NinjaHERO
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Can't wait to try out the king of the jungle.
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:38 AM
Apple's solution is fine by me. They wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't so much press about it, but I guess that's a good reason (one of the only ones) for the press to exist. Still, they all managed to get it a bit wrong, though. I noticed (like so many others out there), that the map wasn't recording my EXACT location, but just cell towers and wifi spots I may have accessed. The info didn't really bother me. It wasn't like it had me pegged at my local pub - or did it?!?! =)
I looked at the map from a recent road trip. It showed cell towers 50 miles off the route I was on--probably next towers over in case I headed that direction. It's the apple bashing trolls who are blowing this way out of proportion.
I looked at the map from a recent road trip. It showed cell towers 50 miles off the route I was on--probably next towers over in case I headed that direction. It's the apple bashing trolls who are blowing this way out of proportion.
LightSpeed1
Apr 6, 12:08 PM
Looks as if I should hold off on getting an air now.
anomie
Apr 11, 02:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Lol, Power of Hardware? Then where is the android Retina Display device?
I Don't Care about dual Core mobile processors. And neither do the 90% Not-Nerd-customers.
Lucky736
Apr 7, 10:30 PM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
sth
Apr 5, 06:56 PM
Hoping they'll be a Final Cut Pro Express derived from this version.. the current Express is getting a bit long in the tooth. The UI is hideous by today's standards.
+1
Either that or if they release it on the AppStore: Make the base application as affordable as FCE and make the other parts of FCS seperate apps or in-App purchases.
Probably not at NAB, but many of the lines are due or overdue and they have made plenty of releases around NAB before (pretty much every year they have released something).
4/2010 - Macbook Pro
4/2008 - iMacs
4/2007 - Mac Pros
4/2006 - Macbook Pro
4/2005 - Power Macs
4/2004 - iBooks/iMacs
4/2003 - iBooks
I guess the iMacs are due before WWDC but I somehow don't think they'll release them the same day as the new Final Cut. This release of Final Cut has been years in the making, so they'll probably don't want the media coverage to be overshadowed by other announcements.
I'd love to see refreshed iMacs, though. ;)
+1
Either that or if they release it on the AppStore: Make the base application as affordable as FCE and make the other parts of FCS seperate apps or in-App purchases.
Probably not at NAB, but many of the lines are due or overdue and they have made plenty of releases around NAB before (pretty much every year they have released something).
4/2010 - Macbook Pro
4/2008 - iMacs
4/2007 - Mac Pros
4/2006 - Macbook Pro
4/2005 - Power Macs
4/2004 - iBooks/iMacs
4/2003 - iBooks
I guess the iMacs are due before WWDC but I somehow don't think they'll release them the same day as the new Final Cut. This release of Final Cut has been years in the making, so they'll probably don't want the media coverage to be overshadowed by other announcements.
I'd love to see refreshed iMacs, though. ;)
fsck-y dingo
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
for all the tin foil hatters out there, what will happen to the phone performance when the location services are turned off?
Improved battery life. :)
I only activate Locations Services when I feel it's needed. Maps, Star Walk and MLB at Bat are about the only ones that come to mind. I don't keep Location Services turned on all of the time. I switch it on before using one of these. For The Weather Channel and other apps that require a location to function I manually enter it.
I've got the Cydia tweak Untrackerd installed and haven't noticed a slow down with any apps regarding location. I run Speed Test without Location Services and it's quick to choose a nearby server using cell tower info. This is why I don't think the record of previously used towers is needed as much as Apple says. Things work well, and fast enough, without these stored lists.
Improved battery life. :)
I only activate Locations Services when I feel it's needed. Maps, Star Walk and MLB at Bat are about the only ones that come to mind. I don't keep Location Services turned on all of the time. I switch it on before using one of these. For The Weather Channel and other apps that require a location to function I manually enter it.
I've got the Cydia tweak Untrackerd installed and haven't noticed a slow down with any apps regarding location. I run Speed Test without Location Services and it's quick to choose a nearby server using cell tower info. This is why I don't think the record of previously used towers is needed as much as Apple says. Things work well, and fast enough, without these stored lists.
firewood
Mar 26, 06:47 PM
I'm glad rosetta is going away. Maybe the dev will finally update the app.
The dev is dead, too old to program anymore, or has long ago moved on to other companies and hobbies, etc. Maybe the source code depends on the PowerPlant framework, or is on a floppy disk that the dog chewed up. But thousands of Mac users still like using the old application a lot better than any of the new cr*plets.
Maybe you'll volunteer to rewrite a new app as good or better, in every regard, for free?
The dev is dead, too old to program anymore, or has long ago moved on to other companies and hobbies, etc. Maybe the source code depends on the PowerPlant framework, or is on a floppy disk that the dog chewed up. But thousands of Mac users still like using the old application a lot better than any of the new cr*plets.
Maybe you'll volunteer to rewrite a new app as good or better, in every regard, for free?
Buschmaster
Aug 16, 10:36 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
scott523
Sep 19, 07:52 AM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
I agree what you said, but at least it's what I've been waiting to hear. :D
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
I agree what you said, but at least it's what I've been waiting to hear. :D
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
ggbrown
Mar 31, 04:09 PM
I'm a sysadmin and we use Ubuntu for our office fileserver. However, if you want other enterprise level software (e.g. Backup software) on Open Source systems, you have to choose a different system (Open SUSE in our case).
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
samh004
Nov 28, 07:14 PM
I was under the assumption that the money paid to Universal was to allow the streaming of music from one device to another. I assumed that was the real reason behind the payment.
