PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) at WWDC


MacRumors
Apr 18, 2006, 12:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has posted early (http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/) program information about what developers will learn at the Worldwide Developer's Conference 2006.

Apple's intention to demo Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) at this year's WWDC has been no secret. Steve Jobs announced it last year at the WWDC 2005 Keynote, and Apple's BootCamp page (http://www.apple.com/bootcamp/) indicated that "Developers can learn all about the sixth major release of Mac OS X [Leopard] this century at Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference."

WWDC takes placed between August 7-11th of this year.

Join the thousands of Mac developers who will be attending WWDC 2006, and be one of the first to preview Mac OS X Leopard. You’ll get the chance to explore the latest Mac tools and technologies, and to learn the advances that are keeping Mac OS X far, far ahead of the competition.

While the topics covered at WWDC are primarily developer-focused, in recent years, Apple's Keynote address has been targeted at developers and consumers alike. Last year, Apple first announced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050606143135.shtml) that they would be moving to Intel processors. This year, PowerMacs are rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/03/20060313151144.shtml) to be in the pipeline at or around WWDC in August.

Bubbasteve
Apr 18, 2006, 12:51 AM
I can't wait....short but sweet post

JFreak
Apr 18, 2006, 12:53 AM
WWDC in August.

Can't...wait...that...long... :/

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 12:54 AM
I'm so curious about what kind of new features are going to be in this release. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been getting the feeling that this is going to be a big one. rumors aside... just a feeling.

woxel1
Apr 18, 2006, 12:54 AM
Can't...wait...that...long... :/
I'd like to see you try not waiting that long. Yeah.

Oryan
Apr 18, 2006, 12:54 AM
I got the developer email this afternoon. I'm excited to see the new features. I'm still running 10.3 so I can't wait to upgrade to Leopard. I'll finally be able to use widgets!!

edit- wow people respond fast!

Chaszmyr
Apr 18, 2006, 12:55 AM
Not exactly news, is it?

macgeek2005
Apr 18, 2006, 12:56 AM
When is leopard gonna be shipping on macs? Could it be this year at all? Or are we looking at January?

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 12:56 AM
Not exactly news, is it?

no, but a little positive reinforcement never hurts.

EricNau
Apr 18, 2006, 12:57 AM
I'm so curious about what kind of new features are going to be in this release. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been getting the feeling that this is going to be a big one. rumors aside... just a feeling.
It'll have to be a big release to compete with Windows Vista.

I wonder which will come out first...

Oryan
Apr 18, 2006, 12:57 AM
When is leopard gonna be shipping on macs? Could it be this year at all? Or are we looking at January?

It would be nice if they had it out for the holiday season, seeing as Vista isn't going to make it before then. And besides, maybe someone will buy it for me. :)

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 12:58 AM
It'll have to be a big release to compete with Windows Vista.

I wonder which will come out first...
Wasn't vista delayed? again, I mean.

Eidorian
Apr 18, 2006, 01:00 AM
I got a nice email about it today. I'm signed on as a Apple Student Developer for the emails.

syklee26
Apr 18, 2006, 01:00 AM
When is leopard gonna be shipping on macs? Could it be this year at all? Or are we looking at January?


I thought I read somewhere about next April?

themacman
Apr 18, 2006, 01:00 AM
very cool. How many more versions of OSX will there be until OS 11, will they go to 10.9?

Eidorian
Apr 18, 2006, 01:01 AM
I thought I read somewhere about next April?I say Macworld 2007.

syklee26
Apr 18, 2006, 01:03 AM
bootcamp is a given

upgraded spotlight search is a given too IMO.

maybe this will be the most media-centric OS for mac yet. some form of Blu-Ray using software technology could be introduced.

safari 3.0 would be a given too.

possibly some form of DVR functioning program?

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:06 AM
bootcamp is a given.

Did I hear correctly that Boot Camp was going to be integrated into the OS for true native sidelong Windows compatibility in Leopard, or was that a wet dream?

it might just be that Boot Camp is out of beta and bundled with Leopard.

LimeiBook86
Apr 18, 2006, 01:08 AM
Not exactly news, is it?
It isn't really but, it lets me have a date to mark on my calendar. But, see now I can't wait for it...damn...welp...only 4 more months to go! :D:rolleyes: :eek:

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 01:10 AM
bootcamp is a given

upgraded spotlight search is a given too IMO.

maybe this will be the most media-centric OS for mac yet. some form of Blu-Ray using software technology could be introduced.

safari 3.0 would be a given too.

possibly some form of DVR functioning program?


I agree. Alot of media based stuff. New UI/Finder of course (and THANK GOD). DVR Perhaps. Safari 3.0. Upgraded Spotlight and Dashboard. Boot Camp of course will also be integrated. Although I get the feeling they're going to throw in a couple of wildcards too. Like something out of the blue but really new and different.


My hopes are that they make it alittle more user friendly for people that have never used a Mac before (say an "OS X Tour" app, or some kind of pop-up help thing...I think there was something like that in OS 9?)

DMann
Apr 18, 2006, 01:15 AM
I'm so curious about what kind of new features are going to be in this release. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been getting the feeling that this is going to be a big one. rumors aside... just a feeling.

This OS release will rock! Also, Leopard will be used as the
basis for mobile OS's used in phones, iPods, and other portables.
It will surely take 3D to another level, and perhaps be the first
to evolve beyond the mach kernel.

supafly1703
Apr 18, 2006, 01:16 AM
I'm all for the revamped finder and faster spotlight...but what is the random new feature that suddenly we all will "have to have"?

dashiel
Apr 18, 2006, 01:20 AM
i'm guessing we'll see a major update to the visual appearance of the UI. brushed metal will be gone.

i'm hoping the extra time leopard is taking to cook in the labs is indicative of something groundbreaking not just the natural slow down of the OS X cycle. maybe coupled with the announcement of a new tablet-esque pc.

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 01:20 AM
I'm all for the revamped finder and faster spotlight...but what is the random new feature that suddenly we all will "have to have"?


Dictionary 2.0?

Eidorian
Apr 18, 2006, 01:21 AM
Dictionary 2.0?No, no Chess 3.0

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:21 AM
This OS release will rock! Also, Leopard will be used as the
basis for mobile OS's used in phones, iPods, and other portables.
It will surely take 3D to another level, and perhaps be the first
to evolve beyond the mach kernel.

Yeah I'm super excited. I think the one thing that I would never be able to get over, and would completely surprise me, would have to be resolution independent UI. it's gotta happen sooner or later. man would that freak me out.:eek:

EricNau
Apr 18, 2006, 01:23 AM
Wasn't vista delayed? again, I mean.
Yes, it just was...again. I think now it is scheduled for release in January 2007.

very cool. How many more versions of OSX will there be until OS 11, will they go to 10.9?
I think it will be a long, long time before we see a OS XI. What's wrong with OS 10.10 or 10.15?

MacVault
Apr 18, 2006, 01:27 AM
...a Quicken-killer! I know that's not exactly a feature, but I've been absolutely HATING Quicken for OS X forever, and today installed Quicken 2006 Premier on my Windows XP machine at work, and WOW - what a difference.. UI is vastly superior, way more features, etc. It made me actually think about running Quicken in XP under Parallels Workstation for OS X. But I want a "native" OS X app.

That's my $0.02 :mad: :mad: :mad:

azzurri000
Apr 18, 2006, 01:28 AM
Sweet! Good timing for students :)

BWhaler
Apr 18, 2006, 01:31 AM
I just hope Leopard is an epic leap.

Tiger has left a lot to be desired, and Vista is shaping up to be a solid rip-off, which is bad news for Apple.

Apple needs to change the OS game again, and make an Leopard a huge upgrade.

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 01:34 AM
It will surely take 3D to another level


Woah! Slow down there, cowboy.....

Are we talking about...

4D?

Wow.

I think my shoes are talking to me, man.

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:35 AM
I just hope Leopard is an epic leap.

Tiger has left a lot to be desired, and Vista is shaping up to be a solid rip-off, which is bad news for Apple.

Apple needs to change the OS game again, and make an Leopard a huge upgrade.

absolutely. thats why I was so happy to see that teaser on the Dev Community site:
You’ll get the chance to explore the latest Mac tools and technologies, and to learn the advances that are keeping Mac OS X far, far ahead of the competition.

I mean, apple has been developing the practically the same UI techs and looks that vista is trying to rip off for the last 5 years. 5 years in the market, getting user response, that gives them an immense advantage over vista, if just from a "final product" standpoint. I have to imagine that we're going to see some really mind-blowing stuff come august.

LACOSTE
Apr 18, 2006, 01:35 AM
Hmmmm i wonder what sort of features would be taking advantage of the emerging highspeed adsl (24Mbps). Better support for video and website publishing apps?

New and improved iChat? that allows fully-integrated video and audio support for MSN, Yahoo, AIM and Jabber.

Hopefully the userinterface would be something more 3dimensional... that would sorta look like frontrow... twirling around as u choose an application :). Also maybe fast-user switching to Windows?

Support for a more efficient and reliable 64bit processing technology? With the new Pro Macs?

sam10685
Apr 18, 2006, 01:36 AM
better have some killer new stuff...

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 01:36 AM
It's been a few hours and no negative votes yet. Mysterious!

All hail a new goshdarned Finder! More than anything else, that's what'll do it for me. Except maybe Front Row 3 with extensibility to add a real DVR capability, for those of us with the necessary optional hardware. If Apple would get a team together to make MythTV work on a Mac with a nice Front Row-like UI, I think it might just be the best thing ever to happen to computers.

Peyton
Apr 18, 2006, 01:37 AM
Sweet! Good timing for students :)


To be clear, it won't be released in august, only previewed.


Also, I think its a perfect time for apple to blow us away with a new GUI (as in no more brushed metal but something completely new) because ilife 07 will be out about the same time and they will be able to coordinate the whole thing.

Here's hoping... ;)

EricNau
Apr 18, 2006, 01:39 AM
To be clear, it won't be released in august, only previewed.


Also, I think its a perfect time for apple to blow us away with a new GUI (as in no more brushed metal but something completely new) because ilife 07 will be out about the same time and they will be able to coordinate the whole thing.

Here's hoping... ;)
I like the new (plastic ?) look found in the current iLife suite.

sam10685
Apr 18, 2006, 01:40 AM
WWDC takes placed between August 7-11th of this year.





i would say i can't wait that long but at leat E3 is next month... hoping for some good stuff from nintendo.

LACOSTE
Apr 18, 2006, 01:43 AM
.... because ilife 07 will be out about the same time and they will be able to coordinate the whole thing.

hmmm so Leopard would be release next year? or later this year?
isnt it a little too early to release iLife 07? they just released iLife 06 w/ iWEb earlier this year.

but i agree about the coordination thing... but mainly coordinate with the 3d look of Front ROW.

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:43 AM
maybe safari 3.0 will feature draggable tabs, and easy keyboard navigation for tabs, like Adium has. I'm so used to that UI that when I go into safari I start using the same key commands. it's a real problem. I don't know what I'm going to do. :(

Ja Di ksw
Apr 18, 2006, 01:43 AM
Aug 7-11th? No! I'll be in Fiji then :(.

Oh, wait. . .

I'll be in Fiji.

:D




Hope you guys have a good summary up when I get back!

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 01:45 AM
Ah yes, Front Row. Seeing as how it's pretty much standard on new macs now surly they'll do something big/new with Front Row.

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 01:46 AM
maybe safari 3.0 will feature draggable tabs, and easy keyboard navigation for tabs, like Adium has. I'm so used to that UI that when I go into safari I start using the same key commands. it's a real problem. I don't know what I'm going to do. :(


Man...I honestly can't think of anything Safari could use feature-wise (other than basic functionality stuff/bug fixes)...but if they can come up with something more power to them

EricNau
Apr 18, 2006, 01:49 AM
hmmm so Leopard would be release next year? or later this year?
isnt it a little too early to release iLife 07? they just released iLife 06 w/ iWEb earlier this year.

but i agree about the coordination thing... but mainly coordinate with the 3d look of Front ROW.
Leopard will be released in late 2006/early 2007, and iLife '07 will be released in the beginning of 2007.

