Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Upgrades Apple

Mac OS X 10.7 'Lion' Developer Preview Available 365

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:42PM (#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 0racle ( 667029 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @03:50PM (#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 SoupIsGoodFood_42 ( 521389 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @04:25PM (#35304402)

    Why? Time Machine works well, and if the first Mac mini packs up, you and restore on install to the second one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 24, 2011 @04:26PM (#35304436)

    The folks buying two mac minis, instead of a real server are those who will not know the first thing about keeping backups, syncing the data between the two or doing failover.

    It might be ok to keep some dvd rips on at your house, but using it for work is crazy talk.

    You remind me of some former coworkers who thought keeping data on anything less than an IBM mainframe with Parallel Sysplex enabled should be considered negligent. There are cases where they are right. However, there are computer users who are not banks, and their inability to understand that some people had different needs than their pet use case made them a real pain to deal with.

    Shorter answer: Don't assume you have the answer to everyone's problems. You don't even know what their problems are.

  • by chrysrobyn ( 106763 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @04:32PM (#35304574)

    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 exceptionally low volume enterprise level features that are missing. Let's say that adding redundant power supplies, hot swappable memory and all that jazz costs $50M in R&D. Can you state that they would recoup that investment in the first year? Could they command a $1k premium per box, and amortize it over 50k boxes they would not have otherwise shipped, and then ship another 30k boxes beyond that to count as margin? First, you're going to balk at paying three times as much for Apple hardware as you would for other brands', and the conversation goes down from there.

    Features like Time Machine seem to scream for servers, but Apple's implementation is nowhere near what a 24/7 75% usage machine needs, or even what a real database needs under any but the most idle loads.

    The kind of people who feel MacOSX is good for servers either need a low power Mini (where the hardware, OS and GUI shortfalls are easily overlooked) or a Mac Pro (for number crunching under familiar development tools matter more than the ability to go out and get more MIPS/$ at any random vendor).

    Apple isn't branding their server as something that will compete against Power, Sparc (snicker) or Itanium. They're looking for the hobbyist who doesn't really care about all the underpinnings. For them, it's enough of a server, with enough server features.

  • Full screen apps (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markjhood2003 ( 779923 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @05:33PM (#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.*

  • by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @05:53PM (#35305968) Journal

    Obama is, and always will be, a Keynesian.

  • by edremy ( 36408 ) on Thursday February 24, 2011 @05:53PM (#35305976) Journal
    Sigh. It's just impossible to use any kind of sarcasm on internet boards these days. I'd be happy for a <sarcasm> tag, but that would never work.

Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner