# Solved: Lion



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Ok.
Whats new
Is it fast.
Any dislikes
Etc 


Lion..King of the jungle...pretty bold name
Have they ran out of cats for naming?

How can you top the "King" of the jungle...any new release will seem to be inferior by name and may have a hard time proving itself...Bad move IMO.
Unless of-course they name it "Kung Fu Lion" or similar.

Ok..... enough about possible bad marketing moves.
I want to hear about this beast


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

Frankly I don't think it's a bad marketing move because I'm sure most people really couldn't care less about the name, they know it's OS X 10.7

As to 10.7 itself, though it may be slightly faster in some spots, it's not going to be appreciably faster compared to 10.6 to most people.
Although Apple advertises 250 new features, a good majority are under the hood and some are just setting the groundwork for future even better features.

I'll list a few I've noted that the average user might notice/care about:


Safari (web kit 2 based) is faster
By default, scrolling is inverted compared to 10.6 (in line with iOS)
Full screen apps and mission control can be useful for some apps (takes getting use to)
Save is removed from some Apple apps. (more apps will be updated)
Mac App store is considerably faster.
Java is installed only when needed by a application (will be downloaded automatically)
No Rosetta so old PowerPC apps won't run
Finder finally as a "real" move command like Windows that many users have asked for.
Mail as changed significantly and by default now uses conversation based threads like GMail.
File encryption is much better and not based on disk images anymore
Resume - apps and windows restore on restart (unless you choose otherwise)
iTunes is 64 bit and seems a bit faster (although next version is suppose to be UI rewrite anyways)

If you don't have a laptop with a track pad, you going to want to have an Apple TrackPad or Apple Magic Mouse as gestures is a big part of effectively using many of the new features.

Features that I don't really care for:

LaunchBar - I find having applications folder in dock set to show in grid is just as effective. Overall all I still use himmelbar to access applications though.

Like I mentioned, this release is setting the ground work for future releases where OS X is moving in line with iOS.
(don't freak out people, although some are UI changes, more of it is under the hood improvements that are good)

The shift is definitely away from manually managing applications and documents. Starting now and as OS X progresses, it will be like iOS apps in the sense that you just start working with your documents.
You don't need to save anymore and worry about starting applications. OS X will handle all that behind the scenes for you.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Sounds like they have made some improvements regarding usability...No major overhaul though.
In your opinion do you think they should wait and offer significant changes...rather than a new release being just a little different.
IMO there is isnt going to cause any major sales...its sounds just a little more polished than 10.6.
I want to see a major change..as this will provide more competition for other operating systems...making it better for everyone..even if they are window guys.
IMO XP was discontinued because they were losing sales due to Apple and a couple linux distros....competition made it better for everyone.


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> Sounds like they have made some improvements regarding usability...No major overhaul though.
> In your opinion do you think they should wait and offer significant changes...rather than a new release being just a little different.


Waiting is a mistake. This release does offer significant changes that end users might not immediately notice but developers need to be able to work these in. Developer betas are not the same as getting real world feedback.
This release offers enough features and improvements that most people have no issue slapping $29 down for.



aka Brett said:


> IMO there is isnt going to cause any major sales...its sounds just a little more polished than 10.6.


According to App store sales it's already doing better than previous releases, so I would say it IS seeing major sales.



aka Brett said:


> I want to see a major change..as this will provide more competition for other operating systems...making it better for everyone..even if they are window guys.


I disagree.
Change for the sake of change is usually a bad idea. If a change brings increased functionality or better functionality I'm all for it. 
Sort of reminds me of the compiz support on Linux. Yes some pretty cool effects but at the end of the day only some really add improved functionality. You don't see users flocking to Linux because of flashy compiz effects on mass. Vista made some of the same mistakes and look how people reacted.

IMO, You don't want to notice the OS. The user should be focusing on their documents/music/files etc, not the OS.

For example, I don't want or need to see a nice graphic layout of my LAN and all the devices just to share files or have to click through a network browser to get to them. Just auto config and let me get to the files.



aka Brett said:


> IMO XP was discontinued because they were losing sales due to Apple and a couple linux distros....competition made it better for everyone.


I think XP was discontinued because it was based on an old software stack/core that was making things harder and harder to maintain.
IMO people that switched over from other OSes to OS X probably was a result of things being easier on OS X, not due to the eye candy alone.
This plays into what I said before about OS X moving to a more document centric approach like iOS where its just easier to get what you want done.

Just my opinion though.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Headrush said:


> Waiting is a mistake. This release does offer significant changes that end users might not immediately notice but developers need to be able to work these in. Developer betas are not the same as getting real world feedback.
> This release offers enough features and improvements that most people have no issue slapping $29 down for.
> 
> According to App store sales it's already doing better than previous releases, so I would say it IS seeing major sales.
> ...





> This release offers enough features and improvements that most people have no issue slapping $29 down for


Well the price is right for an upgrade...dinner for 2 or the latest OS..I would upgrade myself and eat sandwiches for a day if needed.
I suspect people would even be willing to pay 50 bucks and sales would also be good...at 29 bucks I think the factor is more of"if it isnt broke then dont fix it" mentality..many people are particular about their computer and wouldnt upgrade even if it was 5 bucks.



> According to App store sales it's already doing better than previous releases, so I would say it IS seeing major sales


I could be joining the gang soon...while I cant do it for 29 bucks.
I feel the gap is closing on "bang for buck" on hardware verses a similar windows machine...and may end up with an Imac


> I think XP was discontinued because it was based on an old software stack/core that was making things harder and harder to maintain.


Good point.......more patches that sitting at a blind man convention.


> Change for the sake of change is usually a bad idea. If a change brings increased functionality or better functionality I'm all for it.


Agreed.
We still have some stubborn ones though that just hate change.....People refusing to go to 7 and stick with XP for example...just because they are more familiar with it IMO.

Maybe apple is on to something after all with just a few changes at a time...therefore not causing user frustration.


> IMO people that switched over from other OSes to OS X probably was a result of things being easier on OS X, not due to the eye candy alone


I disagree...XP was just kinda plain and OS X was nice..more of a Cadillac....That and OS X was not targeted by creators of malware for quite some time...An example is people going and getting a W7 machine then whine they like XP better..while they still had a perfectly functional XP machine



> This plays into what I said before about OS X moving to a more document centric approach like iOS where its just easier to get what you want done.


Nice and easy:up:...thats whats its all about at the end of the day.



> Just my opinion though.


And you already have me thinking about the same way


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> And you already have me thinking about the same way


Don't hang that around my neck. 
I already have one friend that blames *me* for making him an Apple fan boy.


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> I feel the gap is closing on "bang for buck" on hardware verses a similar windows machine...and may end up with an Imac


At least for the last several years I thought it's been right there. 
People always want to compare build it yourself systems with pre-packaged Apple's.
When compared to places like Dell they are usually quite close.

I've never liked this cheap as possible idealism for computer and parts anyways.
We can see results of this in many industries in the Western world. It's not sustainable to maintain our current lifestyle.

Don't forget, Apple computers hold their re-sell value much better than "PCs".
A check on ebay you can see 2007 Mac Minis still selling for $400 when a new much better one sells for $599 from Apple.



aka Brett said:


> That and OS X was not targeted by creators of malware for quite some time


I've never believed this argument very much but you hear it as a reason for lack of malware all the time on the internet.

For one, bringing down the extremely HOT Apple would be major kudos for any malware author.
Secondly, Mac OS 7.x - 9.x had thousands of malware variants. There are more Macs now than there ever was with pre OS X systems. The two facts don't jive.
I'm NOT saying that OS X machines are impervious to malware, but obviously there is more to it than popularity. The effort to reward factor suggests that there are technological factors also.

Also, UNIX/Linux based servers run approximately 50% of the internet's servers, where the malware for it?


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Headrush said:


> At least for the last several years I thought it's been right there.
> People always want to compare build it yourself systems with pre-packaged Apple's.
> When compared to places like Dell they are usually quite close.
> 
> ...





> At least for the last several years I thought it's been right there.
> People always want to compare build it yourself systems with pre-packaged Apple's.
> When compared to places like Dell they are usually quite close.


True...but dell and others often run specials often at roughly 50 percent savings...the models on sale change frequently
12 to 13 hundreds dollars plus will still buy alot of PC.........and for that same money one gets a decent mac.
They basically dont have low performance machines...for grandma or bargain hunters specials.
One basically pays moderately above for a mac with the same specs...but cant bargain hunt for midstream computers as with a PC.



> I've never liked this cheap as possible idealism for computer and parts anyways.
> We can see results of this in many industries in the Western world. It's not sustainable to maintain our current lifestyle.


Just an assembly of parts put together by a computer company....while I am not brand loyal there are some that arent my first pick.
Apple no longer makes their hardware either do they?



> Don't forget, Apple computers hold their re-sell value much better than "PCs"
> A check on ebay you can see 2007 Mac Minis still selling for $400 when a new much better one sells for $599 from Apple.


Thats because its proprietary to the hardware/ software....mac is needed to use the apple operating system.


