Apple Silicon Software Development seems slow

It's been about three years since the initial M1-based machines from Apple became reality.  Why is development lagging?

Steam Hardware Survey

The other day, Steam requested my computer's details.  One is an AMD Ryzen 7 with Geforce RTX 3050 Ti (laptop version, of course), and the other is a 2020 MacBook Air M1.  In reporting, Steam shows AppleVirtual processor and 1440x900 resolution, which is far from the truth, unless of course, you don't care to make your software the best and take advantage of the actual power that is available.

I've only had my 2020 M1 MacBook Air for about a year, but it seems as though most applications are only compatible through emulation.

I could understand why Adobe wouldn't be quick about it.  They were dragging their feet on the way to Mac OS X in 2000.  They wouldn't port Premier Pro, and Apple brought out Final Cut and Aperture.

Intuit was also complaining, but then, they wanted us to move to Windows because they told people "the Mac is just too difficult to program" or some such, used to justify the higher price and lower functionality.

What got me over the years was that Microsoft was Apple's enemy and yet, their software was better for Mac OS X than that of Adobe, Apple's friend.

It's 2023, not 2003

It still feels as though little has been accomplished since the M1 and other Apple Silicon processors have been available.  The performance is so good that you might not notice the speed of Intel emulation.  Mouse cursor positioning doesn't seem all that stable, though, as of macOS 12.x.

It's been almost three years and I would expect that developers would want to show what their applications could do on better hardware.

Valve Software might not be doing as well as they want people to believe, but I suspect that they could buy a couple of M1-based Macs and update Steam for Apple Silicon.  If that worked out, they could re-jig Source to 64-bit compatibility, as well as Metal compatibility.  Apple might even help them, just to get more games on M1 Macs.  I should note the rumor that Valve and Apple talked about making Proton work on Macs and Apple refused.  Whether it happened or not, things need to be better than running Windows executables on another operating system.  Steam Deck with Proton works but it's not always wonderful.

It really wouldn't hurt Apple to create a division for games and keep it to help third parties develop outstanding games.  A couple of games I had for Windows are available in Apple Arcade but unavailable elsewhere.

It's interesting that Evernote is a Universal binary, but Dropbox is Intel-only.  Google Drive is listed as Apple Silicon, not Universal.  LastPass is Intel-only, but thankfully, Malwarebytes is Universal.

Serif's Affinity applications are Universal, but it seems a number of creative applications are not.  I'm thankful for Capture One Pro being Universal, as well as Affinity Publisher, Designer, and Photo.

How many years until Intel is completely gone from Apple machines?  When Apple pulls the plug on Rosetta 2 will they step up or step away?

Update 2024.07.29: I just updated to macOS 14.6, a Sonoma release.  I got an update for Steam, but I 99% know that it's Intel-only.  I checked updates on GOG Galaxy some 20 minutes ago and I'm waiting for it to finish.  That's perplexing since the Windows version updated a few days ago and I didn't have to check.  It told me.  It's time for the Heroic games launcher.

Electronic Arts finally got around to retiring Origin for the EA launcher, which is Universal.  Most of my games are still Intel-targeted.  Death Stranding is Apple Silicon only and is not available on Steam yet.  Divinity - Original Sin 2 is Intel only.

I've been reminded in some forums that there are 200+ Mac games.  I've also been reminded that you can use Whisky with the Heroic launcher to play some Windows-only games.  There are a few well-known games coming to Mac, including a new Assassins Creed (Shadows?) game.  I have a few of them but Ubisoft hasn't made a game I've loved since the original Rayman on Atari Jaguar.

Of course, it's not all about games, but they are essential to home users.

Update 2024.08.16: Now that the Qualcomm ARM-based machines using a Nuvia-developed SoC have been released, it should be interesting to see if there will be ARM-based games on Windows.  Apparently, the Windows' equivalent to Rosetta 2 is not so amazing.

Perhaps, if game developers start to design games for ARM on the desktop, they'll be able to target Macs as well as Windows machines.  Considering that the M1-based machines arrived in 2020, it's a bit frustrating waiting for something to happen.

I've downloaded Whisky and the Heroic Games Launcher but I haven't tried much, as I am not restricted to macOS, having a Windows 11 machine and a Steam Deck.  I need to focus.  I probably need more than my 1 TB drive and it might make sense to have a big, external drive for my Windows-based games for Mac since I have 230+ games on Steam alone and only a few are native to Mac.

Update 2024.09.02: I was just taking a look at the Steam hardware survey results.  macOS is around 1.3% of the total.  Is that surprising when Valve went out of its way to kill Counter Strike that was working and develop Counter Strike 2 with no executable for Macs?  All of their 32-bit executables from 2010 (?) still work on older machines but unless Rosetta 2 will run them, what's the point?

Why Apple and Valve couldn't even reach a compromise sends a message that isn't necessarily true.  Mac gaming isn't exactly alive but it's not dead, either.  However, the late 1990s were much better than now.

I tried Heroic Games launcher and downloaded a game that I know runs on Apple Arcade and it was fine on Mac.  I've been a bit slow to download much else because of the storage required.  I tried one of the Resident Evil games, which is native for Apple Silicon, and that was surprisingly good on an M1 MacBook Air.  If they have the RE Engine converted, they should be able to port to the whole series.

Unreal Engine 5 runs on macOS but it's the headlines about how bad its performance is on Windows that got my attention.  Trying new technologies is difficult but bringing a gaming system to a crawl is not good--just ask the Starfield people.

Update 2024.12.11: There are a few more games out for Apple Silicon:

• Resident Evil Village
• Resident Evil 7
• Resident Evil 4
• Assassin's Creed: Shadows

I've seen a mention or two about other games and that the Resident Evil Engine was ported, so any in the series could be ported.

With the M3 and M4 SoCs supporting ray tracing and other advanced technologies, there could be more games arriving, but Apple really needs one set of machines for gaming.  They need exceptional air flow, not the thinnest enclosures ever.  That said, my M1 MacBook Air is far ahead of most of the Intel-based Macs and about as fast as my Windows machine, AMD 5800H with Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050Ti.  The MacBook Air's graphics are way ahead of my 5800H's iGPU but not nearly as fast as the 3050Ti, of course.

What happened to the Nuvia/Qualcomm Snapdragon X Elite/Plus?

Update 2025.06.13: This week, Apple announced that Rosetta 2 will be diminished with the new macOS Tahoe.  Developers are going to have no choice but to make their software Apple Silicon native.

Since it will be diminished, it will supposedly be effective for older games, maybe other older software that has no chance of being updated.  We'll learn about it soon enough.

 Hopefully, this will inspire developers to work at bringing their software to Apple Silicon after five years of hardware. 

Update 2025.10.30: Since the M5 14 inch MacBook Pro and M5 iPad Pro, people are surprised how fast the SoC is.  I'd like to see the MacBook Air with M5 SoC in spring 2026.  I'm not really happy or trusting of macOS 26 but it's part of the deal.  It's not that my M1 MacBook Air has become slower but that the games run much better on the M5.

I continue to get beta versions of Steam and yet, no native version for me.  I know that they're out there. It's interesting that Windows-based games are running, and running well, at that through Crossover.  I've had some success with the Heroic Games Launcher.  Whisky has been finished. 

Windows 10 and the daily mess

Here is my history:

In 1981, I got my first computer, an Atari 800 with 16 KB of RAM, no disk(ette) drive, and only a TV as an output device.  It was an amazing gateway to programming in assembly language and gave me the enthusiasm for a career in programming.

Along the way, I'd got an Atari ST (Motorola 68000), IBM L40SX (80386sx), a Motorola 68LC040/68040-based Mac, a Power Computing PowerCenter 225 (Motorola 604e) Mac clone, and more.  I worked with Windows 3.x and later at work, mostly as an aside to my programming duties.

