Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Upgrades Apple

Mac OS X 10.7 'Lion' Developer Preview Available 365

Posted by timothy
from the ok-I'm-a-little-envious-of-the-features dept.
kwolf22 writes "Today Apple is offering a developer preview of Mac OS X 10.7 (Lion) to registered Mac developers. In addition, the Lion product page has been updated with new details. Among the updates is this exciting bit of news: Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion." Adds reader Orome1: the new OS X "features Mission Control, a new view of everything running on your Mac; Launchpad, a new home for all your Mac apps; full screen apps that use the entire Mac display; and new Multi-Touch gestures. Lion also includes the Mac App Store, a place to discover, install and automatically update Mac apps."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X 10.7 'Lion' Developer Preview Available

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, You can download the Lion Developer Preview, but it requires the App Store App, and the process has been a little quirky. Good Luck!

    • Yes, You can download the Lion Developer Preview, but it requires the App Store App, and the process has been a little quirky. Good Luck!

      And you can only get it in Kenya

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by edremy (36408)

        Yes, You can download the Lion Developer Preview, but it requires the App Store App, and the process has been a little quirky. Good Luck!

        And you can only get it in Kenya

        Well, at least our President can use it then.

  • Soon my Macbook Air is going to start casting spells and wanting to play D&D with me with all the "magic" it's going to allegedly have. New Prestige class?
    • by grub (11606)

      LOOK
      > You are in a Starbucks. Jimmerz28 eyes you suspiciously.
      > jimmerz28's Macbook Air attacks you with a Venti Cappucino... HIT!
      ATTACK MACBOOK AIR
      > with what?
      PUMPKIN SCONE
      > You attack MACBOOK AIR with your PUMPKIN SCONE... HIT!
      > MACBOOK AIR is dead!

    • by loom_weaver (527816) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:47PM (#35304912)

      > eq

      You are using:
      [1] <Light> a back-lit keyboard
      [2] <Finger> a Ring bearing the Apple logo (hums)
      [3] <Finger> a one-button mouse
      [4] <Neck> a black turtleneck (glows) (hums)
      [5] <Neck> a thick beard
      [6] <Body> a black cashmere and silk sweater (glows)
      [7] <Head> The Reality Distortion Field (invisible)
      [8] <Legs> Levi 501s (hums)
      [9] <Feet> A Pair of Comfy Sneakers
      [10] <Hands> iPhone 4 (glows)
      [11] <Arms> black sleeves (glows)
      [12] <Shield> a 17" MacBook Pro (hums)
      [13] <About> iPod shuffle (glows) (hums)
      [14] <Waist> 1st generation iPad
      [15] <Wrist> An iPod Nano (glows)
      [16] <Wrist> An iPod Nano (glows)
      [17] <Wielded> Shrink-wrapped Xcode (glows)
      [18] <Held> An iPod touch (glows)

  • by h4rr4r (612664) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @02:42PM (#35303808)

    Without any server hardware to run it on, why is there even a server setup?

    Honestly killing the Xserve and not letting OSX server be installed on another vendors server hardware is brain dead.

    • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @02:48PM (#35303868)

      Plenty of web developers who use Macs. Plenty of people who want a server but don't require dedicated hardware like the Xserve. Besides, Apple still make servers — check out the Mac mini page.

      • Also, you can get a Mac Pro with OS X Server on it. Which basically means they took the rails off the XServe, right?
        • by RedK (112790)
          wrong. The Mac Pro has no hot swap drive bays or redundant power supplies or LOM. It also has a much bigger rack footprint considering the RAM/CPU configurations you can put it in.
      • by tgibbs (83782)

        We've run Mac OS Server for years using Mac tower hardware. While I was sorry to see the XServe go (we were thinking of buying one), pretty much any Mac, equipped with a good backup system, will function well as a server for a small business or moderate size workgroup.

    • by adriccom (44869)

      It runs on hypervisors like VMWare and Parallels which is great for development and testing and actually pretty popular for professional server deployments.

      I'm snagging one to light up in VMWare Fusion, for instance.

      hth,
      adric

    • by 0racle (667029) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @02:50PM (#35303896)
      Home and small business users. You know, those that thought Jobs suggestion to run OS X Server on a Mac Pro or a Mini was just fine.

      Apple has no real interest in the enterprise market.
      • by MyDixieWrecked (548719) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:32PM (#35304566) Homepage Journal

        Apple has no real interest in the enterprise market.

        And this is terrible news.

        Content providers for apple MUST provide video files in Apple ProRes fileformat which is ONLY able to be encoded using apple's tools which only run in OSX. I don't know how apple expects large content producers to encode high-volumes of videos for them without the xserves. MacPros are not an option as they are not enterprise ready (single PSU, no management port, they're HUGE and must be de-"racked" in order to swap drives, etc). MacMinis are not suitable for this as they don't have enough CPU/RAM. The xserves weren't even that great, but they were the right form factor.