> I've never believed this argument very much but you hear it as a reason for lack of malware all the time on the internet


IMO its factor..perhaps not the largest contributor....but a share that is well worth a mention.
There have been lots of virus scares through the years with windows...............the worm scares being the worst...Apple reaps from this.
How many mac users without protection on their machine?..A higher ratio due to the "I am immune" syndrome



> For one, bringing down the extremely HOT Apple would be major kudos for any malware author


If it were impervious yes...they lost in an hacking competition for example...and malware already exists for it..so it has been accomplished already.


> Secondly, Mac OS 7.x - 9.x had thousands of malware variants. There are more Macs now than there ever was with pre OS X systems. The two facts don't jive


Evolution...just as many viruses are specific in windows...what may infect xp for instance doesnt have to necessarily infect windows 98 for example...Also works the other way around...Which gave Vista an easy ride for a while until the authors caught up



> I'm NOT saying that OS X machines are impervious to malware, but obviously there is more to it than popularity. The effort to reward factor suggests that there are technological factors also


While it may be more secure..popularity does play a major role in the amount of malicious files written for it.......we already know it can be hit by malware......once caught a new variant is merely written.
Usually a malicious file is only bad for a few hours then the AV vendors add it to their data base then you are protected from it during the next update.
Which goes back to popularity...if one is going to create or modify a malware file that is only good for a few hours...it need to attack the largest group....This is why say malicous files arent being written for W98 for as its not as rewarding as for popular operating systems.


> Also, UNIX/Linux based servers run approximately 50% of the internet's servers, where the malware for it?


They arent in the habit of surfing the internet or downloading p2p...their job is to provide files at request..much safer environment...but none the less they have been hacked and websites have become infected.

I bet the apple webiste doesnt use the an apple OS


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> Just an assembly of parts put together by a computer company....while I am not brand loyal there are some that arent my first pick.
> Apple no longer makes their hardware either do they?


Apple never made it's own hardware and that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Point being, when cost becomes the driving force for everything and companies have smaller and smaller profit returns, you see the result.
If it comes to the point where there is no differentiation in Apple products and prices continue to drop, you'll see the result there also.



aka Brett said:


> Thats because its proprietary to the hardware/ software....mac is needed to use the apple operating system.


Yes but if it was a useless system prices would't be as high.
That is only partially true. I have a low powered Atom system running OS X as my media server. 



aka Brett said:


> If it were impervious yes...they lost in an hacking competition for example...and malware already exists for it..so it has been accomplished already.


Hardly. That competition required physical access to the machine to exploit bugs in Safari. We have yet to see spreading virus on the scale that Windows *did*.(past dense)
You don't think a virus that spread across OS X computers wouldn't make headlines everywhere and bring notoriety to that person?

P.S. No OS can stop all malware unless you allow them to choose what software/files you can use and they also control distribution of said apps/files.

*****Don't confuse this to mean I am saying OS X is somehow resistant to this happening. We may never see this on Windows again either. Although popularity plays a role, right now both OSes are just more secure and improving all the time.

Getting back to Lion impressions, several of the under the hood improvements are to the security model. 
Things like ASLR, application sandboxing, proper disk encryption and changes to safari/webkit.
Some of these things Windows7 already had, but good that OS X gets finally gets full implementation.
(Don't take my word on it, google Charlie Miller who won that competition as see he says it.)

You can read more detailed info here: http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2011/07/mac-os-x-10-7.ars/9#security

Another security related issue is Apple no longer installs Flash or Java by default. (Can't say I miss either)

Although people scream about Apple's walled garden approach and the rhetoric that it is only to stifle competition, there are truly advantages to this. For example, the push to an online Mac App store provides a much more secure service for downloading software. (Assuming you trust apple)

Also, hardware drivers have greater access to lower levels in the software stack. Since Apple controls the majority of the hardware they write most of the drivers also. This means less third party access.
Of course with anything, there are trade offs. Less hardware choices being one of them.



aka Brett said:


> I bet the apple webiste doesnt use the an apple OS


Nope, they use akamai products.

OS X server wasn't designed for the kind of volume/hardware that Apple's services require I'm sure.
Considering they don't make a rack mounted server anymore, pretty sure their new data centre filled with MacPros wouldn't be practical. 

FYI, some other companies that use Akamai's content delivery services: Yahoo.com, MSN.com, Google.com and Microsoft.com 

*Edit: *Just read that apps on Mac Store *HAVE* to be sandboxed, always a good thing.