So they will probably be released together or within a month or eachother (give or take a little).

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:51 AM
Man...I honestly can't think of anything Safari could use feature-wise (other than basic functionality stuff/bug fixes)...but if they can come up with something more power to them
Yeah ever since they added RSS there aren't been many other things that it lacks as a browser. Now they just need to fine tune it into a quietly purring, prefectly lubricated machine. Fueled by Love.

Adium just has such a great way of dealing with tabs, I would love to see that in safari. However, the windows are much bigger and have dynamic content in them, so it would probably be a bigger drag on the processor than in Adium.

knackroller
Apr 18, 2006, 01:51 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 01:53 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?
Yes. you can upgrade from 10.1 to 10.5 for 129 bucks. i guess it comes down to how long you want to wait to upgrade.

::edit:: that wasn't really a satisfactory answer to what you were asking though. I don't know, I feel like I'm at a reduced level of productivity because I'm still running panther. although that might because I'm also running an overwhelmed 700mhz eMac... It's easy for us mac devotees to geek out over new features that aren't really necessary to an adequate user experience... I guess it's up to the individual.

Squozen
Apr 18, 2006, 02:02 AM
very cool. How many more versions of OSX will there be until OS 11, will they go to 10.9?

They can go to 10.1000 if they really want to - it's not a decimal number. It's a major.minor version number.

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 02:03 AM
Yes. you can upgrade from 10.1 to 10.5 for 129 bucks. i guess it comes down to how long you want to wait to upgrade.
Bingo. I don't mind paying $129 every 18 months to stay up to date, but other people might choose to upgrade more slowly. If someone doesn't feel they've updated or added enough, s/he can always just skip that upgrade.

ReelToReel
Apr 18, 2006, 02:10 AM
Although I love BootCamp, maybe we will see built in windows virtualization for those who need less graphic-intense programs (not games), and don't want to deal with partitioning and rebooting every time they need to use windows.

munkle
Apr 18, 2006, 02:28 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

Simply put, if you don't think it's worth the price, don't upgrade.

Dunepilot
Apr 18, 2006, 03:00 AM
Yes. you can upgrade from 10.1 to 10.5 for 129 bucks. i guess it comes down to how long you want to wait to upgrade.

::edit:: that wasn't really a satisfactory answer to what you were asking though. I don't know, I feel like I'm at a reduced level of productivity because I'm still running panther. although that might because I'm also running an overwhelmed 700mhz eMac... It's easy for us mac devotees to geek out over new features that aren't really necessary to an adequate user experience... I guess it's up to the individual.

Used properly, Spotlight and Widgets can be significant productivity aids, all told.

MacsRgr8
Apr 18, 2006, 03:02 AM
Although I love BootCamp, maybe we will see built in windows virtualization for those who need less graphic-intense programs (not games), and don't want to deal with partitioning and rebooting every time they need to use windows.

I hope Leopard will give both options.
Virtualization for quick 'n easy usage of Windows apps, and
Boot Camp for full speed Windows gaming.

Someone think a "red box" could be implemented?

blimundus
Apr 18, 2006, 03:23 AM
What about a new version of bootcamp that supports linux? Is that a possibility?

Gaspode
Apr 18, 2006, 03:27 AM
I know that's not exactly a feature, but I've been absolutely HATING Quicken for OS X forever

Have a look at MoneyDance - it's a java finance application that's cross platform - Mac, Windows, Linux.

It may do what you need.

ErikGrim
Apr 18, 2006, 03:28 AM
maybe safari 3.0 will feature draggable tabs, and easy keyboard navigation for tabs, like Adium has. I'm so used to that UI that when I go into safari I start using the same key commands. it's a real problem. I don't know what I'm going to do. :(Install SAFT (www.pimpmysafari.com)?

bdkennedy1
Apr 18, 2006, 03:30 AM
Ummmm remember that Apple is dropping the word "Power" from their computers. The new PowerMac's will be called MacMac's.

ErikGrim
Apr 18, 2006, 03:33 AM
What about a new version of bootcamp that supports linux? Is that a possibility?It sort of works already (http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Triple_Boot_via_BootCamp).

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 03:38 AM
Install SAFT (www.pimpmysafari.com)?

Haha totally forgot about saft. I installed it, and quickly got fed up with the nags. couldn't pay for a license. Also Saft seems kind of rough around the edges. lots of power, sure. couldn't justify paying extra $$$ for it though. Thanks for pointing that out.

sunfast
Apr 18, 2006, 03:49 AM
I'll be very interested to see what Leopard has to offer - and even more interested to know when it's coming out because that is when I buy a new Mac! :)

wedge antilies
Apr 18, 2006, 03:49 AM
Ummmm remember that Apple is dropping the word "Power" from their computers. The new PowerMac's will be called MacMac's.

With "PowerBook" changing to "MacBook" they weren't so much dropping "Power" as adding "Mac". It's marketing 101 - Brand re-enforcement.

Therefore, Apple may leave the "PowerMac" as the "PowerMac".

However, I believe that Apple will call it the "MacPro" or "MacintoshPro" (not likely) to align itself with other "pro" hardware (MacBookPro) and software (Final Cut, etc.) and seperate it from consumer hardware (iMac) and software (iLife etc).

- Red 2.

blimundus
Apr 18, 2006, 04:12 AM
It sort of works already (http://wiki.onmac.net/index.php/Triple_Boot_via_BootCamp).

Doesn't look very easy and, more importantly, I'm not going to buy windows in order to use linux. Oh, and it's not very urgent, since I don't have a Mac.

fartheststar
Apr 18, 2006, 04:25 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

For the price, I think my upgrade from 10.2 - 10.4 was well worth it.

On another note, I don't want Microsoft to "steal" great ideas from Leopard at WWDC and then just "pop them in" to Vista last minute. Mind you, it's microsoft, they have never "gotten it right" so oh well. My father in law is always amazed with the new Windows OS when my brother in law and I say "yeah, we've been doing... xxx ... for a while on the mac already". :D

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 18, 2006, 04:35 AM
Doesn't look very easy and, more importantly, I'm not going to buy windows in order to use linux. Oh, and it's not very urgent, since I don't have a Mac.
I don't think you need Windows to install Linux(I can't imagine why would you). After the partitioning, just skip the Windows part and continue from:
Insert the Linux live cd, and restart. When you hear the chime, hold down the c button to boot into linux.
I must say I haven't tried this so I may be wrong, but I'd be extremely surprised if I am. And BTW, "installing Linux" and "easy" should not be used in the same sentence (sorry, but it's in the constitution :p )

cal6n
Apr 18, 2006, 04:45 AM
snip... BTW installing Linux and easy should not be used in the same sentence (sorry, but it's in the constitution :p )

Actually, installing Linux is easy....


....but only on the 7th or 8th attempt!

:D

BornAgainMac
Apr 18, 2006, 04:47 AM
This will force Microsoft to come up with a immediate release after Vista to include the new features. Within 4 years, the next update to Vista will include some of the new Leopard features. :p

MacsRgr8
Apr 18, 2006, 04:52 AM
This will force Microsoft to come up with a immediate release after Vista to include the new features. Within 4 years, the next update to Vista will include some of the new Leopard features. :p

Yep, with the ability to boot Mac OS X on a PC!! (best.feature.ever.for.Windows.) :D

CellarDoor
Apr 18, 2006, 04:53 AM
Yep, with the ability to boot Mac OS X on a PC!! (best.feature.ever.for.Windows.) :D
Boy if that isn't the ultimate solution for windows.

ppc_michael
Apr 18, 2006, 05:08 AM
I don't think we'll see BootCamp integrated to run XP in OS X just yet. Remember, BootCamp is currently in beta, not alpha. Beta stage usually indicates that major development is basically completed, it just has some bugs that need to be worked out.

Marvy
Apr 18, 2006, 05:14 AM
Here's hoping for a resolution independant UI, which I think is a must, since OS X is really trailing behind here.

And my biggest dream-come-true would be an X11-style graphical login mechanism for Aqua/Quartz... a man can dream, a man can dream

Stella
Apr 18, 2006, 05:33 AM
We already knew 10.5 was to be previewed at WWDC..

.. and I doubt it will be released at that point - still 6 months to go.

Stella
Apr 18, 2006, 05:37 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

So... you think Apple should spend billions on creating new OSes and give it away!???!!

There were vast amounts of differences between 10.2 and 10.4.. many things were 'under the hood' that uses would not see - Core Images, Core Data, Core Graphics, upgraded kernel etc, not to mention improved stability, performance, XCode and other visible features.

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 18, 2006, 05:56 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?
Every time this argument comes up an angel looses her wings and a kitten dies. :eek:
Seriously though, many people don't find the need to upgrade every single time there is a new version of Mac OS X and that is perfectly normal. A few of my Mac using friends actually "upgrade" their OS only when they buy a new computer and they are doing fine. In short you can use only odd or only even versions with no trouble and, considering that the gap between the release of Jaguar and the release of Tiger was about two and a half years and the gap between Panther and Leopard will most likely be more than three years, $130 doesn't look that steep.

The problem is that usually people do want the functionality, but don't want to pay for it because, um... well, beacuse they don't want to. And on what grounds is this I have absolutely no idea.

Ender at Eros
Apr 18, 2006, 06:13 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?
I think knackroller is just jeleous he can't afford every upgrade. XD

bigandy
Apr 18, 2006, 06:19 AM
maybe safari 3.0 will feature draggable tabs, and easy keyboard navigation for tabs, like Adium has. I'm so used to that UI that when I go into safari I start using the same key commands. it's a real problem. I don't know what I'm going to do. :(

tab navigation by keyboard is easy. i use it all the time.

Kelmon
Apr 18, 2006, 06:19 AM
I hate to be pessimistic here but it's interesting to see many people declaring the new features for Leopard and that it's going to be great whereas in reality almost nothing is known about this release. Given this I'm withholding all judgement on this release until after the demonstrations and a feature list so that I can evaluate how this is going to help me get my work done.

On a side note, Tiger delivered a reasonable amount of new and useful features but came at the price (for me) of a slower system and more frequent screw-ups. I'm going to be buying a MacBook Pro later this year and therefore my wife will inherit my PowerBook that I will rebuild for her. As part of this rebuild I may put Panther back on again rather than Tiger since she's unlikely to have much need for the new features in Tiger and she may appreciate more the speed and reliability it delivered.

DCBass
Apr 18, 2006, 06:22 AM
Ummmm remember that Apple is dropping the word "Power" from their computers. The new PowerMac's will be called MacMac's.


Do you think? I bet the new powermacs will be called MacMacPro's.

Personally, I think it's really catchy. New owners will brag about their MacMacProooooooo'sssssssssss.... and all of you people here chomping at the bit to get one will be dreaming

"MacMac... MacMac... MacMacProoooo..... zzzzzzzzzz.........."

Oh, and no one will think that the name sucks this time.

Lurch_Mojoff
Apr 18, 2006, 06:24 AM
Yeah I'm super excited. I think the one thing that I would never be able to get over, and would completely surprise me, would have to be resolution independent UI. it's gotta happen sooner or later. man would that freak me out.:eek:
Well, I guess I'm getting too old for such excitement, but I would not be the least surprised (or sarcastic, I'm not quite sure if you're being serious here) to see resolution independent UI. The reason? There is such feature already in Tiger (kind of... sort of... maybe... probably you can call it that way... head... spinning... need... beer...):D . It is surely not a complete subsystem. Heck, I'm not even sure if it is an early stage in the development of such subsystem at all or it is just a quick hack to make Quartz emulate future functionality. It is definitely not intended to be used in any way by the end user - it is there strictly for developers for test purposes. But it is right there in Quartz Debug (part of the developer tools). However, when Apple exposes something (API, subsystem, etc.) to developers, it is almost certain to appear as a standard feature in the next release.

edit: on second reading I had to correct a small brainfart :o

aegisdesign
Apr 18, 2006, 06:29 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

And Spotlight, Expose, Safari 2.0, FontBook, iChatAV, working sync services... and lot's of speed increases.

