Future Mac OS X Features?

[SpiceMustFlow]

TIGER

Of course, Tiger (10.3.4) will be optimized for iPod = it's only the real new hardware available!!! And decrypt all Steve Jobs strategy until the end of the world Smile! I'm just kidding!

 

[ingenious]

Of course, Tiger (10.3.4) will be optimized for iPod = it's only the real new hardware available!!! And decrypt all Steve Jobs strategy until the end of the world Smile! I'm just kidding!

um tiger would be 10.4.0 not 10.3.4 which is a point Panther upgrade, sorta like a service pack on windoze.

 

[mlrproducts]

Really, like service packs?

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!

As for the privacy, gov't talk - it is not relevent. This is MacRumors.

Has anyone even slightly entertained the notion that Apple is working with Gov't so that GOVERNMENT would be HELPING APPLE, instead of the other way around as everyone keeps saying? (IE: gov't tells apple you actually must write random info to the hard drive thiry-FIVE times to make it safe!, how about encryption, etc)

 

[FFTT]

Security updates in OSX

It makes perfect sense that Apple is going to do all it can to make OSX
qualify for government security standards.

Apple has a government sales and training facility in Reston VA
with a vast multitude of top level security & D.O.D. companies working just around the corner. A real world Silicon Valley East with heavy emphasis on
government agencies.
I frequent all of these buildings in my line of work.

So if motive were an indicator, I can see a clear reason for these security
upgrades.

A different motive also inspires Apple to increase DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT (DRM) in upcoming systems.

Nearly every single Apple software application has been made easily available, free within a month or two from release, costing them a tremendous loss in software sales.

Earlier versions of OSX along with earlier versions of Toast,
allow nearly every single application to be copied.

So, in some cases older may be considered better for the user,
while the newer OS versions may prevent this in the future and be better for Apple.

The snoop theory also warrants attention.

There are WAY too many financial motives for our legislators to act
under pressure from the likes of BSA, RIAA for this to be completely ignored.

The overall big picture tends to make me believe that there's simply too much money involved for any user to trust those that wish to control
and monitor what we do on our computers.

 

[ingenious]

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!

i just meant that it was a point upgrade... similar to service packs only in that they r released to update a current os.


on a side note, i think that 10.4 should improve new user usability (system usability). we have too many newbies asking for help on these boards... it should be simpler

 

[GregA]

So 10.x.X updates are like windows service packs? WOW - I must have missed features as prominent as Expose in SP1! Bill Gates wishes that statement was true!

Didn't Expose come in 10.3, not in 10.3.1? Our point upgrades (10.3.2, 10.3.3.) are quite similar to windows service packs. They fix some bugs and update security - and they also offer small increases in functionality.

 

[ingenious]

Didn't Expose come in 10.3, not in 10.3.1? Our point upgrades (10.3.2, 10.3.3.) are quite similar to windows service packs. They fix some bugs and update security - and they also offer small increases in functionality.

yes it did. it came with 10.3.0. apple doesn't usually put new features like that into point upgrades.

 

[Steven1621]

hopefully we will see a revision to ichat so that one can have a AIM profile with it.

 

[ingenious]

macfora.com and other rumor sites have been reporting that safari v. 1.33 has been circulating with the latest Tiger build, 8A85.

also reported here:
macdonkey.com

im hoping for auto to tab on clicked links (click an link and it automatically goes to a tab).

 

[cjc343]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab... I don't think that a new tab for every page would work well, imagine trying to browse these forums, everytime you click on a link you get a new tab? that would clutter up pretty quickly...


of course, it's just my opinion....

 

[ingenious]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab... I don't think that a new tab for every page would work well, imagine trying to browse these forums, everytime you click on a link you get a new tab? that would clutter up pretty quickly...


of course, it's just my opinion....

i know u can do that. i mean for links that are coded to open in new windows.

 

[cjc343]

oh, I get what you mean... that would be nice... sorry, I had thought that you wanted all of your windows in new tabs....

 

[ingenious]

oh, I get what you mean... that would be nice... sorry, I had thought that you wanted all of your windows in new tabs....

ya... i wouldnt want every link opened in a new tab. just to be able to open new links in a tabs as a default or at least be able to set that in a preference.

 

[GregA]

if you hold down the Apple key when you click, it will send it to a new tab...

i know u can do that. i mean for links that are coded to open in new windows.

I've noticed on websites that open new windows - when I hold down the Apple key it opens those new windows in Tabs instead.