A couple of years ago, I bought a Lenovo Flex 3, 14 inch touchscreen-capable machine with a dual-core i7 processor and 8 GB of RAM.  It was for someone else who kept borrowing my quad-core i7 MacBook Pro that I needed so much.  I even bought one later, feeling impressed by its usefulness.  I ended up giving it away to someone in need, and I didn't mind.

It was a learning experience.

A lot of life has happened since then and the mid-2012 MacBook Pro is dead and I'm currently using an Omen by HP gaming laptop--quad-core, 7th generation i7 with 8 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive.  It's a 15.6 inch machine with Nvidia GTX 1050 graphics hardware.  Potent but not supremely powerful.  It's not so different from the MacBook Pro, except that machine had a 480 GB SSD and 16 GB of RAM.

Oh, and Mac OS X was quite different from Windows 10.

When Windows 7 arrived, it was obvious that Microsoft intended quality to be more of a priority.  It happened.  Then, Windows 8 and 8.1 seemed to be a typical mess, and then, Windows 10 would solve it all.

Between the Lenovo and the HP, I can hardly fault the hardware.  They worked as planned, most likely.  Why the software is such a pain is beyond me.  Doesn't Microsoft hire all of those H-1B visa-enabled people because they just can't find talented U.S. citizens?

While searching the operating system, I end up in displays that look as though they come from Windows NT 4.x--I spent a lot of time using that.  The startup routines seem about as smooth as WinNT, as well.  That wasn't praise.  It takes quite a while after the user interface has been loaded to where it's actually, fully operational.

Also, it's taken me months of crappy internet connections to get the machine to take all of the updates.  Why is a mobile hotspot or other metered connection so difficult to use?  Mac OS X was fine with a mobile hotspot, but it wasn't always clear about connection problems, either.  Generally, it didn't try to download the same update 3 times and continue to fail because it would put the update in a holding area once it downloaded it correctly.

It's been a pain to update because you have zero control over what's being updated.  HP has tried to give me some control through their Support Assistant software, but it can't override every system update.

I look at HP Support Assistant and Update and Security control panels first.  Then, I look at Windows Defender Security Center.  Last, I look at Microsoft Store.

Regardless of the connection, I've never had a secure feeling that updates were going to work.  I had trouble with the fall (1709) update, as well as the spring (1803) update, plus much of it in-between those two.  Even virus patterns were difficult to download at times.  I would think that it would download something, make sure it was ready to be used for the update and let it be installed.

This morning, I left the machine idle for a little while and when I returned, it wanted to install more fixes for Adobe Flash, as well as some of the typical monthly items.  That went rather smoothly, probably because I didn't need to use the computer.

Update 2018.07.30: Microsoft Store continues to break.  Whether it's on my phone's mobile hotspot, Comcast/Xfinity, or various other internet connections, it doesn't seem to be happy, especially since the Spring 2018 update.

I'm still unsure why it won't display my camera's raw files.  The Lenovo machine did.

Update 2018.10.04: I am anticipating the 1809 update.  It's already available to some but I suppose it is constrained with so many people requesting the download.  I'm not in a hurry because I don't want to deal with problems.  There was some notice about Intel Display Audio drivers not being up to date and that caused the update to be delayed for some.  I don't have that issue, and I checked and found that the WiFi and Bluetooth drivers needed to be updated.

Update 2019.03.30: 1809 was such a mess and at some point, the updates changed 1809 to 1803 for whatever reason.  1809 is apparently solidly in there now, though.  Supposedly, fewer than 50% have 1809 and will just see 1903 instead.  Hopefully, someone will test it and test it and test it before it gets to me.

Even with the M.2 drive and 32GB of RAM, Windows seems to struggle.  I had higher hopes, after all these years of being on a Mac.  Things work but things don't work consistently and it shows that they have teams for so many different applications but without one set of specifications for the user interface and user interaction.  It looks like Windows NT 3.51 in certain places, as well as Windows 98SE in others.  I thought that, with Windows 7, that it would be ONE system.  Certainly, there are plenty of people sticking to that version, even though time is running out.

Having a better connection through Comcast/Xfinity helps, also, but nothing seems certain.  Hopefully, it improves with the Spring 2019 updates.

Installed OS X 10.11.3 on Mid-2012 MacBook Pro

Given that I had almost 14 GB in my monthly internet allotment remaining, I decided to try to download the latest operating system and install it on a laptop computer that I've had since around the first of 2013.

In November 2014, I had Apple install 10.9.5 on my machine because I didn't have enough data available to download the operating system.  I also remember all the pain of downloading 10.8 and the fixes and having to jump through hoops to get it to work, and then, I changed to an SSD and I couldn't just copy the operating system as in the old days.  Gnashing of teeth was part of the installation process.

The time for the download was not horrible, although my Verizon mobile hotspot has some very variable service lately.  Once downloaded, there were a couple of items to confirm and then, it restarted to actually perform the installation.

At some point, it asked me about iCloud--and took a very long time to complete.  It also did this for a secondary user on the machine, but didn't seem to take nearly as long.

That was the big deal.

Performance is much better, although the interface is so flat (with sharp edges) that I suspect that the next major version will have concave features.  It feels a bit as though children were tasked with the re-design.

Maybe, it's just that 10.9.5 was really awful--10.7.x was, and 10.8.x was also.  In fact, the last time I really felt good about performance was 10.4.10 on the PowerBook G4.  However, 10.11.3 seems a strong improvement.

I haven't seen a problem, other than having to update all of my iWork applications.  Why they are so close to the operating system, I don't know but it feels like when Microsoft was using hidden APIs to "enhance" Microsoft Office since the compiler couldn't fix the code execution to be faster.  Oh, and my 14 GB remainder is suddenly about 3GB.

Update 2016.04.05: There is a huge drawback that most people won't likely see.  When I try to transfer over 500 photo files from SD cards using my USB 3.0 enabled reader, the Finder seems confused.

It seems to create ghostly icons of the files in the folder but never seems to actually copy the files.  It doesn't report any progress.  I end up having to re-launch Finder, delete the files' icons--or whatever it takes, depending on my level of frustration.

There is also a problem while transferring around 400 photo files, but this has been lessened by 10.11.4.  Progress stalled quite a lot with 10.11.3 and shaking the Copy dialog box seemed to help.  It's smoother now but once it's stuck, nothing helps.  I could try using the inbuilt SD Card slot but it didn't seem to work in previous releases, so that's not a good idea.

Why is Apple having USB problems after all this time?  I've thinking that the all-in-one iMac from the 1990s had severe USB problems but that was so long ago.  Then again, every major release (including iOS) seems to have WiFi problems.

Why isn't Windows 10 such a problem?  I'm surprised that things work so smoothly.  I suppose Apple's problems could be related to their lack of procedures.

Update 2016.07.20: Up to 10.11.6 now.  Finder has not been updated but seems somewhat more reliable, perhaps because of background processes.  I've lost faith in Apple, but then, my faith in them has been diminishing since 10.4.10.  10.5.x for PowerPC was terribly broken and several applications stopped working.  10.6.x for Intel was acceptable finally, with the white 2.13 GHz MacBook.  My Mid-2012 MacBook Pro is the only one I still have that can be updated.  It was awful on 10.7.x and 10.8.x but 10.9.x was reliable.

The good thing with 10.11.x is that the App Store works reliably.

I'm really beginning to hate Apple and their Mac App Store

I've been an Apple Macintosh user since 1993.  I'd been using various Atari computers and played with a IBM L40SX laptop computer for about two years when the PS/2 mouse port died.  At that point, the US$6000 laptop computer that I bought for roughly $1500 was too expensive to repair and the contract required a solution.  They gave me $1000 and asked me to give them the computer.  I agreed.  Windows 3.1 had been a royal pain and DOS, more of a pain.