If you don't use them though, don't upgrade.

It's not as if there's much visual or feature difference between Windows 95 and Windows 2000 either is there? And that costs a lot more than $129. Arguably, on the face of it, there's a lot less difference between Windows 95 and WindowsXP beyond the Fisher Price graphics than OSX 10.1 and 10.4.

gkhaldi
Apr 18, 2006, 06:31 AM
I'm all for the revamped finder and faster spotlight...but what is the random new feature that suddenly we all will "have to have"?

A Calendar function that integrates with Exchange and is compatible with OS X 10.5.x

Maxiseller
Apr 18, 2006, 06:38 AM
I'd love an updated GUI.

I remember the days being a WinXP user and staring at the Mac GUI in awe at how something so simple could look so beautiful. That was in the days of 10.2.

Now, the term "aqua" really doesn't bear any significance to the OS at all - we have three coloured blobs and the blue sidebar that remains...everything else is metal/plastic/random!

Tidy it up!!

Photorun
Apr 18, 2006, 07:00 AM
Yep, with the ability to boot Mac OS X on a PC!! (best.feature.ever.for.Windows.) :D

Best.undercut.ever.ruining.hardware.sales.ruining.Apple.

May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee! If you like peecees so much there's this crappy OS that works good (well, good for someone who likes peecees) called Windows. Too cheap to buy a Mac? Too bad.

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 07:01 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

If you don't think it's worth it, just don't upgrade. Keep using the old version. And if you want to go from 10.1 to 10.5, just don't buy the upgrades in between. OSX upgrades don't actually require any previous version of OSX, so skip as many as you want.

So I guess it looks like 10.5 will ship almost exactly the same time as Vista? Late 2006/early 2007? It will be weird having the OS release so close to the iLife/iWork releases, I'm sure there will be complaining about so many paid upgrades so close together. A discounted bundle of all three would be nice.

jonharris200
Apr 18, 2006, 07:04 AM
Ummmm remember that Apple is dropping the word "Power" from their computers. The new PowerMac's will be called MacMac's.
MacMacs... kinda cute, but probably more 'Kid' than 'Pro'. :)

Reminds me somehow of the April Fools rumour that the next version of OS X was actually gonna to be called Felix. :D

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 07:13 AM
What about a new version of bootcamp that supports linux? Is that a possibility?

I think people have done it already. It's not a big deal, you just need to find linux drivers.

With "PowerBook" changing to "MacBook" they weren't so much dropping "Power" as adding "Mac". It's marketing 101 - Brand re-enforcement.

Therefore, Apple may leave the "PowerMac" as the "PowerMac".

However, I believe that Apple will call it the "MacPro" or "MacintoshPro" (not likely) to align itself with other "pro" hardware (MacBookPro) and software (Final Cut, etc.) and seperate it from consumer hardware (iMac) and software (iLife etc).

Jobs said himself, "we're done with Power". Mac Pro it is.

On a side note, Tiger delivered a reasonable amount of new and useful features but came at the price (for me) of a slower system and more frequent screw-ups. I'm going to be buying a MacBook Pro later this year and therefore my wife will inherit my PowerBook that I will rebuild for her. As part of this rebuild I may put Panther back on again rather than Tiger since she's unlikely to have much need for the new features in Tiger and she may appreciate more the speed and reliability it delivered.

Wow, Tiger was slower for you? For me, every new release of OSX has been snappier, that's the case for most people since they continue to optimize the code. If it's slower, there's probably something wrong with your install, I'd try installing again. Honestly, I think the oldest, slowest machines are the ones that benefit the most from the new versions of OSX. I wish I could easily put tiger on my beige g3.

I do agree that I have yet to see a list of features that get me excited, at this point I assume the biggest benefit of 10.5 will be stuff under the hood.

AidenShaw
Apr 18, 2006, 07:24 AM
Nobody at Apple has said much about "64-bit" since last June, for some reason ;) .

WWDC would be a good time for Apple to say

- 10.5 x64 will be true 64-bit for the new Merom/ Conroe/ Woodcrest chips

- all APIs will be 64-bits, so you won't have to re-architect your application to use the extra memory and speed of x64

- existing 32-bit applications will be fully supported (except for drivers and kernel extensions)

- 32-bit and 64-bit applications can run together

- there's no need to port your app to 64-bit, unless you want the extra speed of x64 or unless you need more than 4 GiB of RAM per application
_____________________________________

But of course, that sounds just like the feature set of Windows XP x64 Edition - and Apple wouldn't be caught copying Windows, would they? :eek:

adamfilip
Apr 18, 2006, 07:28 AM
My Leopard Predictions:

-New Finder (YAY!)
-totally resolution independant UI (vector everything thats possible)
-built in virtualization for windows, linux.. etc.
-Front Row with Tuner ability (if hardware exists)
-ability to use PC based Video cards (with no flashing)
-Bootcamp intergrated
-revised Dock with 3d desktop
-improved and working Windows printing support!
-full 64bit support
-Safari 3.0
-ilife '07
- Spotlight 2.0 - much faster and can identify photos by content (limited ability)
- New Backup Utility

kretzy
Apr 18, 2006, 07:30 AM
I'll be very, very surprised if it has inbuilt Windows virtualisation. I just don't see Apple wanting to make it easy for people to use Windows. Boot Camp involves effort, and because of this it will keep people using OS X most of the time which is what they want.

JFreak
Apr 18, 2006, 07:31 AM
May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee!

Never? Like in "Apple will never use Intel processors" or "Apple will never sell multi-button mice"?

MacsRgr8
Apr 18, 2006, 07:31 AM
Best.undercut.ever.ruining.hardware.sales.ruining.Apple.

May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee! If you like peecees so much there's this crappy OS that works good (well, good for someone who likes peecees) called Windows. Too cheap to buy a Mac? Too bad.

That smiley tried to indicate sarcasm.... :p

I have had a couple of builds of 10.4.x on my NEC PeeCee just before it died, and you bet ya it was horrid. It was fun getting it running, but I would never want to use it as my main computer...

Got a Quad for that. ;)

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 07:32 AM
If apple's going to update the OS for 64 bit, I wonder if they could take a couple minutes and update apps like Logic to notice that the Quad actually has two more processors. It's only been what, six months?

I'd also love to see them enable their pro apps to be able to see more than 4 gigs of ram (even on the PPC macs), but that's probably total fantasy world.

Never? Like in "Apple will never use Intel processors" or "Apple will never sell multi-button mice"?

That's actually one that I think WILL be a never. You really think they'd be willing to kiss most of their hardware sales goodby?

JFreak
Apr 18, 2006, 07:37 AM
Leopard will be released in late 2006/early 2007, and iLife '07 will be released in the beginning of 2007.

Leopard will _NOT_ be released in 2006, that's a given. Steve most likely wants to take as much as possible away from the Vista hype Microsoft is trying to generate; so Leopard _WILL_ be released shortly after Vista, if it's not to be once again delayed -- therefore early 2007 is pretty good estimate.

--> Leopard will include iLife'07 versions of downloadable iApps (iWeb and iPhoto, perhaps even iMovie).

generik
Apr 18, 2006, 07:37 AM
Best.undercut.ever.ruining.hardware.sales.ruining.Apple.

May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee! If you like peecees so much there's this crappy OS that works good (well, good for someone who likes peecees) called Windows. Too cheap to buy a Mac? Too bad.

Need validation for your existence? Too bad!

Anyway Macs are low quality hardware and overpriced, I wouldn't mind paying $500 if MacOS for PCs are ever released, and I am sure quite some will do so too, however at that kind of "predatory" pricing it is not going to get very far in the marketplace.

All I want is to run MacOS on top quality PC hardware.

Symtex
Apr 18, 2006, 07:38 AM
First we had Intel chipset, then we got bootcamp, Do you think apple with ship their new PowerMacPro with Windows Vista/Mac OS pre install ?it's next logical step. Eventually Apple might only become an hardware company like Dell. I hope not.

MacsRgr8
Apr 18, 2006, 07:39 AM
If apple's going to update the OS for 64 bit, I wonder if they could take a couple minutes and update apps like Logic to notice that the Quad actually has two more processors. It's only been what, six months?

I'd also love to see them enable their pro apps to be able to see more than 4 gigs of ram (even on the PPC macs), but that's probably total fantasy world.

Most apps only use one or two CPU's.
But allowing more apps use more than one CPU is quite cool.... ;)

Too bad games hardly ever use more than one CPU :(

Analog Kid
Apr 18, 2006, 07:50 AM
I'm surprised by how few rumors we've had about what's in 10.5. The biggest question I'll have is stability-- did they rush it to beat Vista?

It would be great to see Apple really drive home the security issue here, given that Vista will probably go down within days. Better Spotlight integration would be nice too. I'm probably the only one who thinks it's a bit slow, but I don't think I'm the only one who thinks it's hiding most of its power.

Finder could use some work too. I'm happy with it in general, but there's just a little inconsistency-- particularly in the sidebar. Better Spotlight integration here would be nice too.

Better speech interface would be nice-- I've always wanted to use Speakable Items, but get tired of it not recognizing my commands and a little nervous that it's going to do something stupid so I turn it back off.

There's just not much more that I need in OS X-- Tiger would keep me happy for quite a while, I think. I'm curious to see where it goes. I guess I'd be happiest to see more business features-- I'm not sure what those would be though. Something to grease the skids on getting better corporate market share...

kalisphoenix
Apr 18, 2006, 07:57 AM
I'm hoping for:

New Finder -> Apple just decides to use Path Finder and validate that chap's time and effort, perhaps with a lot more options to simply browsing for those who don't need the options.

Boot Camp incorporated into the OS at a basic level -> Pretty much a gimme, I think.

Xen integration to allow for fast switching between full-screen, fully-accelerated operating systems.

Integrated Deep Freeze 8) -> Okay, maybe this is just something that only I, a computer obsessive-compulsive, could really get thrilled by. But I get severely disturbed by cruft. And you can't kill it all! Not all of it! There are little bits of cruft all over your computer... slowing performance... taking up disk space... why, they may even be talking to your children. Das ist auch dein Geld! And so on. Anyway, it'd be pimp to install OS X on my computer, have all of my stuff on a Firewire/USB2 hard drive, and if the computer is reset, it just goes back to where it was -- chillin' with all of my essential applications and a more-or-less clean slate. Fantastic. Appliance.

Symtex
Apr 18, 2006, 07:59 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again : If Apple wants any chances to gain market shares, they need improve gaming performance under MacOS X. It's the onlly reason why apple is still being consider as a niche market.

I love MacOs X. I think it's the best operating system ever. It is stable and comes with all the application you need for a home users but it lacks something : Good gaming performance. It's the only thing missing. The OpenGl subsystem under the MacOs X is suffering from low framerate. The reason why PC are so popular it's because of games.

Sunrunner
Apr 18, 2006, 08:03 AM
I don't think we'll see BootCamp integrated to run XP in OS X just yet. Remember, BootCamp is currently in beta, not alpha. Beta stage usually indicates that major development is basically completed, it just has some bugs that need to be worked out.


Bootcamp is the interim solution for users who dont have 10.5 (so everybody atm). I expect similar functionality in 10.5, but a different implementation. Virtualization is almost a given at this point.