*Edit: *I must be tired. We probably should have made the distinction between viruses and malware. You were talking more about malware than viruses but my mind was thinking virus.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Headrush said:


> Apple never made it's own hardware and that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
> Point being, when cost becomes the driving force for everything and companies have smaller and smaller profit returns, you see the result.
> If it comes to the point where there is no differentiation in Apple products and prices continue to drop, you'll see the result there also.
> 
> ...





> Point being, when cost becomes the driving force for everything and companies have smaller and smaller profit returns, you see the result.


It also provides competition,which in the long run provides better hardware.
Also the PC manufacturers dont like to put all the eggs in one basket thus buy hardware from a variety of vendors...in the event there is a supply problem they have contracts with many vendors and merely start plugging in hardware from other vendors..although cost wars for the customer do exist IMO the majority of computers live a long life...many just becoming old and outdated rather than a hardware failure.



> Yes but if it was a useless system prices would't be as high.


Agreed


> That is only partially true. I have a low powered Atom system running OS X as my media server


I hope it runs better than my experience under a virtual machine 



> Hardly. That competition required physical access to the machine to exploit bugs in Safari. We have yet to see spreading virus on the scale that Windows *did*.(past dense)
> You don't think a virus that spread across OS X computers wouldn't make headlines everywhere and bring notoriety to that person?


It would...if it were the variety than could be {passed along}... but common malware of today is the trojan variety with more interest being information gathering.



> ***Don't confuse this to mean I am saying OS X is somehow resistant to this happening. We may never see this on Windows again either. Although popularity plays a role, right now both OSes are just more secure and improving all the time.


They did a much better job in the beginning...windows had to catch up...while not not in a big hurry I might add.



> P.S. No OS can stop all malware unless you allow them to choose what software/files you can use and they also control distribution of said apps/files


Agreed..but we still have browser attacks from surfing {which IMO is the largest problem as of current}



> Getting back to Lion impressions, several of the under the hood improvements are to the security model.


Windows provides them for free and calls them updates 


> Things like ASLR, application sandboxing, proper disk encryption and changes to safari/webkit.
> Some of these things Windows7 already had


The rest of the Apple guys will never admit that though and claim Apple had it first



> but good that OS X gets finally gets full implementation


All for 29 bucks...not a bad deal



> Nope, they use akamai products.
> 
> OS X server wasn't designed for the kind of volume/hardware that Apple's services require I'm sure.
> Considering they don't make a rack mounted server anymore, pretty sure their new data centre filled with MacPros wouldn't be practical.


But just think how many Minis you could get on a wall


> FYI, some other companies that use Akamai's content delivery services: Yahoo.com, MSN.com, Google.com and Microsoft.com


From source...

[In September 1999 Microsoft and Akamai formed a strategic relationship to incorporate Windows Media technology in Akamai's FreeFlow service, as well as to facilitate the porting of the FreeFlow product to the Windows platform; this relationship exists to this day.[7] ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akamai_Technologies





> Edit: I must be tired. We probably should have made the distinction between viruses and malware. You were talking more about malware than viruses but my mind was thinking virus.


Thats what happens when you sit to long behind a Mac


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Summary

Money well spent is the impression I get..a few minor changes...but some changes included in security which if nothing else gives peace of mind...thats worth 29 bucks any day

I can mark this solved now


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> Summary
> 
> Money well spent is the impression I get..a few minor changes...but some changes included in security which if nothing else gives peace of mind...thats worth 29 bucks any day


If you have more than 1 Mac it's even a better deal since you are allowed to use it on multiple personal Macs.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Headrush said:


> If you have more than 1 Mac it's even a better deal since you are allowed to use it on multiple personal Macs.


Indeed...upgrade them all to avoid family fights as to who gets to use the beast


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> Thats what happens when you sit to long behind a Mac


Does that occur if that Mac is running Windows only also?? 

Food for thought: Wonder what would happen if Apple licensed "PC" makers to sell Macs, but pre-installed with Windows?

I think they might absolutely own the ultra notebook genre with the current MacBook Air.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Headrush said:


> Does that occur if that Mac is running Windows only also??
> 
> Food for thought: Wonder what would happen if Apple licensed "PC" makers to sell Macs, but pre-installed with Windows?
> 
> I think they might absolutely own the ultra notebook genre with the current MacBook Air.





> Does that occur if that Mac is running Windows only also??


Yes
Due to the funny keyboards



> Food for thought: Wonder what would happen if Apple licensed "PC" makers to sell Macs, but pre-installed with Windows?
> 
> I think they might absolutely own the ultra notebook genre with the current MacBook Air.


Apdell ??


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Oh Oh...Mac attack

http://forums.techguy.org/general-security/1012683-mac-virus.html#post8042945


----------