I eagerly went to OfficeMax and bought a Mac Performa something or other.  In any case, it's been a long time and several machines.

Before the PowerPC years, they were stuck because Motorola couldn't deliver a more powerful processor than the 68040.  The System 7 operating system because Mac OS 8 after they couldn't figure out what they were doing and scrapped the real Mac OS 8.  Mac OS 8.5 was a substantial difference, as were 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2.  Unfortunately, the MultiFinder architecture for cooperative multi-tasking was ancient.  Steve Jobs' return with NeXTStep made a difference.  Thanks go to Ellen Hancock.

It has been a horribly bumpy road and as Mac OS X hit 10.3.4, it became good enough to forget dual-booting into Mac OS 9.2.2 forever.  Unfortunately, 10.4.10 was probably the last full quality release.  Sadly, Windows of the time wasn't good and Linux was only usable by people who enjoyed frustration.

As of Mac OS X 10.7, Apple started to bring the frustration and Windows 7 started to bring ease-of-use.  The whole Mac App Store and downloading the operating system was messed up and still is.  It's amazing how I can download system software smoothly but the applications from the Mac App Store are usually problematic in downloads.  Apple doesn't test for real life, apparently.  When I had contacted the Mac App Store support, it was a problem with two or three applications, with other applications working fine in the downloads between the problematic ones.  I was told that whatever problems I was having was my problem, not theirs.

My latest mid-2012 MacBook Pro is working on 10.9.5, even though it started on 10.7.  It wasn't easy to get there.  I was going to drop off my machine at the Apple Store to be updated to 10.10.5 but I waited a bit too long and they removed the option.

Unfortunately, all this mess with the Mac App Store has left me in a mess that I found today.  I can't open my spreadsheet files that the current version of Numbers has been updating.  Somehow, the files were somehow upgraded to a newer version than what I have, in a failed download from the Mac App Store just after I updated to 10.9.5.

I was trying to update my spreadsheet with serial numbers.  Now, I only have a .pdf version of it.  As well, my Pages files complained but they worked.

Now, I have a machine I don't trust much.  I'm wondering if anything else has gone wrong.  Thankfully (and hopefully), I'm limited to Apple's applications and their ridiculous application store.

Given that I recently picked up a Windows 10 machine, I'm thinking that Apple could lose my business.  I'm betting that Corel wants my money for office software, as well as, creative software.  Phase One already has Windows versions and besides, the newest version for Mac doesn't run on anything but the latest 10.11.x operating system.  I think my Apple Care plan has been finished, so I don't have any easy way to upgrade the operating system.

I'm not saying that the US$750 machine could replace my US$2300 machine for speed but functionality probably isn't a problem.

I never thought that I would say that any version of Windows was smoother than Mac OS X but it's pretty much the truth.  Windows 7 proved that Microsoft could make Windows get out of the way when you just wanted to work.  It wasn't foolproof but it was much better than all of the previous versions.

Windows 10 seems to greatly improve on that.  The Windows App Store works brilliantly well.  Being able to use touch-enabled displays is interesting and it works but it doesn't seem great yet.  Folding the laptop computer into different shapes works well enough, but it doesn't automatically switch enough automagically.  They'll probably get there.  They want the desktop back.  I might be willing after all these years.

Update 2015.12.30: I was trying to download Evernote several times--at least, 6, from the Purchases pages, since it wouldn't work from the Update page and I noticed a problem with Numbers--from last year after my computer was updated to 10.9.5.  It never completed while inside of the Apple Store on their network.

Having been at the car dealership for service today, I used their network, which isn't any faster than my mobile hotspot to update everything but it worked.  I know that I shouldn't trust open networks, but it worked, rather than my safe mobile hotspot.  I can access my spreadsheets again.  Apple needs to test in real-life situations, not just the best, easiest situations.

There are several versions of the iWork applications since then, and they show up in Incompatible Updates, along with the latest version (4.0.0) of Twitter.  How is it that they could be incompatible when they shouldn't be tied so closely to the operating system?  I'm remembering how Microsoft Office was using hidden APIs to make it faster than the competition and yet, the DoJ under George W Bush ignored this kind of thing and wanted to watch their accounting practices instead.

Apple seems to be just as back-handed some days.  Why should Safari updates require a restart when Chrome and Firefox updates don't.

In any case, the road is smoother but it will become bumpy again, I'm sure.

Update 2016.01.27: Since upgrading to 10.11.3, the Mac App Store seems somewhat better.  I'll wait to see how it handles non-Apple applications before saying that it's running smoothly, but I have hopes.

OS X Mavericks now, Yosemite later

I've had OS X Mavericks for a week or so.  Since Mac OS X, I've taken it a bit more slowly with my updates, upgrades.

When I went from 10.2.x to 10.3.0, things went awry.  It took until 10.3.4 until most everything worked again.  It seemed with every release, it took until 10.x.4 until it was stable enough for all that I did, so I waited, even though I had used the beta test versions for testing and programming purposes.

When Avie Tevanian left Apple, Mac OS X seemed to become even more sloppy.  I still have a PowerBook G4 on 10.5.8 and it really could have used some bug fixes.  Thankfully, they produced a number of security updates since then, and some of those helped stability.

Since 10.6.8, Apple provided (Mac) OS X on less and less media until it was only available for installation over a network connection.  When I got my mid-2012 MacBook Pro, it got 10.8.0, which required updates while connected to the internet.

So, I bought a new version of Phase One's Capture One version 8.  The only problem was that the software didn't work on 10.8.x and I didn't see anything about the system requirements ahead of the purchase, which seemed odd for them.  Obviously, I wanted the new version of the raw development software so much that I was not thinking as well as I should have.

Having spent the money, I needed the update to OS X 10.9.x.  The nearest Apple Store was okay with installing the update for me.  If there was physical media, I would have installed it myself.  Actually, I was expecting to occupy a corner of the Genius Bar with their internal network connected to my computer and I would install the update myself.  They had a local installation image of the update and they used that.

They managed to e-mail me when they finished the update, but they didn't use the phone number they confirmed three times.  Since they had my computer and I expected a phone call, I didn't check my e-mail.  I returned to the store about 45 minutes before the store would close, just hoping that they had finished.

Long story, long, I've updated and my computer is still working.  Mavericks is slightly better than Mountain Lion, so I feel okay about the changes.  I'm not finding any interesting or odd behavior.  I'm glad I did the update when I did, so that I wasn't forced to Yosemite.  The only Yosemite I want close right now is the national park.

Update 2014.10.30: Some Yosemite users are reporting WiFi connectivity problems.  That's a surprise!  (Did your sarcasm detector max out there?)  Every new release of Mac OS X in recent memory has had WiFi connectivity problems, and many iOS releases have also.  Do you wonder why I wait to update?

Apple security risk and fixes: update your devices soon

If you haven't heard, Apple iOS 6.x 7.x, and OS X 9.x have a rather large security issue.  It's such a huge issue that the company went out of their way to provide a patch for iOS 6.x, which is uncommon, as they usually only patch the current release being sold with devices.

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/21/apple-ios-706/

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/25/osx-update-ssl-facetime-audio/

If you haven't patched yet, you need to do that as soon as possible.

SteamOS looks interesting as an alternative to game consoles

Valve, the people behind games such as Portal, Team Fortress, and Half-Life have been working on their own alternative game console with SteamOS, a Linux distribution of their own, built on Debian.

I don't play much on Steam, but the Half-Life and Portal series have been entertaining.  I've seen people who seem to have every game Steam hosts, which would be quite a few.

I like the idea of SteamOS because the major problem of getting everything working correctly is compatibility.  Using a game console, it's fairly easy to have all the software working to a software specification and leave that specification alone.  Using Windows, Mac OS X, or Linux, you can't be sure if things match.  Even though Mac OS X runs on a smaller set of machines, there are a number of graphics cards and processors and operating system versions that make life (and compatibility) difficult.

If someone would build an interface layer onto an operating system and that would always be reliable, it would solve a lot of compatibility issues.  Supposedly, there is an abstraction layer on most operating systems, but to get more speed, system developers allow a way around it.

Can Valve and SteamOS diminish compatibility problems?  I hope so.  I would buy or build a compatible box in order to just play the games.

Yes, you can build your own, as Valve are giving guidelines on how to do it.  Read this Ars Technica article here.

The Debian Linux distribution is probably the most stable for the desktop.  It's used as a base for Ubuntu and other distributions, and now, for SteamOS.  Why wouldn't they use Ubuntu, which is acknowledged as a good desktop distribution for newcomers?  They probably don't want to have to work around all the changes Canonical are making to remove XWindows (thank goodness!) and the slow progress of Unity as a desktop environment.

Apparently, 300 people are beta-testing SteamOS boxes that Valve sent to them.  It should be interesting to see how well everything works.  When I last looked at the Steam store, they didn't seem to have that many games for Linux, as with Mac OS X.  However, if they've used their Source interfaces between the operating system and the games, they should instantly have the same few games that they made Mac OS X compatible.

Will it really affect the latest Xbox or PlayStation boxes?  I doubt the change will be noticeable, until they can show momentum for SteamOS.  It might be interesting to see Nintendo migrate their games to SteamOS as an alternative, since Wii U isn't really powerful enough to drive sales.  (Talk about a missed opportunity!  I've got a Wii sitting there, ready to be replaced, and the only thing I'll really get is HDMI compatibility and the ability to buy some US$59.99 games on an underpowered-for-2013 machine.)

The Steam Play Anywhere policy will allow those with Steam games to use them on their Steam box without an extra cost, I'm sure.  That's good for everyone because the negative part of moving to a new system is buying new games or new versions of games you already have.

SteamOS sounds like a winner.

Update 2014.04.10: It seems as though this is on the back burner.  Since xbox One and PlayStation 4 have made it big, I haven't heard much about a Steam Box, except that the controller has been revised with the removal of the display.

I'm a bit steamed about the Wii U and so are Nintendo apparently because they can't decide what to do.  Obviously, the Mario and Luigi brothers haven't driven sales as much as they would have liked.  It's difficult to believe that the company would barely outdo last generation consoles and try to continue relying on previous back stories to keep them in the spot light.  Had they provided enough power to be considered halfway between the PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4, they might have been much more successful.

Even if Japanese life has something to do with their choices, they can't expect that the rest of the world will approve.

2012 Refurbished MacBook Pro, One Year Later

It's difficult to believe that it's been a year since I ordered this MacBook Pro.  After three years of daily use, my 2009 MacBook was showing its age and lack of capacity.  Today, I bought an AppleCare extended warranty, just in case.

My main photo raw development software, Phase One Capture One 7, was pushing the system.  6 GB of RAM just didn't seem to be enough, and it would grind away at the hard drive swapping processes' information, leaving me with a few Megabytes of free working memory.  The 750 GB 7200 rpm hard drive was still too slow to really do a great job when I handed it a basketball game with 1000 photos.  The transfer of images over USB 2.0 didn't help.

I'd been watching the refurbished machines for a while.  I choose refurbished machines from Apple because they've been through a bit of trouble and repaired and checked again.  The prior two machines (late 2004 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4 and 2009 2.13 GHz MacBook worked quite well as my main machine, and they still work well), so buying another refurbished machine was the best way to go.  I didn't mind the savings, either.

I really wanted the 15.4 inch display but with the 1680x1050 resolution and anti-glare display.  I missed buying the PowerBook with the 1440x960 display to save a bit, and with photo resolution becoming larger all the time, I could use a denser monitor.  However, finding the higher resolution and anti-glare property at the same time was difficult, and the extra cash made me think twice.  Still, it has the nVidia GeForce GT 650M, which is used by OpenCL to aid in computational math, a feature than Capture One Pro 7 uses.

As my photo processing was taking 3-4 times as long, I decided on a 2.6 GHz i7 MacBook Pro with the typical 1440x900 resolution and the glossy display.  Inexplicably, the company chooses to use a 5400 rpm drive, and 750 GB or not, it's not fast enough for work or games, really.

The day after I ordered it, I placed an order with OtherWorld Computing for two 8 GB RAM sticks.  They were "only" about US$100.  Contrast this to 1993 when I bought a 72 pin SIMM with 32 MB of RAM (for the Quadra/LC/Performa 475/476) for $1040, or 3 rebuilt 16 KB Atari RAM cards (for the Atari 800) for $108 in 1983.  16 GB was the most the model would support and I wasn't going to be held back by the hard drive speed.

Apple managed to push me from Snow Leopard on the MacBook to Mountain Lion on the new MacBook Pro.  It was very, very broken, and it was a pain in the ass because I had to download it all over again to put it on another drive, a 750 GB 7200 rpm drive that I'd been using in the MacBook.  Thankfully, I was able to use the connection of a repair shop that was convenient, as I was familiarizing them with Apple technology.

When I'd got the thing running correctly, I noticed that my batch processing of photos was driving the machine to over 100 degrees C, with all four processor cores running, along with the extra 4 virtual cores.  It's still close to that but under 100 degrees C these days.

After a month or two, I changed to a 480 GB SSD, which fixed a lot of the speed problems.  Not only was photo processing much quicker, but games were loading reasonably well, and even Valve's games weren't stuck with "LOADING" long enough for me to get a drink.

Seeing the recent, new Retina-only models made me think that I'd bought the correct machine for me.  I still need an optical drive.  The nVidia 650M is strong enough for me, at the moment.  Being forced into OS X Mavericks/10.9 doesn't seem like a good idea, enhanced battery life or not.  Thin may be in, but Apple's machines become hot too easily.  This one is indicating 40 degrees C and it's actually chilly to the touch.

I'm hoping to get 3-4 years out of it before I need to buy another machine.  By then, photo resolution may have increased again, depending on the ability to miniaturize, and I'll need a stronger machine.  I might even be on 10.9.x by then, because I know that they won't have fixed 10.8.x further.  Maybe, they'll have the Mac App Store fixed by then.

I wonder if we'll even have typical laptop computers by then, or whether they'll mostly be hybrid tablets with keyboards at that point.  In any case, I'll be sticking to a slightly older, 100% guaranteed to be refurbished machine, and I'll be happy with it because it will work well.  Hopefully, this one will still be happy by then.

If you're wondering, I'm still using the 2004/2005 PowerBook G4 and the 2009 MacBook.  They work just fine but they're not exceptionally powerful for photo processing.

Update 2015.08.15: It's getting close to three years that I've had this computer.  It's still what I use daily.  It's been through a lot, including having flipped into the air and it landed upside down on the floor.  It's more several months since then, and it's fine.

In November 2014, I had the closest Apple Store update it to OS X 10.9.5 and it has been reasonable.  I need to have it updated to 10.10.5 now that it is available.

Making videos with it, it seems to struggle a bit.  I looked for a computer running Windows, but they were running about the same amount of money for similar resolutions and power.

I gave away the 2009 MacBook to someone who had helped me set up my apartment but it wasn't extremely powerful with those nVidia graphics.

I keep looking at the recent MacBook Pro models and I have to go with a Retina model to get something current.  They're not easy to customize after the sale.  It's better since they've been out a while, and OWC has had time to figure out some options.  It still seems a guessing game as to what Apple will do next.  The latest 15.x inch MacBook Pro models haven't had a good CPU upgrade for a while.  Since the Back-to-School sale is in progress, updates should be out soon.

OK Google vs. Siri

In the late 1990s, I used my Mac Clone with Mac OS 8.5 and PlainTalk to dial the modem, get my e-mail, start my web browser, and keep me current without touching a keyboard or mouse each morning.

It seems as though we've gone backwards since Mac OS X and while I have a built-in microphone, I don't use it much.

Then came Siri, with all the canned advertising requests.  It seemed that Siri worked beautifully, if you asked it the correct questions.  As the service became available in Japanese, I tried it both in English and Japanese.  At the time, I thought that Mac OS 8.5 did a better job.

A few times, I've used OK Google with the Google app to show me relevant information and it's not always okay, but it usually understands me and finds what I want.

I was concerned about tornadoes tonight, as the sirens were screaming for a couple of minutes.  Siri didn't know where I was and wanted me to access privacy settings.  I re-stated the request with a zip code.  It told me that it didn't look as though there would be tornadoes today.  Oops, that wasn't what I wanted to know.

The question wasn't that difficult but I suppose it could have been slightly vague.  However, OK Google had given me results for several news articles related to the area a few minutes earlier.

I also asked both for the location of San Jose State University and I got various information from OK Google, and again I got "I don't know where you are." as Siri pointed me to privacy settings again.

I could understand if it had trouble with names, but I saw the text and it had written "San Jose State University" just fine.  Then, it cleared the display and told me about privacy settings.

I disabled Siri again.  I might try it in Japanese again.  There might not be as much confusion, except that I'm not in Japan now.  I just tried OK Google in Japanese.  You must tap the microphone icon, as the "OK Google" phrase does not seem to work, but the results were as impressive as they are in English.

Update 2013.11.26: I saw an announcement today that Honda/Acura have added Siri Eyes-Free to certain models, as Chevrolet did earlier.  I hope those users have more luck than I did.  It's certainly an interesting idea.  My 2012 VW Golf TDI has phone-related voice commands but I don't have navigation as part of the car, so I would imagine that would enhance the experience quite a lot.  Buick's voice control over music seems as childish as their advertising but it might be useful.  I sometimes wish Apple would implement voice search but it would have to deal with multiple languages and they're not ready for that.

Update 2013.12.08: I've been using voice search a bit on the Nexus 7 tablet.  Apple said that Siri required the iPhone 4s' special noise reduction chip and that the iPhone 4, with its more primitive technology from the same company couldn't do the job correctly.  Why is it then, that all these Android-based devices work so well?  I doubt Qualcomm's Snapdragon S4 Pro processor has such technology nor did my (now ancient) LG Optimus S.  Of course, Apple wants you to ditch the old and buy the new, but it's probably not just about the money, Apple's developers probably can't get things to work correctly.  There are occasions where OK Google doesn't work with certain names, even when I'm quite crisp with my enunciation.  However, it seems to work better some days with UK English selected instead of US English--my accent drifts quite a lot.  Using UK English tends to get results from the other side of the ocean, which isn't always helpful.

Update 2013.12.17: I've tried to use the new Chrome plug-in for searching by voice.  I couldn't stop laughing at the horrid results.  It rarely got any of the words correct, and I was using it on a rather powerful MacBook Pro with a 2.6 GHz i7 processor, 16 GB of RAM, and an SSD.  Imagine the results for a lower end machine with a 5400 rpm hard drive.

Android usage shows upgrades, switch; BlackBerry on the ropes

I noticed that this chart still shows quite a few Android users in versions 2.3.3 - 2.3.7 (API 10, was it?) but 2.3 - 2.3.2 are gone.

Just to see the progress, here is the final calendar quarter of 2013.

It makes me think that the LG Optimus One and Optimus 2 are still around in many variants since those had so little storage that they couldn't be updated.  They were also not very powerful, but they were inexpensive and people who could only afford a feature phone could suddenly afford a smart phone.

Notice that Honeycomb, version 3.2 is still there.  Apparently, there were quite a few US$100 tablets that couldn't be upgraded but are still in use.

Update 2013.11.27: I've read recently that they re-worked Kit Kat to be less demanding of resources, i.e. to get rid of the reason phones are still using Gingerbread/version 2.3.x.  It isn't likely to put Kit Kat on LG Optimus One variants but possibly the Optimus 2, which is still being sold.

I also saw today where the deal for BlackBerry/RIM fell apart and there doesn't seem to be a saviour of the company.  That drove a sell-off of the stock, sending the price down about 20% lower.  They also replaced the CEO.  (I suspect that they'll be saying that choosing him was an error in Heinsight.  Yes, that's mine, and stop groaning.)

I would think that Apple, Google, and Microsoft are looking to buy the remains of the company when it's too far gone to save.

Google doesn't care about real-time execution since it chose a Java-related runtime architecture, but Apple could really use something a bit better and BlackBerry owns the QNX operating system, which was always quite a stunner with its fast (operating system) message passing system.  Anything to fix the performance issues in the Darwin/(Mac) OS X kernel would be good.  (Sure, it's easy to make the slop less apparent with faster processing but it's still sloppy.)

Apparently, the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) has been downloaded quite a lot, but people don't know what to do with it once they have it.  Duh.  You should be able to contact someone on CNBC as they're saying that "You'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands."  That's CrackBerry, and most of the users have been gone since about 2009 when they realized there were alternatives.

It'll be sad to see them gone from the market.  I wish they had taken Apple's entry into the mobile phone space seriously.  Obviously, Nokia had a similar take on being unbeatable and it cost them plenty.

Apple and Upgrader's Remorse

I haven't upgraded to iOS 7 for two reasons: it wasn't presented to me yet, and I usually wait until the x.1 release weeks later.

Having been a moderator in some of the world's largest Apple-related forums, I've seen way too many people ask "How do I go back to the earlier release?"  The answer is all too painful: delete everything and start over.  No one wants to do the tough stuff, but they don't want to wait to see the new stuff, either.

The couple of times I've upgraded before the x.1 release, I was treated to all sorts of problems.  However, iOS 6.1.3 isn't exactly working well.  I'm still receiving notifications for events in the past 13 hours, sometime longer than that.  Rather than fix the difficult problems, most software companies would rather ignore them because they require no money and no work to ignore and fixing requires both.

I suppose when iOS 7.0.1 arrives within a week or two, I'll be on it, 728 MB or not.  Does that sound like a lot?  The old iOS 4.x releases were 225 MB almost every time.

Sadly, being forced into an upgrade is a problem that you can't stop.  This article showed up on MacRumors: http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/18/apple-sued-over-automatic-ios-7-downloads-to-ios-6-powered-devices/

What's impressive is the unending barrage of comments berating the person who filed the lawsuit.  The first two "oh, just upgrade" kind of comments come from people who own the iPhone 5s, which shouldn't have a problem with the latest operating system.

However, I've seen many, many comments about upgrading the iPhone 4 to iOS 7, and people could barely use their phones afterwards.  I experienced a similar problem with iOS 5 and my second generation iPod touch.  Apple didn't think what they were doing to their own customers.

There should be an option to not upgrade, ever.  The person in the lawsuit wanted his phone back to the way it was and $50.  That's not exactly a fortune.  It's sad to see fanatics jump on such a reasonable person.  You'd almost wonder why I stopped being a moderator there.

Update: I upgraded simply because there were 50 outstanding security issues that were fixed.  I'm now on version 7.0.3 and the performance isn't great but casual use is fine for my iPhone 4s.  iOS 7.1 won't likely be available before the first of the year, so it will be a while before the performance problems go away.  I was trying to play a graphics intensive scene in Galaxy on Fire 2 with an add-on pack, and it was extremely unresponsive.

Update 2013.11.08: I've been watching what's been happening on (Mac) OS X Mavericks/10.9 and it's crazy.  They're giving away the iWork (Keynote, Pages, and Numbers) applications to anyone on iOS or 10.9, but they've stripped away features in order to re-write the applications as 64-bit code.  I'm not sure why this would have any bearing on the functionality of the software, having developed quite a bit of architecture-agnostic software.  I can only think that they ran out of time, or they just didn't want to pay the costs of adding things that they weren't going to sell.  However, word count seemed a simple function that is now scheduled to be re-inserted into (Pages, I'd guess) the applications.  As with Final Cut Pro X, they're going to add things after upsetting customers.  Strange Public Relations, yes?

WWDC -- iOS 7 -- 1984 is back!!

I'm both shocked and amused at the visual changes to iOS with version 7.

The technical changes are of more interest to me, but I was rather shocked looking at the revisions to what is usually eye candy.  It feels as though the original Macintosh operating system interface has been given a renewed life.  Back in 1984, we had a white with black interface, but iOS 7 is getting a white with colour interface, for whatever reason.

After seeing it, I can say that it's not blue and it's not silver/brushed metal/whatever.  The huge emphasis on blue since the original Mac OS X public beta in 2000 drove me mad.  If you're going to use a colour, use one that I want.  i.e., make it flexible to my whim.  However, Apple only once was ready to give us that ability and they pulled it away from us after displaying it--Themes in Mac OS 8.x.

Monday's announcement and images show us something different.  They said that they ran out of green felt for Game Center.  Okay, we get it, you didn't like trying to mirror real life because it would only be a pale (or perhaps, over-saturated) comparison.

The variety of colour in the latest screenshots make me wonder if Apple will be supplying iPhone in multiple colours to match iPod touch.  What I've seen doesn't seem completely good with the current black or white phone bodies but might be considered sufficient with a variety of colours, and black and white.

I read that Apple put their marketing people in charge of the new icons somehow.  I thought that they either hired the laid-off Nokia artists who made the child-like icons for their phones prior to Windows Phone or Apple copied elementary school children's art work.  They've said that it's a work in progress.  The last time I remember knowing marketing people who were in charge, our product was named Computron 7000.  Never, ever let marketing people do anything unattended!

I'm not sure about the rest.  Control Center sounds good but how do they know what we need and will it be flexible?  I don't care for their calculator, so if it cannot be replaced, I'm probably going to go to mine.  I already have a flash light app, so I could go to that also.    My point is that Apple, in their desire to provide the best experience (and that's important) for the majority of the people, don't always get it right but they, and we have to live with their decisions.

I'm thrilled that they've figured out how to put more things in a folder 6 years later.  It feels a bit like they're making the same mistakes over and over and over again, from Apple II to Mac OS to Mac OS X to iOS.  It's good that they've re-worked Notifications.  I'm still getting notifications hours later, after I've seen them and dismissed them.  I may be assuming too much, but I'm guessing that iOS 6 will never be fixed.  I wonder if iOS 7 will just give us a new nightmare.

This might sound incredibly negative.  I'm actually pleased that they're making progress but adding things like multi-tasking for all apps, support for game sprites in 2D games, and an official set of APIs for physical game controllers.  I'm thinking that Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall stood in the way of functionality.  I'm with Steve Jobs that the customer should have a great experience, and the user interface needs to be honed, but without progress, you will find your competition winning at something you hold dear.

Update 2013.09.25: I've had iOS 7 on my phone since two days ago.  It really reminds me of the early Macintosh days when everything was white and black, but with a bit of color added.  Of course, flat means that graphics can be rendered more quickly than detailed, more 3D graphics can be.  Also, ending the fuzzy green card table look in Game Center or the leather-bound calendar or the notepaid with poor perforations helps to make things go more quickly.

The experience is better and will eventually be smooth once version 7.1 is out, but it looks like crap on my iPhone 4S.  It looks like the first release of software, not the seventh version.  The slide down notifications works a bit better and the slide up Control Center is somewhat convenient.  However, the grab and pull down method of getting a search window seems inconsistent.  Funny, I complained about all the blue and now, it's all the white.  It's like a device they'd designed for the movie THX-1138.

WWDC Monday: turning 2012 obsolete

We all know it's coming as soon as we buy something: it's turning obsolete as soon as it has been released.

A car depreciates the moment you sign the paperwork and drive off the lot.  An electronic gadget starts toward obsolescence the moment it arrives in the real world and can be bought.  Even humans and other living things start to decay after they're born--we live to die.

So, it's no mystery that once new laptop computers are revealed by Apple at WWDC on Monday, mine will be the previous generation.  Oh, no!

As I had said when Apple released the first MacBook Air, the company would develop all of their laptop computers in a similar form for the long term.  They've accomplished some of that but they're still holding on to an earlier type.  I suspect it won't be until 2014 when they cut all ties to past laptop computer designs that are still current at this moment.

More than that, they desperately need to replace the Mac Pro--the tower-encased work horse created for the most professional pursuits of creativity.  Will they still have Xeon processors?  These processors have kept the price abnormally high, but have kept the performance equally high.  Will they be replaced with simpler, 8 core i7 processors?

I believe they must.  Apple have been working toward more reasonable pricing lately.  No, they aren't going into budget-class territory.  There is no reason to fight for the bottom end.  However, they can bring more power at a lower price.

Intel boasts the Haswell series of Core i processors as being less needy for power.  Certainly, whole systems seem too needy, especially when it comes to graphics hardware.  We've gone from 300 watt power supplies to much more than 650 watt requirements for many middle class graphics cards fit to a system.  As the CPU becomes less thirsty, will the GPU just soak up the rest?

When the various Macs were using G4 processors, they needed very little energy to survive, in contrast to the Pentium 4.  Even the PowerPC G5 wasn't incredibly ravenous.  It would be good to see a laptop computer that supposedly can last 7 hours on battery last more than 12.

I was reading something about nVidia's 600 series GPUs being re-badged with higher numbers for 2013.  Whatever Apple decides to use, I'm sure they'll be somewhat more powerful, but careful to conserve battery life.  The 650M graphics hardware in my machine can drain the battery so much faster than the Intel HD 4000 hardware, but then, there is so much difference in performance.  The HD 4000 uses less juice, but is it nearly as efficient?  I'd think it isn't.  Intel bought a third rate graphics hardware company to "help" the industry and they haven't really made a lot of progress with it.  It's still quite laughable.  How AMD/ATI and nVidia continue to dominate without tripping over the patents of each other is amazing.

So, when Monday afternoon (GMT-4) arrives at 13:00, will I cringe that my computer has suddenly shifted into the past?  No, it's quite powerful and will be after any announcement.  It's all perspective, of course.  If you live for tomorrow, you'll miss today.

I've seen the details now and I suspect that my MacBook Pro is safe--there was no replacement today.  The MacBook Air people should be feeling the strain, as those machines were given the newest Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) Haswell processors.  The battery life on the bigger machine has improved to a rated 12 hours.  It's not as good as I would have expected but it's very good.  Once the new (Mac) OS X arrives in autumn, that should help also.

 Speaking of which, OS X Mavericks is the first Apple operating system to make me smile for a while.  They've actually been working on the functionality, instead of spending most of their time on eye candy.

Virtual Memory has long been a problem for Mac OS X.  Considering that Mac OS X has had its roots in the Mach (micro-)kernel project and BSD UNIX, it's a wonder that Virtual Memory would have ever been a problem.  The various BSD-based operating systems (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD) have been really stable.

Apple, in their infinite wisdom, thought that they could fix the world with an enhancement and it's been hell ever since.  I used to be a PowerMac user with the fastest (Ultra) SCSI hard drives and the virtual memory swapping was always at the wrong time.  I suppose for most people using a web browser and e-mail client, it wasn't a problem.  However, I've been at the edge of free memory far too often--even on my newest machine with 16 GB of RAM.

I'm hoping that this new Memory Compression technique will put things right.  It says a lot about processor power when they can do such a thing.  Back when the Motorola 68000 series processors were new, virtual memory was something only big business machines would do.  Motorola came out with an add-on that allowed virtual memory, but when you consider how slow all of the components were, it was much better to limit memory space to available RAM--16 MB or 4 GB.  Of course, the 16 MB limit of the 68000 was rarely used.  It was more likely restricted to 4 MB by an artificial limit.

Replacing the networking hardware was an expected change, as they were a bit behind the times already.  It's not that everyone has been running to stores to find 802.11ac (Gigabit WiFi) equipment, but the major vendors already have it out there.

In any case, Apple are finally pushing toward the future again, having put it on pause earlier.

Update 2013.07.21: Apple are in the middle of a Back-to-School clearance, so there is no new iPhone, iPod touch, Mac Book Pro, etc. until supplies are exhausted.  I suppose it's good for all involved but once a year changes aren't really enough to keep up with other companies.  I thought that Apple were trying to be more flexible.  Hopefully, they'll also have enough displays for a high density iPad mini, but I wouldn't bet on anything, given all the delays.

(Mac) OS X 10.8.4 seems to be much better

Call me a skeptic and call me cynical but I've been deceived so many times that Apple has fixed things that I don't believe anyone else.  It's my belief that by 10.x.4, the version of the operating system is finally stable.

Mac OS X 10.3.4 finally had a decent amount of functionality and stability that I could abandon Mac OS 9.x, for instance.  10.4.4 and 10.5.4 signalled some great stability, although 10.5.x was a step backward for PowerPC-based machines.  The speed and stability was in 10.4.10.

I pretty much considered Leopard (10.5.x) a disaster.  It improved the pathetic performance on Intel-based machines to fair, while ruining it for PowerPC-based machines.  It was about this time that Avie Tevanian left the company.  If he was frustrated with Scott Forstall, I could understand that.

Snow Leopard (10.6.x) for Intel-based machines only, was a step in the right direction, as it seemed to make one faction happy--the new (often iPhone-related ) Mac buyers, who had no legacy equipment.  I have a 2009 MacBook that works pretty well with it, especially compared to my hobbled late 2004 PowerBook on Leopard.

Blah blah blah...I'm trying to establish some background but I write too much that may not interest anyone.  Sorry!

Anyway, Apple developed Lion to be a little this, a little that and Mountain Lion to improve on it.

I'm still a little uncomfortable with Mountain Lion because as soon as I connect my trackball the interface changes and some applications have a dual mode to deal with the new scrolling and scroll bars, etc.

My number one gripe with Mountain Lion is the delay.  I've got a 2.6 GHz i7 processor with 16GB of RAM and a 480 GB SSD.  It's nearly as fast as you can go--and there have been huge delays from 10.8.0 to 10.8.3.  There have been delays starting applications and delays quitting them.  10.8.4 seems to erase the delays.  Update 2013.06.10: talking to a buddy with a MacBook Pro with nVidia 320M graphics hardware, there is no noticeable enhancement.

I'm interested to see how it handles when I have 1000 photos to transfer from a CompactFlash or SD card and then, attempt to process them.  Usually, the fans start running and the temperature rises to near 100 degrees C--too hot--unless it's iStat Menus that can't count.  That was with the cooling pad running beneath the machine.  I switched to a 3 fan cooler from Targus and it helps a bit more.

I suspect that this is next to the last update for 10.8, since WWDC is next week.  I wish they'd fix iOS 6.x because I hate seeing notifications that show up 13 hours later.  Instead, they'll foist an additional set of problems upon us, and those who can't upgrade will be lost without security updates even.  I'm not being cynical--that's just history.

Update 2013.09.03: Geez, waiting for an update to anything, despite security issues, can be hell.   It's been about three months, and I see weekly reports about 10.8.5 but nothing.  There have been a couple of security updates, but nothing much to fix bugs.  I've been finding more and more than the 2012 MacBook Pro and 10.8.4 won't work with my USB thumb drives.  There seem to be conflicts with USB drivers that weren't there before the 10.8.4 update.  As a backup, I tried the same thumb drives with 10.6.8 on the 2009 MacBook and it worked just as well as it did previously.  I just need to make the data available to multiple machines.

It shouldn't be a surprise that an operating system fix breaks as many things as it fixes.  In any case, September 10th is coming, and there is an expected announcement of the new iPhone models, but computers (other than MacBook Air, already updated) should be updated and operating systems should see updates.  There will likely be iOS 7.0, as there will be new devices, but (Mac) OS X 10.9 should be available also, and possibly 10.8.5.  I certainly need fixes.

Update 2013.11.25: Time has come and gone.  10.8.5 and 10.9 and iOS 7.0.4 are all out.  Updated devices came along and 10.9 will help immensely with battery life.  10.8.5 will help with overall stability.

I've been considering a change to 10.9.x but I want to wait until it's fairly stable, especially when doing such a large download.  I might put it on the 2009 MacBook.  It's supposed to be a bit more conservative overall, so it might work better than 10.6.8, though I have my doubts.  I'd rather test it on a not so critical machine than to upset my workflow, even though Mountain Lion could use some fixing.

Sad to see the Camino browser ended

Camino, the Mac-only web browser has been around since the early days of Mac OS X, when it began as Chimera.

It was the inspiration for Phoenix, which became Firebird, which became Firefox.

For those who don't remember, Netscape Navigator became Communicator with much more than just a web browser, and is now Sea Monkey.  It became bloated with version 6, as they tried to create a better way to handle the web and its changes.

Camino came along just in time for many early users on Mac OS X.  We had the laughable Internet Explorer 5.x, based on Spyglass' Mosaic, that wasn't really compatible with Internet Explorer-focused sites even.  The OmniGroup brought us OmniWeb, which had been on NeXTStep for quite a while.  That platform being where the web started.

Camino gave us Mozilla/Netscape compatibility in a very responsive browser.  It was everything a Mac application should have been and showed the potential for the platform in ways that Apple's development never has.  Of course, as the years have passed, there are very good releases of Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome to supplant Camino.

I often tried Camino but as of Firefox 2.0, there was no further need for me.  Yes, it was incredibly responsive in comparison to all of the other available browsers I tried, but stability was a major issue for me.  As the team integrated changes from Firefox, Camino tended to crash more.  Firefox wasn't incredibly stable at 2.x but it was better overall.

I tend to keep Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Chrome on my system and updated because there will be incompatibilities, even though they're minimal now.  Firefox to me is as good as they come, but Chrome works well and Opera is no longer weird, and Safari is a browser you need to keep but may not ever use, except to change preferences for the browser.

In any case, I salute the developers and various testers of Camino.  They made Mac OS X life so much easier way back when.  May they find something even more interesting to keep them busy.

Mac App Store and iTunes' support = PITA

It's funny how everything is my fault, so on numerous occasions, I'll say to people "Oh, that was my fault." and they'll reply something like "...but it was on the other side of the world, so you couldn't have anything to do with it."

When dealing with Apple, I've come to see them no different as a cable TV provider or mobile phone carrier.  They never take the blame.

I've been trying to update the Typist/タイピスト and Twitter applications on latest computer, with a lot of trouble.  It changes to download in the Mac App Store application and immediately changes to Installed, without downloading anything.  I can understand that Typist is a problem because the Mac App Store didn't deal with an English name change.  I ended up deleting that application and it was then able to be updated/replaced/installed.