Sunrunner
Apr 18, 2006, 08:09 AM
My Leopard Predictions:

-New Finder (YAY!)
-totally resolution independant UI (vector everything thats possible)
-built in virtualization for windows, linux.. etc.
-Front Row with Tuner ability (if hardware exists)
-ability to use PC based Video cards (with no flashing)
-Bootcamp intergrated
-revised Dock with 3d desktop
-improved and working Windows printing support!
-full 64bit support
-Safari 3.0
-ilife '07
- Spotlight 2.0 - much faster and can identify photos by content (limited ability)
- New Backup Utility


I bet we will get at least 80% of the items on your list. I think the technologies are ripe for those items to be feasible.

Spinnetti
Apr 18, 2006, 08:17 AM
I'd be happy if Apple simply tests more thoroughly this time, and makes the UI consistent. There are so many little misses in the current stuff, it detracts from the experience.

That being said, the only thing I'm dreaming of is iPhoto that doesn't crash, spotlight that works without returning nothing or bizzare results and something to replace the dreadful finder.

amac4me
Apr 18, 2006, 08:18 AM
I am eagerly waiting for the Leopard preview.

I'd like to see it out by the end of 2006, can anyone say Vista delay?

AidenShaw
Apr 18, 2006, 08:20 AM
I'd also love to see them enable their pro apps to be able to see more than 4 gigs of ram (even on the PPC macs), but that's probably total fantasy world.
This is what true 64-bit would make much easier - recompile the app (click the button for "even fatter binary") and the 4 GiB per app limit just disappears. (Programming errors and shortcuts will probably add from a little to a lot of extra work, though.)

But, it's safe to say that Apple will *never* do true 64-bit for PowerPC. Not only would it take a lot of effort, but it would be an excuse not to buy a new Intel 64-bit system!

janstett
Apr 18, 2006, 08:24 AM
Best.undercut.ever.ruining.hardware.sales.ruining.Apple.

May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee! If you like peecees so much there's this crappy OS that works good (well, good for someone who likes peecees) called Windows. Too cheap to buy a Mac? Too bad.

What if you want hardware that's better than Apple's? For example, I can get a 2.7 pound dual-core Thinkpad that weighs HALF of the 12" Powerbook and run OSX. That would be pretty sweet. What if I have screaming AMD 64 x2 desktop and want to run OSX on the best desktop hardware that's out there?

BTW I"m already running OSX on a Gateway.

interlard
Apr 18, 2006, 08:31 AM
I'm not so interested in "new features" as improvements to what we have. Especially regarding the kernel.

I've read a lot of materian on the net, criticizing the kernel in Mac OS X. Some of it from Apple. It seems there's a lot they could do to speed it up, and they're working on it.

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 08:34 AM
Most apps only use one or two CPU's.
But allowing more apps use more than one CPU is quite cool.... ;)

Too bad games hardly ever use more than one CPU :(

Logic is one that uses two, I assume most pro apps use two or four. Apple REALLY needs to get them all to use all four processors fully, without that it's kind of a joke that they're selling quad machines.

I think most games do use two cpus, it just doesn't make as much of a difference as other apps.

Another great feature would be putting distributed processing into other apps, or even creating a generic way for ANY app to be distributed. Just see remote machines as additional processors for things like rendering.

But, it's safe to say that Apple will *never* do true 64-bit for PowerPC. Not only would it take a lot of effort, but it would be an excuse not to buy a new Intel 64-bit system!

You're probably right. I wonder if they'll come up with a hack to allow apps like Logic more memory access on PPC?

What if you want hardware that's better than Apple's? For example, I can get a 2.7 pound dual-core Thinkpad that weighs HALF of the 12" Powerbook and run OSX. That would be pretty sweet. What if I have screaming AMD 64 x2 desktop and want to run OSX on the best desktop hardware that's out there?

Too bad. What if I want to run Xbox 360 games on my N64? What if I want a pony?

Bosunsfate
Apr 18, 2006, 08:47 AM
...a Quicken-killer! I know that's not exactly a feature, but I've been absolutely HATING Quicken for OS X forever, and today installed Quicken 2006 Premier on my Windows XP machine at work, and WOW - what a difference.. UI is vastly superior, way more features, etc. It made me actually think about running Quicken in XP under Parallels Workstation for OS X. But I want a "native" OS X app.

That's my $0.02 :mad: :mad: :mad:

Given that Steve Job sits on the board of Inuit....I don't see a Quicken killer....beside, virtualization in the OS will replace the OS X version of Quicken for the Windows version......not exactly what I'd like but the Windows version does have more features.....

Which is my two bits.....Boot camp yea....the killer app.....OS virtualization, not just dual boot.

MacBoobsPro
Apr 18, 2006, 08:49 AM
[QUOTE=Stridder44

My hopes are that they make it alittle more user friendly for people that have never used a Mac before (say an "OS X Tour" app, or some kind of pop-up help thing...I think there was something like that in OS 9?)[/QUOTE]

Whoa, you must be a recent switcher? You cant get much more user friendly than OSX and there is a Help section in the 'toolbar' at the top of the screen in almost every application made for OSX. Or you could just hover over stuff to get a help bubble to appear. :rolleyes:

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 08:52 AM
I've said it before and I will say it again : If Apple wants any chances to gain market shares, they need improve gaming performance under MacOS X. It's the onlly reason why apple is still being consider as a niche market.

I love MacOs X. I think it's the best operating system ever. It is stable and comes with all the application you need for a home users but it lacks something : Good gaming performance. It's the only thing missing. The OpenGl subsystem under the MacOs X is suffering from low framerate. The reason why PC are so popular it's because of games.


PC Gaming is a niche market. The only way for Macs to get into that niche is BootCamp. All the time Macs are a niche of a niche there will be more games for Windows than Mac. This won't change until after Mac's market share is bigger than Windows (most likely never gonna happen).

Whistleway
Apr 18, 2006, 08:53 AM
Leopard will _NOT_ be released in 2006, that's a given. Steve most likely wants to take as much as possible away from the Vista hype Microsoft is trying to generate; so Leopard _WILL_ be released shortly after Vista, if it's not to be once again delayed -- therefore early 2007 is pretty good estimate.

If Steve is brave enough to be on the bad side of MS, they should release it the day the vista ships, ~ Jan 07 not later than Vista. That way, they can show off that how much they are advanced than the newer shiner Vista ;)

Project
Apr 18, 2006, 08:56 AM
That ThinkPad doesnt have an optical drive built in, hence the lightness.

Twenty1
Apr 18, 2006, 09:06 AM
I guess I'm jumping on the virtualization bandwagon... Virtualization would be the best new feature of 10.5 and would offer the best of both OS worlds for most users. Sure virtualization wouldn't be as fast, but that technology would further reinforce to "switchers" (not to mention business customers) that Apple is a viable alternative to windows.

I would also expect Apple to really push innovation in 10.5. Whether fair or not, Vista is going to garner a significant amount of publicity and mindshare in early 2007. We all know 10.5 (and 10.4) are more advanced than Vista, but there really needs to be a "wow" factor for 10.5 that draws attention away from Vista - I think virtualization would accomplish this.

Also - why hasn't anyone mentioned new 10.5 widgets!!!!! They're so cool!!! (sarcasm) :o

supremedesigner
Apr 18, 2006, 09:12 AM
No, no Chess 3.0

Nah, Sherlock 7.3.6 :p :rolleyes:

cybermiguel
Apr 18, 2006, 09:14 AM
Best.undercut.ever.ruining.hardware.sales.ruining.Apple.

May OS X never be allowed to be a native option on FUGLY peecee! If you like peecees so much there's this crappy OS that works good (well, good for someone who likes peecees) called Windows. Too cheap to buy a Mac? Too bad.

Umm... ¬¬ :mad: I think we have a troll here.

That said, I think that some of you guys have never built a computer for yourself and have never had the pleasure of choosing each and every device on your PC.

Did you know that Asus is a great motherboard manufacturer, but not the best???

Yes, that's right, and guess what motherboards use the Apple Macs....yes, Asustek mainboards.

For what I have acknowledged, the best motherboard manufacturers in the world are DFI, Abit and Epox. Those motherboards have so many features that can blow away every Powermac mainboard.

If you build yourself a top-notch computer, you will see that you could spend about the same money that if you would have bought a PowerMac. The difference is that your compuer will be much faster than a Powermac (sometimes, as twice as fast).

Having said that...wouldn't it be nice to have the best hardware (and when I mean the best, I mean considering Apple's hardware as good, not the best) with the best OS in the world?

I hope maxxuss (the guy that cracks the OS X kernel to work on every PC) keeps doing his great work. I've seen machines that kicks the Intel iMac ass in performance, running OS X beautifully.

Now, about virtualization...I think you guys are missing the point. Sure virtualization is good and it has it's advantages, but it's not enogh for serious business.

Have you ever listened about darwine? It's a serious effort to get Windows apps running NATIVELY on OS X. Sure they look ugly, but the project it's in an early development stage.

http://darwine.opendarwin.org/

Leopard will be a killer OS if it has some sort of wine implementation in it. You wouldn't have to buy windows to run your windows apps, you wouldn't have to wait for the guest os to load to get your apps working, you wouldn't have to have all the hastle to get your files from the windows image to the Mac OS hard drive...and the best of all is tha teven if you download a malware, IT WON'T INFECT YOUR SYSTEM, because you are running a Unix system and there is no possible way that a malware can affect the system, because the structure is completely different than Windows.

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 09:25 AM
I hope maxxuss (the guy that cracks the OS X kernel to work on every PC) keeps doing his great work. I've seen machines that kicks the Intel iMac ass in performance, running OS X beautifully.

You can't really compare an iMac to a tower. Apple has yet to release intel towers, when they do you can make that comparison.

So can you build your own all-in-one that beats the iMac?

MacsRgr8
Apr 18, 2006, 09:26 AM
I think most games do use two cpus, it just doesn't make as much of a difference as other apps.

Another great feature would be putting distributed processing into other apps, or even creating a generic way for ANY app to be distributed. Just see remote machines as additional processors for things like rendering.


Most games do not use more than one CPU, I'm afraid.
You can get the MOH series to use two, but the only other game I know of that uses SMP is Nascar 2003. UT 2004 uses sound on the 2nd CPU, but games like Doom 3 (which would really benefit of SMP) COD, X-Plane don't.

A generic way for ANY app to be distributed using Apple's Xgrid technology would be awesome!!! Imagine using FCP, and letting an idle Dual G4 somewhere on the subnet "help" render...! :cool:

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 09:33 AM
Umm... ¬¬ :mad: I think we have a troll here.

That said, I think that some of you guys have never built a computer for yourself and have never had the pleasure of choosing each and every device on your PC.

Did you know that Asus is a great motherboard manufacturer, but not the best???

Yes, that's right, and guess what motherboards use the Apple Macs....yes, Asustek mainboards.

For what I have acknowledged, the best motherboard manufacturers in the world are DFI, Abit and Epox. Those motherboards have so many features that can blow away every Powermac mainboard.

If you build yourself a top-notch computer, you will see that you could spend about the same money that if you would have bought a PowerMac. The difference is that your compuer will be much faster than a Powermac (sometimes, as twice as fast).

Having said that...wouldn't it be nice to have the best hardware (and when I mean the best, I mean considering Apple's hardware as good, not the best) with the best OS in the world?

I hope maxxuss (the guy that cracks the OS X kernel to work on every PC) keeps doing his great work. I've seen machines that kicks the Intel iMac ass in performance, running OS X beautifully.

Although I can't fault your logic (although I'd question exactly how much better a DFI would be compared to an Asus-manufactured board - for example, Dell don't offer a choice of mobo), I must point out the harsh reality:

If Apple do not sell hardware, they have no money to invest in improving OS X (plus all their other frankly top-class software).

