I haven’t fully moved to CoRD yet, largely because of various quirks in its UI. (I see that a new beta is out that may address most of my issues, but I haven’t had a chance to test that.) As a result, I mostly use Microsoft’s ‘official’ Remote Desktop Connection client 2.0.0b2. Plus, I’ve always loved its icon (props to Iconfactory on that, I believe).

This morning, it crashed. [Not a] big deal; crashes happen. I was curious why, though, and while the crash report didn’t help me figure that out (the topmost call in the stacktrace is MBUMutex::Acquire(unsigned long), which tells me absolutely nilch about the actual intent), I did find something else.

Here’s a portion of the Binary Images section from the crash log:

Binary Images:
    0x1000 -    0x23fef +com.microsoft.rdc 2.0.0 Beta2 (2.0.0 Beta2) <0775a7210cb4454ea17af3dfdec33e2c> /Applications/Remote Desktop Connection.app/Contents/MacOS/Remote Desktop Connection
   0x92000 -   0x108fe6 +com.microsoft.netlib 12.0.0 (12.0.0) <9fac28ca22ff49bf9185194497585126> /Applications/Remote Desktop Connection.app/Contents/Frameworks/Netlib.framework/Versions/12/Netlib
  0x436000 -   0x5bafc7 +com.microsoft.rdc 2.0.0 (2.0.0) <ad448d7a974d4d90ad5b89b5dfa08bc1> /Applications/Remote Desktop Connection.app/Contents/Frameworks/RDCPAL.framework/Versions/12/RDCPAL
  0x86c000 -   0x94dff7  libxml2.2.dylib ??? (???) <ccd6e2cb514fcd0b541bf153aae13481> /usr/lib/libxml2.2.dylib
  0x9c8000 -   0x9e6fe7  com.apple.OpenTransport 3.0 (3.0) /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/OpenTransport.framework/OpenTransport
[..]

Notice something? That they still use OpenTransport strikes me as weird, that they use the same bundle identifier com.microsoft.rdc for the two distinct bundles RDCPAL.framework and Remote Desktop Connection.app, which furthermore run simultaneously, is even stranger, but oddest yet? This explosive combination actually works.

After all, a bundle identifier is supposed to be globally unique. There are several API calls that let you launch and otherwise access a bundle through its identifier. How would that ever work when two bundles which clearly, while related, are distinct in their nature and purpose, have the same identifier? Should Xcode prevent you from building a project whose identifier matches one that already exists? Probably impossible to do on a reliable basis. Should dyld refuse to link or XNU refuse to launch a bundle when one with the same identifier is already running? Or should Microsoft simply have someone smack the CFBundle documentation over developers’ heads?

Erik rightly complains about the lack of a does-it-all AirPort base station from Apple.

Inexplicably, the AirPort Extreme and Time Capsule don’t offer AirTunes. This might make you think AirTunes as an idea has been quietly canned, but Apple recently added it to the Apple TV.

The AirPort Express isn’t 802.11n yet.

The Apple TV offers no bridging. Speaking of which, neither does a regular Mac OS X client. Windows XP Professional, on the other hand, did this just fine six years ago.

Given that AirTunes (not astonishingly) requires some form of audio-out port (ideally an analog and digital one, like on the AirPort Express), this isn’t a feature that could be added in software to the AirPort Extreme, nor to the Time Capsule. Why, though, has this not been added long ago, such as part of the switch to 802.11n and new design, over a year ago?

Similarly, adding 802.11n to the AirPort Express requires different hardware — fair enough.

But!

Allow the AppleTV to bridge via its ethernet port. [..] This should just be a software thing, right?

Exactly. Much like they’ve added AirTunes, they should add bridging.

Of course, just as I’m about to post this, Jesper has already put it more succinctly.

First things first: no, I won’t be buying one. No, I certainly won’t be buying one this very hour either. It’s true that – like many, I might add – follow news about Apple very closely and in an almost addictive fashion, but I’ve never let that get in the way of actual purchase decisions; every product I’ve bought has been considered for several months. And as it is, right now, the MacBook Air isn’t even worth considering.

But the MBA¹ does have me intrigued. It represents a bit of a glimpse at the future; in that regard, it may very well be a little bit ahead of its time. And thus, the changes it represents as compared to a regular MacBook or MacBook Pro fall into four categories:

1. First, like so many things Apple, the function-follows-form one, where they let looks get too much in the way of functional design.

   E.g., the thing is so thin that, like an iPod and iPhone, it doesn’t have a replaceable battery any more. I can live with that; indeed, I’ve never once bought a secondary battery for any of the plenty of laptops I’ve owned or used for personal or business purposes. And when I have had to replace it, it was always a case of warranty that Apple (or the respective manufacturer) covered either way, so why should I care?

2. Second, the ones where their radicalness went just about far enough: no more optical drive. I don’t ever need it. Each time I buy a laptop, I find myself regretting the existence of an optical drive within, for it is easily the least-used component. Install software? Most stuff gets downloaded; the rest is on images on an external drive. Look at media from friends? Most stuff is on USB sticks or comes via e-mail; the rest I can do without.

3. Third, where they went a little bit too far, maybe: no more Ethernet. I love WiFi. But when I do have it, the routers are often flaky (not everyone has a Cisco, an Apple AirPort, or anything more worthy than D-Link), and when I don’t have it, the MBA would provide me with zero alternatives. Apple’s USB dongle? Nah. They need to provide WiMAX instead, and/or 3G (UMTS/HSDPA). Which brings us to:

4. Finally, where they didn’t quite go far enough, mostly for lack of opportunity. Solid-state storage is available as an option, but have you seen the BTO pricing? Seriously, have you had a look? Take a look again. That’s, literally, nine-hundred ninety nine dollars more for 64 GB of flash storage compared to an 80 GB hard drive instead. Oh, it’ll be fast. And dependable. And did I mention fast? But boy, is this technology ever not ready for mainstream yet.

And this, all together, is just great. I don’t mean that in a sarcastic sense; I am in fact quite serious: I’m not actually in the market for a laptop right now. I typically buy a new primary machine every three and a half to four years, which would put my hypothetical MacBook Air purchase around summer 2010, which gives Apple plenty of time to address some of my issues with it.

As much as I like FireWire’s design, I hardly use the technology in practice – the only type of device with it that I regularly do use, external hard drives, would benefit far more from eSATA instead, if only for added benefit of S.M.A.R.T. The same goes for other features that they cut: I don’t in fact use the optical audio. I don’t need a second USB port. And I never did buy something to insert into the ExpressCard slot. Conversely, what the MBA does have, I would use: having fallen in love with the two-finger gestures for scrolling, zooming and secondary clicking of my trackpad, I can’t wait to have a trackpad with even more advanced ones such as pinching.

Once the solid-state drive is significantly more affordable, once it ships with WiMAX or 3G – preferably both – , and once other parameters have been improved upon as well (the resolution should be at least 1440×900; ideally a lot more), this will be a real winner. But right now, and I don’t think Apple intended it any other way, the MacBook Air is destined as an early-adopter product – much in the same way the initial iPod and iPhone were.

1. With apologies to Blake Seely. ↩

Via John Siracusa on twitter: “Neil’s Official Keynote Predictions”

Not sure which is more fascinating: that people go through this much trouble to fake a keynote in such meticulous detail, or that Neil actually came up with a result that is reasonably believable.