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked. Then closing the new window, and Apple-clicking again, isn't as quick.

 

[ingenious]

I've noticed on websites that open new windows - when I hold down the Apple key it opens those new windows in Tabs instead.

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked. Then closing the new window, and Apple-clicking again, isn't as quick.

which is y i want to be able to have safari automatically open new window links into new tabs so i dont have to go back and command click the link.

 

[redkore]

Of course, you don't know it wants a new window until you've clicked.

Look in the status bar.

 

[147]

Piles: here is an example

Hello,

piles is not a hoax. Apple holds a patent on this, and someone took the time to represent it: just look how brilliant it will be the day it will be implemented (because it will be one day, that's for sure):

http://homepage.mac.com/rdas7/piles.html

This has all been posted on MR before...

 

[nesbitt_a]

Apple has recently filed a patent for translucent windows

Apple has recently filed a patent for translucent windows that automatically adjust the opacity as information is updated (or not updated): "overlaid, Information-bearing windows whose contents remain unchanged for a predetermined period of time become translucent. The translucency can be graduated so that, over time, if the window's contents remain unchanged, the window becomes more translucent. In addition to visual translucency, windows according to the present invention also have a manipulative translucent quality. Upon reaching a certain level of visual translucency, user input in the region of the window is interpreted as an operation on the underlying objects rather than the contents of the overlaying window."



- Could be interesting in tiger

 

[ingenious]

Look in the status bar.

um what status bar?

 

[Cooknn]

UDF Packet Writing

Here's my vote for UDF Packet Writing in 10.4

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

You forgot.....And I don't want any of my drug dealing records to be accessed by the goverment.

Please.

I don't want the government looking on my computer for anything, i doubt any drug dealer stupid enough to keep records would be able to afford a computer.

 

[svenmagnus]

All I really want is a tabbed Finder. The finder window is too klunky in Column view, if they could put tabbs in there it would get bigger, but you would only need one finder window. I don't know about you people but i use 2-3 finder windows at a time.

 

[dcollierp]

PDF Editing

I really want to be able to edit a pdf file. Or maybe a "lite" OCR application.

 

[GregA]

I really want to be able to edit a pdf file. Or maybe a "lite" OCR application.

Ahh... if Apple released a new word processor that saved files in PDF format or web pages, that would be truly brilliant.

As a company you send all your files to clients in PDF format, and request for files to be sent in PDF format (plus convert Word files they send you, with 95% accuracy). And it allows links within the files and conversions for HTML. Hmmmmm....

 

[tophat]

In the early 1990s civilian (non-NSA) cryptanalysts developed a "new" and very powerful technique called "differential cryptanalysis", that basically allows you to guess the key of DES-like ciphers by encrypting different (known) cleartexts and observing the ciphertext that comes out. By comparing the different inputs and outputs, a reasonable guess can be made as to the key. But guess what: DES was found to be very resistant to this attack. Why? It was discovered that the exact nature of the S-boxes (the "substitution boxes" or "tables of values", as you refer to them) were formulated in such a way as to thwart the technique. What does this tell us? Firstly, that the NSA had already developed differential cryptanalysis (or an analogue thereof) in the mid 1970s, a full two decades ahead of its rediscovery by civilians. Secondly, and this is the clincher, it tells us that the NSA didn't weaken DES: it strengthened it immesurably. Talk about irony.

This explains quite well why they never published how they derived their constants in S-boxes. They would have helped others to discover differential cryptoanalysis.

I'd like to add that breaking the 56-bit encryption of DES by brute-force is only just within civilan capabilities now. I think it is reasonable to assume that at the time (mid-1970s) it is unlikely that the NSA possessed the computing power to break DES by brute force, or by any other means. Furthermore, "strong" 128-bit encryption such as that offered by AES is totally unbreakable by brute-forcing with a conventional (non-quantum) computer. I remember reading that iterating through each and every one of the keys in a 128-bit keyspace, even if each keybit were represented with a single electron, would require more energy than the mass-energy equivalent of the sun.

You can also imagine another example on breaking 128-bit encryption by brute force: if all human beens on earth used a million computers it would only take a million years to loop through all the alternatives. Actually it would be even longer because todays computers cannot test a billion alternatives per second which I used in my example.

So next time when someone claims that NSA can break 128-bit encryption by brute force, you know they simply can't. Off course, they may break 128-bit encryption, but it would not happen by brute force. They need to figure out how to eliminate unfortunate key ranges without actually testing them. And that requires a closer analysis of the algorithm.