Jan 7 14:01:01 2011:

Apple released an OS X update yesterday, bringing it to version 10.6.6.
 The most noticeable change was the addition of the Mac App Store, which
is now open for business.  It's modeled after the app stores for the
iPhone and iPad, and Apple is really pushing it as the place to get 3rd
party Mac software.  After the OS upgrade, you're got a new "App Store"
application with a dock icon and apple menu entry.

I tried it out.  Once you get past the hassle of logging in and
authenticating yourself the first time (so that they can charge you for
any for-pay apps you install), the process of installing apps is really
seamless.  Just click on the "install" button for the app and the app's
icon floats from the store window to the dock (nice animation effect), a
little progress bar appears in the icon while the app takes a few
seconds to download, and then you've got it.  No messing with dmg or zip
files, no dragging of icons to your application folder.

At this point, the store has around 1000 items.  Some are free, some
cost money.  Lots of games, with $19.99 being a popular price.  Seems
steep to me.  I suspect prices will fall over time as the competition
heats up.

The store has generated quite a bit of buzz in its first day.  A number
of "this changes everything" blog posts.  On the flip side, various
complaints about the user interface, suggestions for improvement. 
People are already finding and publishing ways that the store can be hacked.

I've got mixed feelings about the "company store" phenomenon that Apple
pioneered with the iPhone.  The convenience and ease of use are
impressive, but everything in the store has to meet criteria for
approval that Apple decides.  It's true that you can still install
software the old way from other sites or from disk, but I worry that if
the store becomes popular enough, developers will feel that to be
successful they have to get their app into the store, and this means
conforming to Apple's criteria for admissability.  I wonder if it's
technically feasible for a third party "store" app to be developed that
has the same level of user-friendliness.

Hm, the store doesn't have "Dropbox" yet, one of the most useful
applications of all time.  Hopefully that's a temporary omission.


#16 of 37 by remmers on Fri Jan 7 14:17:02 2011:

Hey, there's already a web comic about the App Store:
http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1487.html


#17 of 37 by nharmon on Sun Jan 9 03:01:21 2011:

Bah, I have the Ubuntu Software Center. ;)

One positive you didn't mention is that the app store could become a
sort of quality benchmark for applications like the ipod/iphone app
store is. I definitely see value in that. Also, a lot of the software
titles are cheaper from the app store than they are at the app[le] store. :)


#18 of 37 by remmers on Sun Jan 9 19:50:09 2011:

Hm.  My quality benchmark for an app is reading what people have to say
about it.  The web's really good for that.  What advantage does an app
store offer over that for ascertaining quality?

It's been noted that one needs to be cautious when navigating the store.
 One-click purchasing is the only option, so if you accidentally click
on the "buy" button for an app, you've bought it, with no opportunity to
confirm the decision or change your mind.  (The Kindle Store at least
provides an "oops, I clicked by accident" button that will reverse the
charge.)  As a precaution, it's recommended that you navigate the store
in a signed-out state, and only sign in when you want to buy something.


#19 of 37 by nharmon on Mon Jan 10 16:56:02 2011:

eeK. Even the iPhone app store requires you to click twice and maybe put
in a password for everything you buy.


#20 of 37 by remmers on Mon Jan 10 23:31:40 2011:

It's such an obvious misfeature that my guess is it'll be fixed via an
update at some point.


#21 of 37 by rcurl on Thu Jan 13 21:38:00 2011:

This is a specific rather than a general OS X question, for which I hope 
you will forgive me.

A folder called Developer appeared on my Desktop. I did not put it 
there, so I think I accidentally dragged it from elsewhere on the HD. It 
contains a folder called Extras, which contains a folder called 
Palettes, which contains a folder called QTKit.palette....and so forth. 
Where does it belong?


#22 of 37 by nharmon on Fri Jan 14 02:55:18 2011:

/usr/local/bin

no, j/k


#23 of 37 by rcurl on Fri Jan 14 05:49:10 2011:

In directory usr there are directories bin and local, but local does not
contain a bin. /usr/bin does contain a gazillion files. But even given that,
I don't see how I could have pulled Developer out of /usr.., since I don't
play around at that depth. What do the files in Developer do, anyway?


#24 of 37 by nharmon on Fri Jan 14 13:04:52 2011:

http://hintsforums.macworld.com/showthread.php?t=93950


#25 of 37 by rcurl on Fri Jan 14 21:35:27 2011:

Hey, that's great! Thanks. I did try a Google search on those file 
names, but didn't find anything. Google does seem to dig into some 
forums, but I guess not all (or if they are very old?).

I always install the new software offered. I don't know why this was put 
on the Desktop when I did - but it was put behind the window for Mac HD, 
which I keep open, so I didn't see it at the time.

I'm not likely to get into "developing", so I guess I can trash it. But 
where should it reside? Like in the forum discussion, I'm running OS 
10.4.11 (though Intel, not PPC). 


#26 of 37 by remmers on Sat Jan 15 22:13:25 2011:

You're still on Tiger?  Oh my.  Is your Mac Intel or Power PC?

The Developer folder probably should reside in the root directory "/". 
That's where the Mac software development tools are stored, for those
who choose to install them.  Yes, you can probably trash it.


#27 of 37 by rcurl on Sun Jan 16 05:29:14 2011:

I'm still on OS 10.4.11 Intel (I haven't bothered to remember those 
goofy animal names for versions). The installer for 10.5 came with the 
computer but I haven't installed it because I think it might make a 
bunch of installed apps disfunctional.

You have given me courage to trash it...


#28 of 37 by keesan on Sun Jan 16 14:43:05 2011:

You could put in a different hard drive and try OS 10.5 on it.


#29 of 37 by rcurl on Tue Jan 18 05:23:05 2011:

What will that show?


#30 of 37 by keesan on Tue Jan 18 15:45:18 2011:

That will let you experiment with OS 10.5 without losing 10.4.


#31 of 37 by rcurl on Tue Jan 18 21:08:03 2011:

It's not OS 10.4 I'm afraid of losing. It is the other applications running
under it that might not under 10.5. I'm dependent on some and have no need
to upgrade. Those applications won't be on another drive (which I don't have,
anyway).


#32 of 37 by keesan on Tue Jan 18 23:07:34 2011:

What is the minimum size drive you can install a minimum version of OS 0.5
to?


#33 of 37 by rcurl on Wed Jan 19 04:53:10 2011:

You are missing my point. I'd have to install all those apps to test them
under 10.5, and I might have to buy upgrades to run under 10.5. It 
isn't worth it yet. 



#34 of 37 by remmers on Sat Jan 22 23:44:34 2011:

The websites associated with your apps would probably have information
on compatibility with 10.5.  Also, if you boot from a 10.5 external
drive, it will be able to access the 10.4 internal drive, so you could
test whether the existing versions of the apps will run under 10.5
without reinstalling them.

All of which would be a fun exercise for me (I'm an inveterate futzer)
but maybe not for you.  It's just that 10.5 (and, even more, 10.6) has
significant improvements over 10.4 that I use heavily (e.g. Spotlight),
so for me, upgrading to the latest version of the OS was well worth it.


#35 of 37 by rcurl on Sun Jan 23 05:25:45 2011:

Hadn't thought of that. My 10.5 install disk should boot. 
(10.4 has Spotlight)


#36 of 37 by remmers on Mon Jan 24 13:46:37 2011:

(Spotlight improved considerably with 10.5.)


#37 of 37 by remmers on Wed Jan 26 16:46:46 2011:

Also re resp:35 - Right, you can boot from the 10.5 disk and then check
whether relevant stuff on the 10.4 disk will run.  Testing in this way
is somewhat limited - most apps try to create various folders and files
the first time they're run, and they won't be able to since the 10.5
disk isn't writeable.  But you should at least be able to see if things
will start up.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: