Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X

OS X Mountain Lion Out Tomorrow 230

Posted by Soulskill
from the keep-track-of-dogs-and-small-children dept.
Apple revealed in its third quarter earnings release today that OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion will be released tomorrow, July 25th. "As a quick recap, the $19.99 software update brings a handful of iOS features to Macs, including the notes and reminders apps. It adds a few other things, like Twitter integration, Apple's Game Center and iMessage services. There's also a new security feature called Gatekeeper, designed to fend off malware by controlling what applications can and cannot be installed." The release also noted that iOS 6 will be coming out this fall, and that the company sold 17 million iPads in the third quarter, up 84% from sales in the third quarter of last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OS X Mountain Lion Out Tomorrow

Comments Filter:
  • Wifi (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @04:57PM (#40755843)

    Will they finally fix their WiFi woes?? My brand new macbook pro drops connections more than I drop the end of

    • Re:Wifi (Score:4, Funny)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:08PM (#40756035) Homepage

      get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

      The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

      • by Tapewolf (1639955)

        get your hardware fixed. I dont have that problem on my horribly old 2009 17" macbook pro or the out of date 2011 13" macbook pro my wife has.

        The only time I experienced that ws with a piece of crap Wireless router from belkin. Ripping it off the wall and smashing it solved the problem, well after it was replaced with a netgear.

        No, for me at least, it's definitely failing inside the operating system (which ATM is still 10.6).

        For starters I've used three different types of Wifi module on this mac mini, and as many different brands of AP. I'm currently using an Airport Express as the access point, and for a long time I ran both the internal wireless and an external USB dongle on the mac to try and give me some failover capability.

        What always happens is that the Wifi stack reports station disconnection "due to inactivity", which is

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          If it were actually a problem with the OS then it would happen to everyone. I've got a mini (on 10.6) that has happily sat beside my TV for something like five years now, connected through wifi. I've never noticed a problem with it. The bluetooth was flakey for a while after I replaced the hard drive in it, but after opening it up again and making sure the antenna was well connected it seems to be fine.

          It seems like you have some kind of interaction happening between two or more of the hardware, OS, and

    • No problem here. My netbook can connect to networks under OSX without any problem. Funny thing is sometimes XP has issues connecting to the same network, on the same hardware.

    • I had that problem. Forcing DHCP renewal helped. Please see the following articles for more information (I hope this helps you and other Mac-using Slashdotters!):
      • http://osxdaily.com/2011/11/06/lion-wi-fi-problems-solution-mac/
      • http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/backstage/comments/os-x-lion-serious-wi-fi-disconnect-problems-for-macs-and-solutions/
    • I have a MacBook Air (2011) and I have noticed that it 100% cannot find any base stations on channel's 13 or 14, which sucks. Perhaps your problem is related to the channel?
  • by kthreadd (1558445) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:00PM (#40755903)

    We keep replacing our desktop environment every once in a while, now recently with Unity/GNOME3. Have we actually gone anywhere? At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago.

    Can the Linux desktop survive that long?

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      X is almost that old. It started in 1984.

      You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

      • by kthreadd (1558445)

        Sure but how many share your choice of DE?
        I guess we're talking twm or similar.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          I do not know and I do not care. I would assume plenty though, has its own version of ubuntu.

          XFCE if you really care.

      • by DdJ (10790) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:34PM (#40756533) Homepage Journal

        You might be replacing your DE as often as you change your underwear, but not all of us are doing so. My favorite DE is older than OSX.

        So's mine, even though it basically is OSX.

        Ever since about 1989 or so, my favorite GUI environment has been NeXTstep. My employer got prerelease access (since we're Carnegie Mellon, where the Mach kernel came from), and it's essentially been my favorite desktop environment since version 0.8 or so, back when I taught myself Objective-C programming on it.

        I pretty much hated "classic" MacOS and didn't like most Apple products except HyperCard and the Newton, right up until Apple required NeXT. So much of what was great back then is still here. I wish they'd managed to keep the old application remote display mechanism (NXHOST =~ DISPLAY), but the unreasonably-licensed Adobe Display PostScript pretty much put an end to that... alas.

        If Apple screws it up too much (and signs are that they might, though I don't think they have yet), well, I'll probably end up switching to Ubuntu with GNUstep.

    • by jbolden (176878) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:20PM (#40756279) Homepage

      Have we actually gone anywhere?

      Yeah. When I started using Linux in 1995 it was rather challenging to get X to run at all. To get a good functioning X people often had to buy a commercial X server. There were 0 GUIs. Microsoft announced they would not be porting their IE for Unix to Linux and people were upset. There were real questions as to why would anyone use Linux when for not much more money you could get an SGI or Sun workstation, there were also alternatives like SCO on x86 and AIX.

      Today there exist 2 major GUIs with large suites of applications. There exists a full office productivity suite which is capable of stealing market share from Microsoft Office, on the Windows platform. With the exception of Trident all the major browser engines are either open source of available for LInux. The server space is dominated by Linux and Linux desktops play an important role in server development. SGI, Sun and SCO are all dead, AIX is weak. No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux. The Linux kernel is arguably the most advanced kernel available.

      That's real progress. Maybe not enough to beat Windows and OSX but there is no question there has been progress.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Odd. I had no problems with X11R5 on linux in 1994-1995. in fact... yggdrasil had everything you needed. you did need a decent video card, and the bigest annoyance was that I could not afford a 17" monitor to run at 1024X768 that most apps and GUI's wanted. Again you mention there were 0 GUI's. TCL/TK was alive and well. and FVWM was a fine window manager back then in 1995...

        • by jbolden (176878)

          Hi Lumpy.

          You might have been saved by being at 640x480. Often the higher video resolutions had chip specific settings but VGA was a standard.

          There were plenty of window managers. I used (and still often use) WindowMaker. TK is a graphical toolkit, so was Motif. But a GUI is much more.
          -- Consistent Policy
          -- Higher level widgets
          -- An object broker
          -- Sound support
          -- desktop applications

      • My impression was there was huge progress from 1995 to (say) 2005ish. But after that things slowed. Essentially the Linux desktop was good enough, but Linux as a platform is now held back by other non-technical things: the kernel "no ABI" philosophy, the fragmented distributions, Windows is now also "good enough", specific applications that businesses rely on (Office, Photoshop, etc) even if there are equivalents.

      • No one who primarily wants a Unix workstation goes anywhere else but Linux.

        That's a big surprise to those of us who bought a Mac so we could have a nice Unix workstation.

        I can run a Linux desktop (or a thousand, if you want me to) but I switched so that I could stop messing around with my desktop and spend my time using it.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          I run a Mac too. But there is no question it is an inferior Unix to Linux. When I need to Unix stuff, and not desktop productivity stuff I use Linux. And I believe that's generally the case. Look at how lightly supported Macports is.

          • I found Homebrew to cover almost everything Unixy I need on a regular basis. I run plenty of Unix daemon - PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. - on my laptop on a regular basis, and they do about as well as I'd expect them to on any laptop.

            • by jbolden (176878)

              Homebrew is even more meager in its offerings. Postgres, Apache... run well on Windows. I understand you are getting what you want from Mac, I am too most of the time. But that's different than saying Macs are remotely comparable to Linux boxes when it comes to the depth of Unix software.

    • by dfghjk (711126)

      "At the same time OS X is in many ways very similar to the original Mac interface almost 30 years ago."

      In what ways is it "very similar"? Oh yeah, it's got a menu bar across the top of the screen. ;)

  • Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

    • iPad sales up 84%. Wow. They already controlled the tablet market, and basically doubled sales year-over-year?

      You can't look at iPad sales in isolation. You have to also look at how the tablet market has grown year-over-year. For example if the tablet market is growing at a faster rate then Apple would be "falling behind". That is what happened with respect to personal computers back in the day. Apple had a huge share of the early adopters but as the rest of the population entered the personal computer market they chose IBM compatibles. Apple sold more computer each year as their market shrunk. With google and amaz

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        "With google and amazon selling tablets at cost"

        I don't think Apple really cares if Google and Amazon are paying people (or nearly so) to take their tablets. Dominant marketshare is only really critical if you intend to do evil things with it a la Microsoft.

  • What I am going to be curious about is how the GateKeeper signed executable functionality will help in the wild against Trojans.

    Assuming users are smart enough to not turn it off because a Web ad for a "pr0n viewer" or a free iPad told them to.

    • by kthreadd (1558445)

      It won't, and never will. But it is something. And with enough somethings the sum of somethings may become fairly large.

    • Re:Can't complain... (Score:5, Informative)

      by uglyduckling (103926) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:22PM (#40756315) Homepage
      There's a simple lock and unlock function for system preferences panes. So, for instance, you could have GateKeeper turned on for the family Mac, which would give the kids the freedom to install any software that is signed, but you would need the admin password to install unsigned software. It's a step up from the admin-only software install approach.
  • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:17PM (#40756229)
    Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX
    • by jbolden (176878)

      Maybe. Its still rather hard to do since OSX is a dev machine. Macports needs to keep working. But I assume the barriers are high enough that this is a useful out.

      On the commercial side: the combination of pushing customers to the App Store and the App Store imposing restrictions is starting to change the software culture. On several products I buy the App Store version and the downloadable versions are different. I'd imagine those companies are going to be switching to App Store only within a few yea

    • Re:GateKeeper eh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoronGames (632186) <cam.henlinNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:41PM (#40756635) Journal
      ...and that's a good thing for most users. Consider this: Most users don't care about whether or not they can run unsigned software. Many of those users don't know how to install software that they can't buy from a store, or through something like an app store (since they now know about app stores from smart phones and Apple pushing their app store on Macintoshes.) These people are not going to go poking around online to try to find software to install. Many of them wouldn't know how to install software that they did download! The walled garden is arguably better for these people. Want to extend your computer's functionality? Go on the App Store and download a new piece of software by clicking install and putting in your password.

      As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to install and use software outside of the Mac App Store, it's my opinion that an OS X "walled garden" is a hugely excellent feature for the majority of users.
      • As long as Apple keeps it simple enough for people who know what they're doing to buy software from a third party without giving Apple 30% by going through the Mac App Store....

        FTFY

    • Re:GateKeeper eh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdotNO@SPAMworf.net> on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @06:25PM (#40757397)

      Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

      There are three settings to Gatekeeper.

      First is the walled garden - Mac App Store apps *only*.

      Second is the default secure - Mac App Store apps AND verified developer ID signed apps. The latter is a program where developers buy a signing cert from Apple, then the developer can sign anything with it. Just like the current code signing certificate Microsoft has, except the OS enforces the signature.

      Third is the "full open" mode - any valid executable can run. Developers probably will use this mode to avoid needing to get a signing certificate (and we'd hope developers are smart enough to not click on any random executable that comes their way...).

      The second is default because there are a whole class of programs that cannot work under the Mac App Store. First - the Mac App Store has a limit of $999.99 as the maximum price - some programs cost more than that (e.g., AutoCAD 2012 vs. AutoCAD 2012LE (which IS on the Mac App Store)). Second - big names don't want to be subject to the Mac App Store terms - they want to do things their own way. You know, a little company called Adobe who makes a little-used program call Photoshop. Or a tiny Washington-based company who makes an insignificant productivity suite they called Office.

      Finally, another reason is utilities - disk defragmenters, disk repair tools, data recovery suites, even things like hardware drivers cannot be done via the Mac App Store - they must be distributed separately.

      Hell, developers cannot distribute a DEMO version of their app via Mac App Store - they have to host those themselves.

      I think for a good 60% of users, the Mac App Store is all they need. For another 35% the default setting is perfect, and the last 5% are hopefully smart enough to be the ones to turn it off completely and not do stupid things.

      As for the signing requirement - well, a developer can't sign any old binary as their name is attached to it. If they sign some malware, it won't be long until said certificate is revoked by Apple and all apps signed by that developer stop working (until overridden by the last option, or they approve the app again). So developers have an interest in not signing everything.

      Heck, Firefox did the smart thing and got TWO certificates - release builds are signed with one, and nightly builds and such are auto-signed with the other. This prevents the revokation of one key from disrupting firefox development.

    • Sounds like the beginning of the iOS walled garden for OSX

      Walled garden can be nice. I had a fox regularly coming into my garden shitting on the grass. It stinks. Badly. Didn't quite need to put a wall around the garden, put some spikes on top of the bit of fence that the fox or foxes used.

      You can choose three settings: 1. Allow only apps from the App Store (known maker, vetted to some degree). 2. Allow only signed apps (maker of the app is known to Apple). 3. Allow anything. Signed apps also have the advantage that the OS knows when the app is upgraded that th

    • by GrahamCox (741991)
      The biggest problem with the walled garden is the term "walled garden". That's what seems to get the geeks' knickers in a twist. Why not think of it as an immune system, of sorts? Would you rather go about your daily business without a working immune system?
      • A walled garden is more like a bubble. If you lived inside a bubble your whole like your immune system would deteriorate. Stepping outside the bubble would probably kill you.

        An immune system is more like anti-virus software that updates its definitions automatically. There are some nasty viruses that can hide from it or disable it, but most get dealt with soon enough, you may have some down time while that happens though.
  • Out of cats (Score:4, Funny)

    by Chemisor (97276) on Tuesday July 24, 2012 @05:23PM (#40756333)

    What will they name releases when they run out of cats? I mean, "10.10 Housecat" just doesn't sound like a product people would be enthusiastic about...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I "upgraded" from Snow Leopard to Lion at the urging of a friend who had it already and
    that upgrade has been an unmitigated disaster. I then spent many hours getting things
    which had "just worked" working again. The loss of productivity which resulted was significant.

    Snow Leopard was stable, and did everything I needed to do.

    Lion includes a bunch of iOS mimicry which is a stupid mistake and which makes me
    regret being an Apple user because it feels like I have been duped into thinking I was
    buying great design

    • by antdude (79039)

      Why upgrade? Only do it when needed. Why not do a clean install instead?

    • by MAXOMENOS (9802)

      Tim Cook is going to be famous for leading Apple into the abyss.

      I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I switched from Linux to Mac in 2006 because I was starting grad school and needed a *nix that Just Works. I've been a happy user, but Lion has been finicky, and the new hardware makes me cringe. I am now working my way back to Ubuntu. The only thing holding me back from using Ubuntu exclusively is that I need my EVE Online fixes, and getting the latest release working on WINE can be interesting.

      But

    • by mopower70 (250015)
      I just bought my first ever Apple product, a MacBook Air with Lion. I have been woefully unimpressed with the illogic of many of its features, the inconsistencies in use and design, and some of the downright irritating PITA aspects. Talking with my friends who are long time Apple users, it seems a good 90% of my complaints were all introduced with Lion. Many of of those power-users are of the same opinion as you. It's got some nice features but this will be the only Apple computer I'll be buying for a good
    • Regardless of which OS you are upgrading you should always make a backup first so you have a fallback if it all ends in pain.

  • Someone who is testing says that they've finally implemented it. I'm still skeptical.

  • I have a MacBook Pro 5.2 running 10.6.8. So far I have luckily stayed away from "upgrades" to later OS X flavors.
    My Mom tried upgrading to Lion with her iMac and lost a lot of functionality, then limped to experts with a semi trashed system trying to roll back to use the applications that used to work.
    Since Lion and Mountain Lion sound like totally stupid mobile OS trappings I have no idea why I should even consider upgrading to Mountain Lion. Which is too bad since I have long wanted more advanced technolo

  • by AntEater (16627) on Wednesday July 25, 2012 @08:30AM (#40762877) Homepage

    I see a lot of comments asking "Why upgrade?" or not to bother if what you are currently running is working for you. What about security patches and support? I've searched all over the place and, so far, haven't been able to find any clear statement about when Apple stops support for a particular version of OS X. The "word of mouth" answer seems to be only the current release and one version prior are supported with patches and security fixes. It seems a bit irresponsible to drop support for an OS without letting your customers know that they're system is no longer being updated to protect against the various vulnerabilities that can be exploited.

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Working...