Even if they sold OS X for non-Apple machines, the profit would be nothing compared to that gained from the hardware sales.

To quote the excellent DaringFireball weblog, who has seriously nailed this subject:


So, let’s say today Apple makes $500 in profit on a $2,500 MacBook Pro. Tomorrow, in Boutin’s and Cringely hypothetical world where Apple sells $130 copies of Mac OS X for any PC, they might make about $100 in profit when someone buys a Sony Vaio and a copy of Mac OS X.

Cringely’s statement that “getting even 1 percent of PC users to switch to OS X would be a huge new business for Apple” ignores the fact that it might also completely sabotage Apple’s existing and very profitable business of selling Macintosh computers. Cringely seems to be making the assumption that everyone who’s currently using Apple hardware would keep buying Apple hardware, and that these retail copies of Mac OS X that run on generic PCs would be sold only to new customers.

Read the full article here (http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas).

Apple makes money selling computers. Period. Without those sales, there will be no OS X development.

cybermiguel
Apr 18, 2006, 09:48 AM
DFI, for example, offers overclocking options, as well as temperature warnings and dual-bios in case that you want to go back to your "safe" settings. Also they have a good cooling system and better integrated components (among other more technical stuff).

:confused: Seems like nobody read what I said about darwine....:sigh: ....It would be a GREAT feature.

Stella
Apr 18, 2006, 09:50 AM
I'd be happy if Apple simply tests more thoroughly this time, and makes the UI consistent. There are so many little misses in the current stuff, it detracts from the experience

DAMN RIGHT!!! Plastic, Metal themes, different icon sets ( i.e., Mail ).

Apple -> pick one and be consistent.

Consistency makes a GUI better than the average.

CubaTBird
Apr 18, 2006, 09:58 AM
so final release comes out around the same time tiger did? cept' now it'll be april of 06'?:confused:

bryanc
Apr 18, 2006, 10:01 AM
Darwine will be irrelevant with full Vanderpool virtualization running 2D apps at native speed, and boot-camp for running games.

What I expect Leopard to do is:
- FTFF (incluing spotlight integration)
- bring in a new kernel for better performance (esp. in servers)
- resolution independent UI
- Virtualization of any/all x86 OSes, making macs the only machines that can rull *all* the software you want
- 64 bit throuout
- significant advances in Front Row, including DVR
- significant advances in voice recognition and speech synthesis
- something no one has thought of, and which we never knew we needed.

Cheers

AidenShaw
Apr 18, 2006, 10:01 AM
You're probably right. I wonder if they'll come up with a hack to allow apps like Logic more memory access on PPC?

See http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

Unfortunately, you have to re-architect your application into a 64-bit compute process that's separate from the 32-bit process that does the GUI and other system calls in Cocoa and Carbon.

mox358
Apr 18, 2006, 10:10 AM
so final release comes out around the same time tiger did? cept' now it'll be april of 06'?:confused:

You mean 07' ?

Peace
Apr 18, 2006, 10:21 AM
Leopards leaping..

About 2 months ago Microsoft gave Apple it's Frameworks to work with.;)

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
That said, I think that some of you guys have never built a computer for yourself and have never had the pleasure of choosing each and every device on your PC.

Yes, its nice, I built all my PCs before I converted to Mac. However I have to say that the pleasure of building a quality PC is far outweighed by the pleasure of using a computer that actually works flawlessly. I've had a Mac now for almost 3 years, and that same Mac (a 12" PB) still works flawlessly, has never needed a driver install or an OS re-install. It just works. This is the difference.

For what I have acknowledged, the best motherboard manufacturers in the world are DFI, Abit and Epox. Those motherboards have so many features that can blow away every Powermac mainboard.

Features that are considered important to PC hardware geeks, but to normal computer users are unimportant.

If you build yourself a top-notch computer, you will see that you could spend about the same money that if you would have bought a PowerMac. The difference is that your compuer will be much faster than a Powermac (sometimes, as twice as fast).

This is true of course, Apple Hardware comes at a premium cost. This cost is for the overall experience however. If you're not willing to pay the premium cost, fair enough, you can build your own PC, but you just can't (legally) run Mac OS X on it.

I hope maxxuss (the guy that cracks the OS X kernel to work on every PC) keeps doing his great work. I've seen machines that kicks the Intel iMac ass in performance, running OS X beautifully.

Piracy, plain and simple.


Have you ever listened about darwine? It's a serious effort to get Windows apps running NATIVELY on OS X. Sure they look ugly, but the project it's in an early development stage.

[OS/2]

MacVault
Apr 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
Given that Steve Job sits on the board of Inuit....I don't see a Quicken killer....beside, virtualization in the OS will replace the OS X version of Quicken for the Windows version......not exactly what I'd like but the Windows version does have more features.....

Which is my two bits.....Boot camp yea....the killer app.....OS virtualization, not just dual boot.

Then why does Steve Jobs not push Intuit to make a sweet-ass program from OS X? I mean Quicken for OS X compared to it's Windows version just plain SUCKS! Period!

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 10:28 AM
What if you want hardware that's better than Apple's? For example, I can get a 2.7 pound dual-core Thinkpad that weighs HALF of the 12" Powerbook and run OSX. That would be pretty sweet. What if I have screaming AMD 64 x2 desktop and want to run OSX on the best desktop hardware that's out there?

BTW I"m already running OSX on a Gateway.

You mean a LENOVO with no optical bay. That wouldn't be pretty sweet, it would be pretty illegal.

You see, here's your second biggest fallacy - hardware means nothing if software doesn't work on it, and vice versa. Therefore, vertical alignment ensures the best compatibility. Your Gateway setup needs to be continually hacked - not my PB setup, because I paid for a real product.

That brings me to your first fallacy. You remind me of this punk that thought it was cool to just download OS X hacked and go ahead and use it on a PC. Well, not only is it not cool, it is totally illegal. You can't get away with that even if you also bought a copy in the store. Care to tell me you IP address? Want to be traced? You can bet your Gateway that Apple is working on smashing you thieves. Crying that you bought faster hardware won't justify theft for anybody but you, since your moral code is irrational. Have your fun while it lasts, and hey, maybe it'll last a long time for you! :eek: You are so cool, you'll need to keep stealing new versions of OS X! I bet you don't have kids. It's one thing to shame your parents (if they taught you not to steal) or to be a messed up kid (if no parent or adult has ever taught you not to steal). It's another thing to be an embarassment to your own kids. It was never about whether you'll be caught on fined or thrown in jail - it's about having no understanding of what it means for A) producers to sell products or B) competence and work meaning you deserve something legally and can pay for it. Essentially, you weren't even smart enough to crack OS X yourself, so you stole it. Notice that one is legal and the latter is not.

zerolight
Apr 18, 2006, 10:35 AM
I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.

Seems like a gimmick.

treblah
Apr 18, 2006, 10:35 AM
Leopards leaping..

About 2 months ago Microsoft gave Apple it's Frameworks to work with.;)

WTF?

Are you just talking about WPF/E?

Inquiring minds want to know! :)

I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.

Seems like a gimmick.

Think Mac mini connected to an HDTV, it is not a gimmick.

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 10:39 AM
I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.

Seems like a gimmick.
Its the wave of the future. Screen resolutions get higher and higher, and pixel sizes get smaller and smaller, but people's eysight isn't getting any better. Its about time our apps were "actual size" rather than depending on something as arbitrary as the size of a pixel.

The beauty of resolution independant UIs is if you need more real-estate you can simply change the screen DPI, and the windows will get smaller. You can already do this on Tiger, using the the Quartz Debug program, its buggy but it works.

Definitely coming for Leopard.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 10:42 AM
That said, I think that some of you guys have never built a computer for yourself and have never had the pleasure of choosing each and every device on your PC.

You see, that's probably not "some" of us, but most of us and almost all of the population of computer users. I grant that you may enjoy your hobby or whatever, but that's one hobby that's too expensive and bothersome and dull for me. Plus I'd have to run Linux or Windows on it.:(

Having said that...wouldn't it be nice to have the best hardware (and when I mean the best, I mean considering Apple's hardware as good, not the best) with the best OS in the world?

Yes. Yes, it would.

I hope maxxuss (the guy that cracks the OS X kernel to work on every PC) keeps doing his great work. I've seen machines that kicks the Intel iMac ass in performance, running OS X beautifully.

You mean illegally. Have you no understanding of what it means to hack and then redistribute? It's probably fine for a hacker to hack for his own use, but to distribute hacked copies is nothing more than plagiarism and theft. You think theft is beautiful? You're in for a surprise. If "maxxuss" doesn't watch it, he WON'T be able to do his "great work."



Have you ever listened about darwine? It's a serious effort to get Windows apps running NATIVELY on OS X. Sure they look ugly, but the project it's in an early development stage.

On to a different note. Darwine has been in early development for a long time. With the transition to Intel, they abandoned PPC (rightly). With dual boot, they'll be less motivated. If Apple gains market share or if Windows is virtualized at native speeds, they'll likely abandon the project altogether. It's just, they seem to be progressing too slowly for them to be of any value any time soon.

Leopard will be a killer OS if it has some sort of wine implementation in it. You wouldn't have to buy windows to run your windows apps, you wouldn't have to wait for the guest os to load to get your apps working, you wouldn't have to have all the hastle to get your files from the windows image to the Mac OS hard drive...and the best of all is tha teven if you download a malware, IT WON'T INFECT YOUR SYSTEM, because you are running a Unix system and there is no possible way that a malware can affect the system, because the structure is completely different than Windows.

The first part of what you said is OK...in fact, it sounds a lot like what would happen if developers started writing software for Macs. Question is which will happen, if either.

The second part is not exactly true. UNIX is great, but not a fix-all. As Apple gains market share, it will have to face the virus problem. Thankfully, they're smarter than the MS folks so they might be able to combat it far more effectively.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 10:53 AM
Yes, its nice, I built all my PCs before I converted to Mac. However I have to say that the pleasure of building a quality PC is far outweighed by the pleasure of using a computer that actually works flawlessly. I've had a Mac now for almost 3 years, and that same Mac (a 12" PB) still works flawlessly, has never needed a driver install or an OS re-install. It just works. This is the difference.

Features that are considered important to PC hardware geeks, but to normal computer users are unimportant.

This is true of course, Apple Hardware comes at a premium cost. This cost is for the overall experience however. If you're not willing to pay the premium cost, fair enough, you can build your own PC, but you just can't (legally) run Mac OS X on it.

Piracy, plain and simple.


[OS/2]

Finally, someone else against software plagiarism/theft/piracy! Why is that so rare?

2 things though. Part of the Apple "premium" is not premium at tall, but the cost of building the machines. Individual pc geeks can make scrap pcs, but they can't mass produce them. Hence the cost.

Second, you CAN (I think) hack OS X legally. You bought it, you should be able to use it on any machine that works, so long as it is for personal use and only on one machine per copy. There is a problem if the stuff that is actually preventing you from running it (any hardware detection stuff, etc) itself is copyrighted, but even then for private use it's probably OK. Can't imagine anyone going through so much trouble constantly as OS X moves along though. However, redistributing OS X means selling a plagiarized product with absolutely no authority to do so.

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 10:54 AM
DFI, for example, offers overclocking options, as well as temperature warnings and dual-bios in case that you want to go back to your "safe" settings. Also they have a good cooling system and better integrated components (among other more technical stuff).

:confused: Seems like nobody read what I said about darwine....:sigh: ....It would be a GREAT feature.

OK. As a closet PC 'ricer' as well as Mac user, I can see the appeal. Now, overclocking and other 'enthusiast' options only really make sense if the user has full control over the components (gimme those OCZ DIMMS with crazy activity LEDs on them and insane voltage tolerances!).

Which means one of two options for Apple:

- Massively diversify their product line. Offer dozens of different build-to-order options. This isn't really do-able. You lose some of the integration of a standardised platform. You also incredibly complicate your supply chain.