I was told that the problem was my internet connection.

Mind, I went to my older machine with several applications to update, some updated just fine in-between Typist and Twitter, but the latter two won't be updated.  They're stubborn.  However, it's my internet connection that's at fault...or so they say.

It reminds me of Sprint telling me that the phone is at fault when I've had 4 of their phones doing the exact same thing in this location.  That's another story, but they've recently fixed their data problems apparently when they did a voice upgrade.  They claim that there was never a problem.

Besides the two applications, I downloaded a movie via iTunes and a free code with a Blu-Ray combo pack.  I had to go to a phone/computer repair shop where they have a great connection.  Unfortunately, iTunes downloaded everything but couldn't finish integrating the pieces, so I had two 3.5 GB download.m4v files and another file with the movie title.ite

Of course, Apple's response was to delete that and re-download, using the check for unfinished downloads.  It was finished, so it doesn't show up.

Clearly, Apple tests only the best-case scenarios.  They likely have a really great internet connection for all their employees and the employees probably have great connections at home.  They don't go away from the SF Bay Area and test on mobile hotspots or dialup connections.

Now that they have many, many customers (unlike, say 1995), they don't care whether you're a customer or not and it shows in their customer service.

I got a final answer from customer service, who want me to contact AppleCare.  Unless AppleCare has changed to resolve issues not related to warranty service, I don't understand this move:

I had the matter escalated once again, and unfortunately, I was advised have you contact our AppleCare Technical Support team. We cannot find other information that can assist you with the issues you are encountering:

USA: 1-800-275-2273

Contacting Apple for support and service
http://support.apple.com/kb/HE57

Please understand that we can only provide basic troubleshooting steps since we are not completely trained for technical issues.

If our AppleCare Technical Support team is unable to correct the issue, I also recommend asking them to connect you to our Account Security team for verification. They will be able to contact our Tier 2 advisors and possibly run tests on your account.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. I'll be more than happy to assist you with whatever you need. Thank you for the chance to improve your iTunes experience. Have a great day, Curt.

Sincerely,

 I got a survey request today.  I was honest that it was a terrible experience.  I questioned why these groups weren't integrated and would pass me indirectly.  I also mentioned that they need to do some real world testing, since they apparently don't do that.  Does everyone have a high speed internet connection?  When Apple took Mac OS X 10.7/Lion away from physical media, they knew that their user base was upset.  Steve Jobs answered an e-mail by telling the person that they could go to the physical Apple store to download it.  Unfortunately, that could be a 300 mile (probably more) trip for some people.  Real world, what's that?  I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to have my craptacular connection, as it's much better than what they have.  It's no wonder people abuse their employer's connection.

Update 2014.03.03: I'm using an LTE connection now, at roughly 10-12 Mbps down, and the Mac App Store software does the same thing.  It's as though they don't actually test the connection, they just assume something, anything and try something, anything else and it doesn't work.  Then, they push you to the Purchases page to try again, even when you're on the Purchases page.

I even had an incident a couple of months ago where I couldn't buy something in a physical Apple Store, with an Ethernet cable connected to their internal network.

A tale of two tablets

In a few minutes, Apple will start their presentation of several new products including the 7.85 (7.9 inch, actually) inch iPad, if that's actually the size, only they know at this time.  Six days later, Google are going to announce their next Nexus phone and re-formulated Nexus tablets, probably including a 10.1 inch model.

At this point, these tablets may be the only tablets you'll want, unless of course, you're okay living in the somewhat limited Amazon.com land.  I'm a fan of the Kindle Fire HD but it's not for me, as I'm not looking specifically for a book reader.

In the last 10 days, I bought a Nexus 7 tablet--right before the rumours started about the doubled storage version for the same price.  I was impressed by the display and disappointed with the jerky performance.  I could read Japanese and Chinese clearly and that's unusual in a 1280x800 display.  On the other hand, while playing my favourite mobile game, Galaxy on Fire (THD, in this case), the graphics would be flowing smoothly and suddenly jerk, as if different parts caught up with each other.  Had I not been using 3 (2 on iOS, 1 on Mac OS X) other versions of the game, I'd think that the game developers were not very good.

For most people, will this be a problem?  No.  They'll browse the web and handle e-mail and play Furious Pigeons, errrm, Angry Birds splendidly--I never use that word--splendidly.  They'll realize that the Nexus 7 tablet is the best thing since sliced bread and enjoy that they only paid US$249.99 for it.  I would have, except for the one issue--I may again.

Now, when Apple reveals their new tablet, and their enhanced 9.7 inch tablets, they'll have a rush of people buying the new models.  What's new about that?  They always have someone rushing to buy their products after the announcement.

I'm expecting that all tablet models will have agreeable LTE/4G connections in countries where LTE is fairly well populated, especially Australia where the government attacked Apple on LTE that didn't work with their networks.  The "new" iPad will be revised further to include their latest processor (A6X) with enhanced graphics capabilities and overall increased performance.

Rumours in the last few days suggest that the 7.85 (7.9) inch tablet will start at US$329 (correct!) instead of US$249.  I suppose this is reasonable for the increased display area.  Someone has to pay for that extra 0.85 inches.  I'm sure they've tested the heck out of it and performance will be as smooth as the idiomatic hot knife through butter.  Take that Google and announce something that smooth on the 29th!

I'm also looking forward to changes in the iMac, Mac mini, and more today, but most of the attention will go to the tablets.

Update: I'm confused as to Apple's attempt to put us to sleep with the iPad mini.  It's a good tablet but it's made up of older bits that did a very good job when they were new, but it's 2012, not 2011.  The Nexus 7 hardware with iOS would be great.  I'll probably buy an iPad mini when they're refurbished.  Since Google's presentation didn't happen, due to Hurricane Sandy, the new hardware arrived without much notice.  The Samsung-based Nexus 10 is a capable tablet with revisions on the latest ARM designs, and it's beaten handily, apparently in some early testing, by the fourth generation iPad.

Update 2: I returned my Nexus 7 tablet, with much trouble, and ended up buying a new 32 GB model for roughly the same price.  This one seems to have build issues, and the accelerometer seems to dislike calibration.  I really like the size and portability, but what's with making one that works correctly?  Is there so much pressure to grind these things out that few of them are good out of the box?  I saw some drop and water testing and was surprised that the Nexus 7 didn't survive.  Now, I'm doubly careful, and I'm extra careful anyway.  It's obviously not any better than the previous model, except for the storage capacity.  It's a missed opportunity, but perhaps Android 4.2.x will make it better.

Yahoo! Messenger for Mac Miracles!

Apple brought out the Mac OS X public beta around September 2000.  Back then, the Carbon application library and compatibility layer didn't function well, so they allowed a lot of the old Mac OS software to work on Mac OS X.

Yahoo! Messenger was one of those and I ran version 2.8.3 for the longest time.  Around 2005, Yahoo! announced the version 3 development project and the first two beta versions were rolled out that year.  After the second version release, I joked that they would finish in 2011.

There were two each year until 2009, when they released four beta versions.  I believe the same year, they increased the version number to 3.0.1, probably to make someone feel good, while they were popping out iOS versions right and left.  (Who says that Mac OS X and iOS are related?)

Just a few minutes ago, I saw Yahoo! Messenger version 3.0.2 (no beta!) show up and I'm running it now.  It looks very much the same, and really isn't that much different than 2.8.3 but we can hook up with MSN Messenger users--something else that's been somewhat neglected.  Besides that, the Buzz! feature has been working since 2005.  It's historic, or at least, hysterical!

Well done, Yahoo!