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Seeing as Apple does not stream music to random devices, they shouldn't have to pay a royalty.
I don't think I voiced my opinion about this last time it was brought up, but I reckon although the iPod makes enough profit so as not to pass that royalty onto the consumer (in price), I would still feel like I was paying that royalty, were I to buy an iPod.
If I felt like I paid a royalty, and was already downloading songs legally from iTunes anyway, I'd want to download more stuff illegally than I have before, just to make use of that royalty.
That's what I will do if I have to buy an iPod in the future with a pre-paid royalty. You heard me... this tactic will only encourage more piracy. Stupid really !
Cougarcat
Mar 26, 03:41 PM
You're too lost in a programing manual to see the point people are making. Blending is taking 2 things and mixing them together, or parts of things. Merging would be taking 2 things to make 1 new thing. Don't be so literal.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but that isn't the point the guy I quoted was making. He was being that literal: "Step 2 may very well be the one & only Apple OS - based on iOS." This is absurd. Obviously OS X is taking cues from iOS. As you say, they've said so. But that's all that they are doing. (Now, might a Mac at some point use iOS in some way? Sure. Imagine a trackpad that was basically an iPod touch, or being able to fold our MacBook screens flat, which would boot iOS and turn it into an iPad. I'm sure Apple has some interesting things cooking in their labs. But OS X as we know it isn't disappearing.)
There's a group of doom and gloom people on these boards that believe OS X will go away and we'll have one OS which we'll poking at our screens with no access to the underlying file system and we'll have to start jailbreaking our Macs. This line of thinking is idiotic.
Huntn
Aug 19, 06:11 PM
Do you consider official images and video from E3 of this year, a mere 2 months ago, to be "old" footage? If so, then yes, I'm basing it on old gameplay footage. Look at the model and texture in this pic, and tell me that isn't straight out of GT4, just higher res....
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
Racing games have come a long long way. Based on original racing sims, watching the shock absorbers flex is wonderful. You can feel the bumps. :)
Dalton63841
Apr 27, 09:46 AM
Barack Husein Obama was born in Kenya! Now we have proof!!! Look, it says it right there!! :rolleyes:
Im really hoping the odd smiley means you are joking, and not that you just don't know how to read a birth certificate.
EDIT: LOL I get it...His father has the same name.
Im really hoping the odd smiley means you are joking, and not that you just don't know how to read a birth certificate.
EDIT: LOL I get it...His father has the same name.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Apr 10, 09:37 AM
I would think this revision will support 3D video editing, right?
whatever
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
So they say.... :rolleyes:
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
crackbookpro
Apr 25, 03:51 PM
Ladies Ladies... they are storing information that should be private(yes, indeed), but let's not blow this out of proportion.
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING YOU!!!
The OS or iOS collects & stores this information like many platforms for specific reasons... Android, does indeed do the very same type of stored information of the 3 cell-tower's estimation of location.
The really REALLY bad news is that this information is stored in your iPhone as well as the actual device(Mac or PC) you sync your iPhone/iPad with. The information get's logged correctly... but what is not correct is how it is securely(insecurely) being stored - we are talking about Privacy.
THE iPHONE IS JUST NOT AS SECURE AS IT SHOULD BE!!!
The file should be stored(for technical specific reasons), but not with this lack of diligence on user privacy...
APPLE, you need a way to log this info in a much more secure atmosphere if the iOS does truly need this information for specific OS reasons.
THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING YOU!!!
The OS or iOS collects & stores this information like many platforms for specific reasons... Android, does indeed do the very same type of stored information of the 3 cell-tower's estimation of location.
The really REALLY bad news is that this information is stored in your iPhone as well as the actual device(Mac or PC) you sync your iPhone/iPad with. The information get's logged correctly... but what is not correct is how it is securely(insecurely) being stored - we are talking about Privacy.
THE iPHONE IS JUST NOT AS SECURE AS IT SHOULD BE!!!
The file should be stored(for technical specific reasons), but not with this lack of diligence on user privacy...
APPLE, you need a way to log this info in a much more secure atmosphere if the iOS does truly need this information for specific OS reasons.
zero2dash
Sep 14, 08:33 AM
Yes. Windows NT was running on machines with eight processors several years before OS X was even released.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
admanimal
Apr 11, 12:03 PM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
e-coli
Aug 11, 04:37 PM
How dare you. Since when does apple release a product that is not up to par or even above. Of course they will do it good, it is apple. It is going to be amazing i can just feel it!
Uhh...Motion version 1 was complete crap...totally unusable. Aperture...slow as Christmas, and has serious image degradation problems.
Don't buy into all the hype.
Apple's stock keeps sinking, and they're being investigated by the SEC (or on the brink), so this could be a rumor that's being intentionally leaked to satisfy Wall Street.
Uhh...Motion version 1 was complete crap...totally unusable. Aperture...slow as Christmas, and has serious image degradation problems.
Don't buy into all the hype.
Apple's stock keeps sinking, and they're being investigated by the SEC (or on the brink), so this could be a rumor that's being intentionally leaked to satisfy Wall Street.
shawnce
Aug 18, 02:02 AM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.
You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#21).
Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).
Mac OS X is built on top of a LOT of existing code from inside Apple and outside Apple.
You may want to review the lineage of Mac OS X in the history of unix (http://www.levenez.com/unix/history.html#21).
Anyway aspects of Mac OS X are far far older then Windows (not that that is a bad thing) and aspects of Mac OS X are more modern/recent then what Windows currently has (of course Windows has several things more modern then Mac OS X).