- Unlock their OS to run on any hardware. I really hope we're all agreed that this quite simply is not an option. It would mean the death of Apple and OS X. Apple is not Microsoft. The reason MS is profitable is not because they sell many copies of Windows. It's the massively expensive licenses for everything else -- SQL Server, IIS, Windows Server 2003, SQL client access licenses, IIS client access licenses, Windows Server client licenses, Office licenses, SharePoint Server and client access licenses. Do not underestimate the absolutely huge amounts of money every single medium to large size business bleeds out to Microsoft. Apple does not have that arrangement, and most likely never will. Why? Because that sort of business model is under attack. Why on earth should every business Windows client need a licence just to access their own files on a Windows fileserver? Seriously: when you enable 'Windows Sharing' in OS X's System Preferences, you're enabling something which every single Windows client in the business world has to pay for. Same goes for the FTP and Web Server features on OS X.

Hardware sales are Apple's lifeblood. They've tried licensing the OS before, and they nearly died. They've tried diversifying the product line (GAAH! *How* many Performas did the world need?), and it simply led to profit dilution and consumer confusion.

Apple's a minority player. But their business is profitable. OS X development is progressing nicely. Their hardware, whilst not suited to all, is nicely built, and attractive enough that they sell enough to make money and re-invest. That's pretty much all I ask.

MrCrowbar
Apr 18, 2006, 10:54 AM
Its the wave of the future. Screen resolutions get higher and higher, and pixel sizes get smaller and smaller, but people's eysight isn't getting any better. Its about time our apps were "actual size" rather than depending on something as arbitrary as the size of a pixel.

The beauty of resolution independant UIs is if you need more real-estate you can simply change the screen DPI, and the windows will get smaller. You can already do this on Tiger, using the the Quartz Debug program, its buggy but it works.

Definitely coming for Leopard.

I've been waiting for such a feature for some years now... "I want that window smaller" <resizing> "no, I mean smaller, the menu is painfully big and the icons take away half of the screen". OSX already has the technology to do this. There are some nice tech apps that rotate windows (balancing them out with the sudden motion sensor, fun stuff) or scale the whole thing with the mouse. And since everything is anti aliased in OSX and most of the icons are detailed enough to be scaled up a lot, this should work great. Text resizing in browsers is nice, but the pictures and banners stay the same. How nice would it be to resize those in the process?

A nice way to realize this would be 2 F-keys for adjusting the DPI (like volume ore brightness). Don't like to scroll in the logic mixer? scale it down. Don't want to take out your reading glasses (like Steve in the keynotes whenever he does a demo), scale it up. It would be like resizing your screen but the other way around.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 10:54 AM
Edit - sorry this post was screwed up somehow.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 10:56 AM
...would be for Leopard to move toward legal Windows apps running quickly (dual boot, virtualization, whatever) and containing both active and passive measures against software piracy. Especially active. Oh boy, would that put on a show or what? Lol.

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 11:03 AM
See http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/64bit/

Unfortunately, you have to re-architect your application into a 64-bit compute process that's separate from the 32-bit process that does the GUI and other system calls in Cocoa and Carbon.

You're right, I was already aware of that. I wonder if they'll actually use that hack in apps like Logic to allow use of more than 4 gigs.

Second, you CAN (I think) hack OS X legally. You bought it, you should be able to use it on any machine that works, so long as it is for personal use and only on one machine per copy. There is a problem if the stuff that is actually preventing you from running it (any hardware detection stuff, etc) itself is copyrighted, but even then for private use it's probably OK. Can't imagine anyone going through so much trouble constantly as OS X moves along though. However, redistributing OS X means selling a plagiarized product with absolutely no authority to do so.

That's not the case. The license agreement says you can only use it on Apple hardware.Even if you buy a copy, you're in violation if you install it on generic hardware.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 11:06 AM
I feel that Apple should not be charging us for all these "new" OSX. Honestly, comparing my wife's OSX 10.2 and my OSX 10.4, there isn't THAT much of a difference, mainly Dashboard, and Finder, which isn't really worth the price of two upgrades (10.3, 10.4). Maybe from 10.1 to 10.5 that might be worth the price of ONE upgrade. What do you people think?

Wait up. Can't you buy 10.4 if you have 10.1? That IS the price of one upgrade. In other words, wait till it's worth it for you - nobody's forcing you to upgrade every time.

From Apple's site:

Mac OS X Version 10.4 requires a Macintosh with:

PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
Built-in FireWire
At least 256MB of physical RAM
A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
DVD drive for installation (get CD media for $9.95)

For one thing I disagree with you - 10.3~10.4 saw many changes other than Dashboard and Spotlight. Another thing - they could wait until they make all those changes and then release it much later...but there is a demand to have innovation NOW, and demand means people are willing to pay for it. If you are not, like I said, nobody's forcing you. 10.5, however, will probably see huge new things, even bigger than 10.4 over 10.3, because they HAVE been waiting to collect new features and to kick Windows's butt. Hopefully they'll release it a week in advance to Windows Vista. Then, Microsoft has 2 options - 1, push back Vista another 3 years, or 2, disappoint everybody with yesteryear technology. The geeks and devs that attend those events are moderately aware of OS X...if they see the competition pull a stunt like that, they will be noticeably less excited to see a semi-transparent glass UI. Lol.

So my question is, why even preview Leopard? Why not just spring it on the world, working closely with devs behind the curtains?:confused:

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 11:06 AM
2 things though. Part of the Apple "premium" is not premium at tall, but the cost of building the machines. Individual pc geeks can make scrap pcs, but they can't mass produce them. Hence the cost.

I think your logic is backwards here. Economies of scale coupled with the fact that Apple doesn't buy their hardware through a middle-man mean that its cheaper per box for them to mass produce hardware than it is for someone to custom build the same box themselves.

Generally its cheaper to buy a Dell PC than it is to build your own of similar spec for example. The only benifit of "rolling your own" is that you get the hardware you want.

seand
Apr 18, 2006, 11:08 AM
You mean illegally. Have you no understanding of what it means to hack and then redistribute? It's probably fine for a hacker to hack for his own use, but to distribute hacked copies is nothing more than plagiarism and theft. You think theft is beautiful? You're in for a surprise. If "maxxuss" doesn't watch it, he WON'T be able to do his "great work."

It's not illegal to distribute the hack, it's illegal to distribute hacked copies of OS X. So if you own a copy of OS X and find and apply the hacks yourself, the only thing you've done is violate the OS X EULA, which says that you can only run OS X on Apple hardware. However for most users (ie non corporate users) the EULA doesn't mean much, and I don't think very much of it is actually legally enforceable. I bet 99.9% of Mac users wouldn't notice if 3/4 of the way through the EULA it stated that Apple representatives had the right to steal your wallet.
Also, even if you do download a cracked version of OS X, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

I'm not saying that everyone should be going out and buying regular PCs to run OS X on, just that calling it theft is a bit ridiculous.

cybermiguel
Apr 18, 2006, 11:16 AM
About maxxuss hack...umm....it's not exactly a "hack"...it's more like a crack.

The thing is that this guy makes a patch that tells the kernel to bypass the TPM chip that comes with every new mac (I hate the fact that Apple could use that chip to invade our privacy at any time and steal control of our very own machines). Of course, to apply that patch, you must have a full copy of OS X DVD, wich you can obtain at any Apple Retail Store. For example, I'm testing OS X from the DVD that came with an aunt's Mac Mini. It works well, but I had to patch the DVD image with the maxxuss kernel, some generic drivers and some speed hacks in order to get it to work in my "old" Northwood Pentium 4. The installation is easy as with any Mac and it's not unstable at all.

Now, about wine....The Wine project in Linux is still alive and kicking and it runs many commercial apps with no problems at all. Why would the developers of darwine be discouraged with bootcamp or parallel's solution? It's a different approach, as valid as those 2 and I think it would be more successful among switchers the Wine solution.

In fact, if Apple want to seriously look into business and enterprises, they should really pay attention to projects like darwine or wine. That way, people can run "in-house" apps and OS X apps at the same time, seamlessly, without loosing productivity.

afornander
Apr 18, 2006, 11:16 AM
it would be sweet if you could get a virtual pc that interacts with bootcamp. you could you's the same apps and programs from your windows xp partition, if you want to yous games and stuff reboot to xp. that would be sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1:eek: :D

cybermiguel
Apr 18, 2006, 11:21 AM
it would be sweet if you could get a virtual pc that interacts with bootcamp. you could you's the same apps and programs from your windows xp partition, if you want to yous games and stuff reboot to xp. that would be sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1:eek: :D

VMWare already does that in Windows and Linux. You can set the host machine to use a hard drive partition instead an image, but that is a little bit dangerous if you don't know how to configure well the virtual machine.

Many people that use OS X on regular PCs use VMWare configured to use a partition, so that if they change anything in the mac partition through VMWare as host, they can see that change the next time they reboot in OS X natively. I did that for quite a while.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 11:25 AM
I think your logic is backwards here. Economies of scale coupled with the fact that Apple doesn't buy their hardware through a middle-man mean that its cheaper per box for them to mass produce hardware than it is for someone to custom build the same box themselves.

Generally its cheaper to buy a Dell PC than it is to build your own of similar spec for example. The only benifit of "rolling your own" is that you get the hardware you want.

Ok, I should clarify. Pure premium = you pay more for the same thing just because it has the Apple logo. Is this the case? Clearly not. It's not about manufacturing costs, but about cost of the service of building it. Apple CAN mass produce computers, and for that ability they can charge more. It's not about what it costs them to do so, it's about paying for a service you can't find elsewhere. It is cheaper to build your own PowerMac equivalent than to buy the real deal, but you have to physically build it. You see my point? I should have said "the cost of having the machines built," not "the cost of building the machines," even though the latter is also a part of it. Plus, cost per machine isn't a reliable stat since it doesn't consider ability. You can't just say look they can built it cheap but they charge premium, because that "premium" can be partially the service of getting a built machine, as opposed to parts. What would it cost to have an individual assemble powermacs for you? That's exactly how much Apple can charge in addition to the value of the parts, though they may do it for cheaper cost to them. Isn't that the whole point of selling the finished product for a profit? Lol.

Tripokx
Apr 18, 2006, 11:42 AM
"Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd", while Sneetches without stars are shunned and excluded".

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 11:43 AM
I think your logic is backwards here. Economies of scale coupled with the fact that Apple doesn't buy their hardware through a middle-man mean that its cheaper per box for them to mass produce hardware than it is for someone to custom build the same box themselves.

Generally its cheaper to buy a Dell PC than it is to build your own of similar spec for example. The only benifit of "rolling your own" is that you get the hardware you want.

I don't know about that. You can get parts for pretty darn cheap, and there are plenty of options that meet the dell spec for cheaper. Not to mention the dirty little secret of PC builders: using a "borrowed" OS install disk and saving a hundred or two bucks by not paying microsoft.

It's not illegal to distribute the hack

I think that remains to be seen. Are you a lawyer?

So Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) will be Intel X86 only.
Boo Hoo Uncle Judas has sold you out again.

Where did you get that idea?? Apple has already announced that 10.5 will be universal.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 11:43 AM
It's not illegal to distribute the hack, it's illegal to distribute hacked copies of OS X. So if you own a copy of OS X and find and apply the hacks yourself, the only thing you've done is violate the OS X EULA, which says that you can only run OS X on Apple hardware.

Well, sure, no problem if you buy a copy of OS X. Apple is vertically aligned for a reason, but it is not a vertical monopoly. Still, violating the EULA is still illegal, even if nobody reads it. :D Only problem remaining is that OS X is 130 bucks as an upgrade, meaning that your Apple computer normally comes with one included in the price and you upgrade for 130 bucks. Still, that's Apple's problem. If you sell a product that will work a certain way, you can't complain when it is used in that way. Except for the EULA, which does make that illegal, but yeah, that's better than theft since you pay 130 bucks and will end up switching to Mac anyway eventually.