        Apple's been seriously fucking up with regard to the enterprise lately. I've been running into issues with their commandline admin utilities --they don't give access to everything that you can do with the GUI. You can't configure which port to use for management from the CLI (the docs say you can, but it doesn't work), it renames your interface when you bond network interfaces by appending " Configuration" to the name, which doesn't happen in the gui... and now, 10.6.6 doesn't properly image using System Image Utility (http://support.apple.com/kb/TS3665)

        Now, they're bundling OSX Server into OSX Lion. Who knows whether they'll continue to support ALL of the non-home user features of server like OpenDirectory. WTF.

      • There would be little point. OS X is just BSD with some pretty eye candy - and you don't need pretty eye candy on a server.

      • by profplump (309017)

        That's the long and short of it. They make OS X Server for people that want file sharing for their small office, or who want a tiny web/mail/etc. server to play with and are comfortable with OS X. They aren't expecting anyone to use it for more than a handful of users, except maybe as departmental node hung off an existing enterprise setup -- it does integrate fairly well with AD or LDAP/Kerberos or NIS/YP and can re-share NFS via AFP and things like that, allowing easier integration of Mac clients into a m

    • Without any server hardware to run it on, why is there even a server setup?

      The Xserve was really not much more than a rackmount Mac Pro. OS X Server runs just fine on pretty much any Mac.

      My office uses a Mac Mini Server as our main office server (our customer-facing services run on other machines). I bought a Mac Mini Server as soon as they came out and it's been running 24/7 ever since. Inexpensive, reliable and even uses less space and power than the machine it replaced.

    • by jimicus (737525)

      The server features made a lot of sense if you were selling to businesses that were big enough that they needed a whole lot of extra hardware in the form of servers.

      But 90something% of businesses don't fall into that camp, and those that do probably don't want OS X Server. The server aspects are aimed squarely at the small business with a handful of staff, a slightly smaller handful of computers and neither money, time nor inclination to pay someone to set up SBS - but at the same time need something a bit

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by chrysrobyn (106763)

      Honestly killing the Xserve and not letting OSX server be installed on another vendors server hardware is brain dead.

      I'm certain your arm chair quarterbacking the largest computer company in the world, and the second largest US based corporation is beyond reproach, but it would be kind to the Apple stockholders (including me) if you'd share some of your data.

      Name one advantage Apple gains by sharing their operating system. You want it, but you want the lower prices that multiple vendors imply and the exce

      • by ultramk (470198)

        I suspect that the only people who really use OSX server these days (beyond those you've mentioned) are big Mac labs at Uni's, or big Mac-only departments or businesses, like at the ad agency I used to work at.

    • by bedouin (248624)

      Anyone who needs what a full-blown UNIX server offers already knows how to do it in Linux or FreeBSD. OS X just adds a layer of confusion, not connivence. Case in point, OS X will let a non-administrator user setup crontabs, but they are erased on reboot. Meanwhile, administrator crontabs stick regardless. The idea is to move to launch daemons but -- why bother with these idiosyncrasies when it's not really broken in the first place? How about config files present in /etc that don't actually do anythin

  • by hcdejong (561314) <hobbes&xmsnet,nl> on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:07PM (#35304132)

    Full screen apps? Oh no! I hate when an application provides a nonstandard UI. The screen shot shows that even the menu bar is gone, which I find unacceptable for everything except media playback.

    Autosave, Versions and Resume on the other hand are fantastic and long overdue. It'll be interesting to see how they implement Autosave: the easy way would be to save every x minutes, the right way would be to create a transaction log and save every action (keystroke, mouse gesture), to make sure that when you crash, every action up to the moment of the crash is preserved.

    • I'd be happy with a real maximize button. For Windows users, what logically should be the maximize button (green +) is actually a "right size" button that performs application dependent actions.The response on all the Mac forums to requests for how to change the behavior to a maximize button is that nobody should ever need or want to maximize an application, because it is not the "Apple Way".

      The addition of full screen apps seems to suggest even Apple recognizes there are times when using all the screen mak

      • by Cinder6 (894572)

        From my understanding, the green '+' button is being repurposed to do the full-screen thing. I just wish I could resize windows from any of the borders, rather than the bottom-right corner. That's my biggest irritation with the UI.

        • by 0racle (667029)
          That irritation is finally being fixed in Lion.
        • I just wish I could resize windows from any of the borders, rather than the bottom-right corner.

          In Windows, I accidentally resize windows I'm trying to move much more often than I resize a window on purpose.

      • I like the green + and the zoom button before it - done right in the beginning back in the 80s. I almost NEVER need to maximize an app there are only a few apps worth doing this for and the rest are consumer toy apps / games (games always were able to go fulls screen.)

        Apple guidelines and API pushed leaving zoom to act just 1 way all the time. A simple revision in the guidelines and maybe 1 option in the API could let SOME apps "smart resize" to full screen because the smart size sometimes is full screen.

  • by anegg (1390659) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:08PM (#35304148)
    Mac OS X Server 10.6 features implied a shared Address Book and shared Calendar feature that would be useful to SOHO environments. However, trying to get it up and running is challenging. Once running, the capabilities are less than expected. I wonder if 10.7 will bear fruit towards making the Mac OS X Server platform a one-stop shop for those SOHO environments inclined to use it rather than Microsoft Server with Exchange?
  • I was really looking for better SSD support. I'm an avid Mac user, I'd love my iMac to be faster, but today most of my issues are with the lack of SSD support. I'd love TRIM. Some OS integrated ability to use an SSD as a cache for spinning media would be nice -- I don't want to pay for an SSD to store my iTunes or iPhoto database, but I never want to hear the spinning media seek when I'm playing video games or using Firefox. Even file level deduplication would save me some space, but I'll admit I lust f
    • by Cinder6 (894572)

      Lack of TRIM support is annoying, and hopefully it's just a feature that hasn't been announced yet. For now, you can always get a drive with a SandForce controller. In fact, this is what everyone recommends doing.

      • Personally, this is what I plan on doing in May, but not offering TRIM this many years after Microsoft began support is ... embarrassing.
        • by Cinder6 (894572)

          It's especially strange when you consider the Air comes with an SSD... Then again, I'm not sure who the manufacturer is.

    • I thought OS X didn't 'need' trim? I believe that was something I read about here so it's sure to be incorrect.... But I use an SSD / spinning media combination in 3 Macs, two laptops and a MacPro - seems to work fine. Even iTunes is smart enough to let the music files exist somewhere else. The biggest pig I've found is Parallels as it insists on stuffing images on the main drive. Haven't really looked around to see if I can move them though.

      Adobe stuff doesn't seem to mind anymore so if they can do
      • OSX doesn't 'need' TRIM, but without it, you'd better have a controller with excellent background garbage collection, or you're going to suffer performance penalties after a few weeks or months. Unless you stick with the SSD that Apple ship with, in which case I believe you're stuck with that poor performance to start with (far better than spinning media, but not as fast as competing SSDs).

        And I'm not stating that OSX is so stupid that it prevents the user from manually putting data elsewhere (like iTunes'

  • With OS X Server being rolled into the client release of 10.7 Lion, will the virtualization license that allows OS X Server to be run as a guest OS in VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop on Apple hardware be extended to the client OS? That would be a big help to developers and IT departments needing to maintain test configs and archives.
  • Bah, there's a lot more features than just the eye candy. The Lion page in the summary has a lot more newsworthy new features IMO:

    Autosave:

    Say good-bye to manual saving. Auto Save in Mac OS X Lion automatically saves your work — while you work — so you don’t have to. Lion saves changes in the working document instead of creating additional copies, making the best use of available disk space. The lock feature prevents inadvertent changes from being saved and automatically locks documents af

  • Full screen apps (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markjhood2003 (779923) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @04:33PM (#35305692)
    Finally! The inability to have a real full screen application was one of the most frustrating aspects of transitioning to Mac OS X. The next most frustrating aspect was all the Apple fans telling me my head was just wired wrong if I missed that ability. Now, we have Apple promoting the full screen capability as a major innovation:

    The app and nothing but the app. On iPad, every app is displayed full screen, with no distractions, and there’s one easy way to get back to all your other apps. Mac OS X Lion does the same for your desktop. You can make a window in an app full screen with one click, switch to another app’s full-screen window with a swipe of the trackpad, and swipe back to the desktop to access your other apps — all without ever leaving the full-screen experience. Systemwide support allows third-party developers to take advantage of full-screen technology to make their apps more immersive, too. So you can concentrate on every detail of your work, or play on a grander scale than ever before.*

    • Finally! The inability to have a real full screen application was one of the most frustrating aspects of transitioning to Mac OS X.

      The upcoming "Full-screen" feature is not the same as Windows' "maximize" button. It causes the app to use 100% of the screen, hiding the doc and the menubar and window decorations and anything else that is not the app. It is the same thing that some other apps (eg, Lightroom, Photoshop) have done on their own for a while. This is just Apple adding similar functionality to the apps that ship with OS X. More third-party apps will probably support this too, because, depending on the app, it can be a very

  • Still no word on decent built-in encryption. Whole disk encryption out of the box and encrypted Time Machine backups, then we're talking.

    • by roju (193642)

      Oh, good news, I was wrong [theregister.co.uk]!

      Apple has finally updated its FileVault feature to offer high-performance, full-disk encryption for local and external drives. Current versions of OS X allow users to encrypt only their home directory, a shortcoming that allows snoops easy access to many sensitive files that by default are stored elsewhere. Under Lion, FileVault also has the ability to instantaneously wipe data from their Macs, although we're not sure this improvement will extend to flash-based solid state drives.

panic: can't find /

Working...