Also, even if you do download a cracked version of OS X, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Now really. I mean, let's not be stupid about this. A guy cracks OS X and sells it as if it is his own. Copyright infringement? Sure, legally. Still, it's blatant theft morally. Morally you don't talk about copyright infringement; you talk about theft. If you download it, you are purchasing for free a product that has been stolen, so effectively you are stealing from Apple. Make no mistake about that. What they call it legally makes no difference to anyone but lawyers, and such theives will still be scum in my eyes.

I'm not saying that everyone should be going out and buying regular PCs to run OS X on, just that calling it theft is a bit ridiculous.

I dare you not to eat your words on that one. You just called it by another name, the principle is the same. Is that more PC for you or something? Does it relax you if it's ONLY copyright infringement, even though the principle is the same? Surely you cannot be so easily blinded? At the end of the day we're talking about being able to walk up to the virtual shelf that is the Internet and pocket what resembles in most aspects a retail product. So you're saying that if I were to, as a Mac user, download 10.4 without paying for it from Apple's site (pretend they stored it on the Internet and I bypassed having to pay for it illegally), I'd be stealing, but if I go to a shady website as a PC user and download a slightly modified version, it would be only copyright infringement? I'm no legal expert, but I bet there's more to it, even legally. But regardless, the sad thing is that I can believe you don't see it. Ridiculous is the screw-up of education that causes that sort of double-speak to get by you unchallenged.:(

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 11:59 AM
About maxxuss hack...umm....it's not exactly a "hack"...it's more like a crack.

The thing is that this guy makes a patch that tells the kernel to bypass the TPM chip that comes with every new mac

Really to me it makes no difference what it bypasses. Is the act of bypassing it legal, even for individual use? If it is, fine. If not, don't. It's that easy. If it's "just" the EULA and your word is not as good as mine, fine, so long as it remains unenforced. Personally, I'd rather use the product without sneaking around it.

Now, about wine....The Wine project in Linux is still alive and kicking and it runs many commercial apps with no problems at all. Why would the developers of darwine be discouraged with bootcamp or parallel's solution? It's a different approach, as valid as those 2 and I think it would be more successful among switchers the Wine solution.

Sure, but when will that whole thing see some fruition beyond ugly mess apps on the Mac? Is it really that promising? I got the sense they take too long and those other solutions will be mainstream by the time they come together. Sure, it's valid as the other 2, but does it work as well NOW? Will it be better than what is out there later? That remains to be seen...I wouldn't be counting on it though.

In fact, if Apple want to seriously look into business and enterprises, they should really pay attention to projects like darwine or wine. That way, people can run "in-house" apps and OS X apps at the same time, seamlessly, without loosing productivity.

Yes and no. Me, I prefer the longer way of writing or attracting devs that will write software that beats the Windows programs. Seems like a poor investment since you'll still be losing (one o) productivity if it is all buggy and all that. And that loss in productivity is what inspires people to switch, including developers. It makes you think, do I really need to be switching back to Windows just to use this one program? Or should I port my app to the Mac since so many of my users are only using the Windows version on a windows partition that they may eventually tire of?

I agree with you that there is definitely a demand for what you're talking about, though. Just, I don't see it happening within the next 6 months from
wine. Or even in a year. And if it does happen, it could still have bugs, and maybe even open the way to mild viruses?

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:02 PM
I think that remains to be seen. Are you a lawyer?


Or a judge, maybe. This whole tech area of the legislature is all messed up.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:04 PM
"Sneetches who have stars on their bellies are part of the "in crowd", while Sneetches without stars are shunned and excluded".

lol what in the? Sometimes I like being ignorant. Usually, though, I end up being ignorant of someone else's ignorance. All I know is that your quote is absolutely hilarious. Is a sneetch like a tellitubbie?

Hattig
Apr 18, 2006, 12:04 PM
I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.

Seems like a gimmick.

Those displays don't have a high DPI though.

As an extreme example, imagine a 2560x2048 19" display. That would have a high DPI, that's when you'd use a resolution independent interface, it keeps the text the same size on screen as a 1280x1024 19" display, but makes it more legible.

This technology isn't really that useful today except on some of the very high DPI laptop displays. However in the future things will change, and it is sensible to be ready today.

icloud
Apr 18, 2006, 12:06 PM
They Might hopefully even change the way stickies look

the OS 8 & 9 vibe from those is bringing me down

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:08 PM
OK. As a closet PC 'ricer' as well as Mac user, I can see the appeal. Now, overclocking and other 'enthusiast' options only really make sense if the user has full control over the components (gimme those OCZ DIMMS with crazy activity LEDs on them and insane voltage tolerances!).

Which means one of two options for Apple:

- Massively diversify their product line. Offer dozens of different build-to-order options. This isn't really do-able. You lose some of the integration of a standardised platform. You also incredibly complicate your supply chain.

- Unlock their OS to run on any hardware. I really hope we're all agreed that this quite simply is not an option. It would mean the death of Apple and OS X. Apple is not Microsoft. The reason MS is profitable is not because they sell many copies of Windows. It's the massively expensive licenses for everything else -- SQL Server, IIS, Windows Server 2003, SQL client access licenses, IIS client access licenses, Windows Server client licenses, Office licenses, SharePoint Server and client access licenses. Do not underestimate the absolutely huge amounts of money every single medium to large size business bleeds out to Microsoft. Apple does not have that arrangement, and most likely never will. Why? Because that sort of business model is under attack. Why on earth should every business Windows client need a licence just to access their own files on a Windows fileserver? Seriously: when you enable 'Windows Sharing' in OS X's System Preferences, you're enabling something which every single Windows client in the business world has to pay for. Same goes for the FTP and Web Server features on OS X.

Hardware sales are Apple's lifeblood. They've tried licensing the OS before, and they nearly died. They've tried diversifying the product line (GAAH! *How* many Performas did the world need?), and it simply led to profit dilution and consumer confusion.

Apple's a minority player. But their business is profitable. OS X development is progressing nicely. Their hardware, whilst not suited to all, is nicely built, and attractive enough that they sell enough to make money and re-invest. That's pretty much all I ask.

Yeah, and really I'd be fine if Macs rose to and capped off at like 20% market share or whatever, enough for people not to be able to ignore it. That way, schools, businesses, legal/gvt institutions have to tailor to the Mac too.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:10 PM
Those displays don't have a high DPI though.

As an extreme example, imagine a 2560x2048 19" display. That would have a high DPI, that's when you'd use a resolution independent interface, it keeps the text the same size on screen as a 1280x1024 19" display, but makes it more legible.

This technology isn't really that useful today except on some of the very high DPI laptop displays. However in the future things will change, and it is sensible to be ready today.

Higher resolution at the same size would be great. That's obviously more easy on the eyes. Plus, Apple's displays on the portables still lag behind.

Fredo Viola
Apr 18, 2006, 12:11 PM
http://www.firstanimationart.com/SEUSS3.html

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:12 PM
That's not the case. The license agreement says you can only use it on Apple hardware.Even if you buy a copy, you're in violation if you install it on generic hardware.

Yeah, sorry. I forgot about the whole EULA thing. I never read that one. But then, I don't try to hack OS X because I can afford to pay for the real deal.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:13 PM
http://www.firstanimationart.com/SEUSS3.html

Umm, ok , now i know what they look like. What was the point again?

Edit - lol just to let you ppl know, i am educated, I just don't remember any children's stories. I think. Too many years of perversion - Snow White and the Seven Wolves, Three Little Porks, Robin Hood (lol).

Fredo Viola
Apr 18, 2006, 12:18 PM
Umm, ok , now i know what they look like. What was the point again?

Edit - lol just to let you ppl know, i am educated, I just don't remember any children's stories. I think. Too many years of perversion - Snow White and the Seven Wolves, Three Little Porks, Robin Hood (lol).

I think you asked what a sneech was. I'm not sure what his point was. Super ambiguous and terrifyingly mysterious, no doubt!

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:27 PM
I think you asked what a sneech was. I'm not sure what his point was. Super ambiguous and terrifyingly mysterious, no doubt!

Well, thanks, though. Of course, I won't remember what a Sneetch is in a couple of days. Or, I'll get it confused with something else.

Oh yeah, you know Windows Vista is going to get a whooping from OS 10.5 "Sneetch"? It'll be just like the leopards from Doctor Zeus.:p

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 12:33 PM
Of course, to apply that patch, you must have a full copy of OS X DVD, wich you can obtain at any Apple Retail Store.
No, you can't buy it from a retail store (only PPC OS X can be bought from a retail store right now). You're wrong there, and you prove it with the following....

For example, I'm testing OS X from the DVD that came with an aunt's Mac Mini.
Which is of course breaking the license agreement that that OS X only be installed on the one machine that it came with.

rog
Apr 18, 2006, 12:56 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 12:59 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Hmm...are WWDC's planned ahead of the release though? Seems like an August WWDC doesn't pin Apple on a release date, just some time in the near future? Plus aren't they scheduled for convenience?

milo
Apr 18, 2006, 01:01 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Most speculation puts it about the same time as Vista, either late 06 or early 07. I'll bet it ships before vista, although it would be funny if it shipped a few days after vista and stole the press away.

dr_lha
Apr 18, 2006, 01:01 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.
To be fair though, Tiger probably already blows away Vista. ;)

Eric5h5
Apr 18, 2006, 01:01 PM
I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.


You want it because you can scale everything to whatever size is most comfortable for you and works best on your display. No more being held hostage to bitmaps. Not only is it not a gimmick, but we probably should have had it by now, and it will only get more and more important in the future as displays get higher dpi.

--Eric

carfac
Apr 18, 2006, 01:17 PM
I think I might rather see LESS than MORE new things in Leopard. I would rather see all the things in Tiger finished before I see any new things. Obviously, Boot Camp is a given, and inside the code rather than as an add on would be good. But let's face it, as good as Tiger is, it is not finished yet.

I would hate to see the day that OS X is the bloatware that Win is. Keep adding the newest and latest ideas, and let last years new and good ideas remain, unfinished- not where I want things. Stop adding new things, and get the WHOLE GUI consistent. Fix Finder and Spotlight. Tune kernel.

That said, my prediction for Leopard is a brand-new look. I think it will be funny when Vista-Aqua clone is the "newest and best" from Redmond, and Cupertino ditches that for something new entirely.

So here is one vote for nothing new in Leopard, other than a Tiger that works.

dk

boncellis
Apr 18, 2006, 01:34 PM
How about Fast User Switching to XP? <ducks>

I think Tiger is fabulous as it is, the "breakthrough" I heard about from the beginning in Longhorn is the SQL-esque file system and searching capabilities. That was, let me check, about 4 years ago. I suppose enhanced Spotlight functionality will be included, along with the usual streamlining of the code itself. Leopard might also include virtualization capability, which would be welcome--but other than a new iCal (to answer the latest Google release), I really don't know what new features could be in store.

One thing I keep anticipating is for Apple to shrink OS X down into a "mobile" version. I think Apple could really do well in that area, but it would have to be introduced alongside a mobile device.

rockthecasbah
Apr 18, 2006, 01:39 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.
but did Apple start writing Leopard stuff at the same time years previous that they did with Tiger? They could have started later, or had delays. I mean there isn't really a big enough timeline of patterns (that you are stating anyway) to truly back up that claim. For all we know Apple could have this ready earlier or later, we just don't know.

MarkCollette
Apr 18, 2006, 02:03 PM
It would be nice if they had it out for the holiday season, seeing as Vista isn't going to make it before then. And besides, maybe someone will buy it for me. :)

After the bugs in early versions of 10.3 and 10.4, I really hope that Apple takes whatever time is necessary to make 10.5 work properly, right out of the gate.

treblah
Apr 18, 2006, 02:07 PM
Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Or you could say given how long it took Apple to preview Panther at WWDC to release (~5 months) we could be looking at a Holiday '06 release.

I'm not suggesting that but it is always a possibility. :)

MarkCollette
Apr 18, 2006, 02:17 PM
Woah! Slow down there, cowboy.....

Are we talking about...

4D?

Wow.

I think my shoes are talking to me, man.

Apple has collaborated with the finest mathematicians, physicists, and software developers to bring us 4D computing in the upcoming OS X 10.5, right on your typical CRT or LCD screen.

As they explained it to me, the 4 dimensional experience is represented in its 3 dimensional subcomponents in their respective discrete time intervals. Sufficient granularity of the time interval partitioning adequately maps into our mind's cognitive perception of 4D. The 3 dimension subcomponents are then mathematically projected upon a 2 dimensional plane, via a matrox of G forces emmitting electromagnetic radeonosity, which is then displayed on your screen. To the layman, it might appear like voodoo, but I assure you, it's all based in sound science.

blybug
Apr 18, 2006, 02:45 PM
If Lepoard + Boot Camp + iPod Halo = Switchers, I predict Leopard must include a Migration Assistant that includes migrating from Windows. On first bootup, the computer asks if you want to transfer your information from another Mac or a Windows computer. The Mac transfer would proceed as presently, but the Windows transfer would offer to install Windows and (permitted) apps in its own partition if desired (Boot Camp style) and/or transfer all the user's documents, pictures, and music into the analagous areas on the Mac. Imagine their amazement if upon completion of the first bootup all their songs are in iTunes, all their photos in iPhoto, all their Word or Powerpoint docs open in (trial) versions of Mac Office or iWork, and if they need to they can always boot over into Windows. Who wouldn't want a Mac at that point?

This is the last "excuse" for switchers..."How do I get all my stuff over to the Mac?"

whooleytoo
Apr 18, 2006, 02:59 PM
but did Apple start writing Leopard stuff at the same time years previous that they did with Tiger? They could have started later, or had delays. I mean there isn't really a big enough timeline of patterns (that you are stating anyway) to truly back up that claim. For all we know Apple could have this ready earlier or later, we just don't know.

Supposedly, there have been 2 OS teams beavering away for the last few years. One is the 'new technology team', releasing 10.0, 10.2 and 10.4, and one a 'maintenance' team (don't know how else to describe it), 10.1 and 10.3.

Leopard will be the first OS X version to be released by the combined team, pointing to the fact it's likely to be the most significant upgrade yet.

Sunrunner
Apr 18, 2006, 03:22 PM
Supposedly, there have been 2 OS teams beavering away for the last few years. One is the 'new technology team', releasing 10.0, 10.2 and 10.4, and one a 'maintenance' team (don't know how else to describe it), 10.1 and 10.3.

Leopard will be the first OS X version to be released by the combined team, pointing to the fact it's likely to be the most significant upgrade yet.


What was the source for that juicy info?

Joe2000
Apr 18, 2006, 03:30 PM
For the price, I think my upgrade from 10.2 - 10.4 was well worth it.

On another note, I don't want Microsoft to "steal" great ideas from Leopard at WWDC and then just "pop them in" to Vista last minute. Mind you, it's microsoft, they have never "gotten it right" so oh well. My father in law is always amazed with the new Windows OS when my brother in law and I say "yeah, we've been doing... xxx ... for a while on the mac already". :D

I think if you can stand the headaches involved in using Windows it is a cheaper option - if it comes bundled with a PC. If you buy a full retail version of Tiger (or any previous version of OS X) it costs you (in UK) £89.99, whereas an Upgrade package of XP Pro costs you £189.99 - note to use this you must already have Windows 98, ME or 2000 installed! :eek: :confused: So if you have Windows NT or Windows 95 or you've just built your own PC :rolleyes: You'd have to pay a truly awful price of £279.99 for the full version of Windows XP Pro! :mad:

Microsoft should be bombed! Now where did i leave that stick of plutonium...

I am using an HP Pavilion 7919 Desktop PC atm, its a 900MHz Duron with 512MB Ram, 30GB HardDrive and S3 Prosavage4 graphics - sponging 16MB of my precious Ram! :o

I sold both my Macs so I can buy a MacBook when they arrive and using this pile of loud, ugly **** running XP Pro i'm thinking "i'd give anything to be using a 333MHz iMac running OS 9 rather than this"

oh well...HURRY UP MACBOOKS! :rolleyes:

- Joe.

whooleytoo
Apr 18, 2006, 03:33 PM
What was the source for that juicy info?

Even in the pre-Next days, Apple tended to have more than one OS team going at a time, one on the immediate OS release, one on the 'next gen' project.

It wasn't too difficult to figure out - 10.2 introduced technologies such as Quartz Extreme, Rendevous, the Address Book APIs. 10.3 didn't really introduce the same level of technologies, but did introduce new features (such as Expose) that used the new technologies introduced in 10.2 (QE in this case). Likewise, 10.4 introduced Core Image, Core Video, Quartz 2D Extreme (though it's off by default), Spotlight and Core Data, so presumably these technologies will be leveraged heavily in 10.5

I believe it was Appleinsider or Thinksecret that confirmed what many people already suspected, there were two separate OS teams, which were being merged when Apple announced there would be a longer delay before the 10.5 launch. (If I find the link, I'll post it here).

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 03:44 PM
Quartz 2D Extreme (though it's off by default)


OK, whatzzat? Could I use it? If it's off by default, what have I been missing?:confused:

whooleytoo
Apr 18, 2006, 03:54 PM
OK, whatzzat? Could I use it? If it's off by default, what have I been missing?:confused:

Basically, accelerated 2D graphics. More info - and some benchmarks here (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14)

FF_productions
Apr 18, 2006, 04:00 PM
I can't believe wwdc got pushed to august, I wanna see how Leopard is..

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 04:16 PM
Basically, accelerated 2D graphics. More info - and some benchmarks here (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14)

Thank you for th at!

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 04:21 PM
Basically, accelerated 2D graphics. More info - and some benchmarks here (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14)

OK... hmm. well, is there a way I can enable it and try it out? Or is it locked away tight? Sounds interesting.

EDIT - never mind, I read that part. Darn. Guess it mustn't be ready then, though. Leopard for sure?

AvSRoCkCO1067
Apr 18, 2006, 04:25 PM
Higher resolution at the same size would be great. That's obviously more easy on the eyes. Plus, Apple's displays on the portables still lag behind.

To be honest, I own both a recent iBook and the new MacBook Pro and...

...the iBook's screen is definitely lagging, in need of an update (brightness and possibly resolution)

...but the MacBook Pro's screen is undeniably gorgeous, bright, and has a higher resolution than my 19" Dell Monitor. I think that it is a very competent screen to comparable 15.4" laptops on the market.

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 04:28 PM
To be honest, I own both a recent iBook and the new MacBook Pro and...

...the iBook's screen is definitely lagging, in need of an update (brightness and possibly resolution)

...but the MacBook Pro's screen is undeniably gorgeous, bright, and has a higher resolution than my 19" Dell Monitor. I think that it is a very competent screen to comparable 15.4" laptops on the market.

Does it match Sony's (?) XBRITE or whatever? mac screens tend to have this matte look while others are glass like. I should check one out again though.

Hopefully the MB will blow us away. If it's as good as the MBP screen it'll be fine, though still behind some of the competition. THAT is one area that Apple loses on looks.

whooleytoo
Apr 18, 2006, 04:30 PM
OK... hmm. well, is there a way I can enable it and try it out? Or is it locked away tight? Sounds interesting.

You can enable it temporarily using Quartz Debug (if you have the developer tools installed). It's in /Developer/Performance Tools.

It only affects applications launched after you turn it on, and if you quit Quartz Debug, it'll disable Q2DE again. There's a hint here (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005050121260474) for how to turn it on permanently.

Experiences vary from it not making much difference, to it offering a huge performance increase, but being a little buggy.

MarkCollette
Apr 18, 2006, 04:30 PM
I sold both my Macs so I can buy a MacBook when they arrive and using this pile of loud, ugly **** running XP Pro i'm thinking "i'd give anything to be using a 333MHz iMac running OS 9 rather than this"

oh well...HURRY UP MACBOOKS! :rolleyes:

- Joe.

You can buy my iMac 333. Do you like green? :)

(L)
Apr 18, 2006, 04:32 PM
You can enable it temporarily using Quartz Debug (if you have the developer tools installed). It's in /Developer/Performance Tools.

It only affects applications launched after you turn it on, and if you quit Quartz Debug, it'll disable Q2DE again. There's a hint here (http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=2005050121260474) for how to turn it on permanently.

Experiences vary from it not making much difference, to it offering a huge performance increase, but being a little buggy.

Yup. Sounds like something cool but not quite there. I might try it out. Thanky.

dongmin
Apr 18, 2006, 04:49 PM
I hope Leopard will give both options.
Virtualization for quick 'n easy usage of Windows apps, and
Boot Camp for full speed Windows gaming.

Someone think a "red box" could be implemented?I remember way back there was talk of OS X supporting multiple desktops. Here, I found the link:

http://www.appleinsider.com/news.php?id=234

It'd be nice to have multiple desktops, expose, and virtualization all integrated. First X11, then Universal apps, and now Boot Camp. Apple does seem to be moving towards platform independence, no?

JGowan
Apr 18, 2006, 05:25 PM
That's my $0.02SHIFT-4 is the Almighty-Dollar Sign which we're familiar with... but you can type a "CENT" sign by doing OPTION-4.

That's my 2¢!

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 05:38 PM
Does it match Sony's (?) XBRITE or whatever? mac screens tend to have this matte look while others are glass like. I should check one out again though.

Hopefully the MB will blow us away. If it's as good as the MBP screen it'll be fine, though still behind some of the competition. THAT is one area that Apple loses on looks.

The 'glossy' screens are indeed gorgeous....

... in the right light.

Most LCD's suffer under direct light anyway. The glossy screen just adds a crapload of reflection into the mix too. My PSP's Xbrite screen is a nightmare in natural lighting. A few of the Sony's I've seen also have the Xbrite, and they're horrendous in anything but indoor, dim conditions.

I'd take a traditional matte effect screen any day of the week. You might lose the 'wow' factor, but more than make up for it in versatility.

Fredstar
Apr 18, 2006, 05:40 PM
..if that means what i think it means, as in one can change the size of the traffic light buttons in windows, all the other buttons are generally bigger, the resizing tab on all windows are larger etc etc
I love the way Tiger is, using it is a pleasure. I can't see much they can do to improve (obviously apart from above), i am certainly intrigued to see what Jobs can come up with to justify spending another £60 odd on an upgrade.

JGowan
Apr 18, 2006, 05:40 PM
very cool. How many more versions of OSX will there be until OS 11, will they go to 10.9?I'd imagine they will although I found it interesting that, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X), Apple didn't publicy name OS X after a cat until 10.2's Jaguar. They apparently back-tracked and gave 10.0 and 10.1 cat names after the fact. [edit: Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named "Cheetah" internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was code named internally as "Puma".]

I wonder what other names they'll be? Surely 10.9 will be LION, but what of the others? Cougar? Ocelot? How about Lynx? Is it completely out of the question?

10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 05:41 PM
Apple has collaborated with the finest mathematicians, physicists, and software developers to bring us 4D computing in the upcoming OS X 10.5, right on your typical CRT or LCD screen.

As they explained it to me, the 4 dimensional experience is represented in its 3 dimensional subcomponents in their respective discrete time intervals. Sufficient granularity of the time interval partitioning adequately maps into our mind's cognitive perception of 4D. The 3 dimension subcomponents are then mathematically projected upon a 2 dimensional plane, via a matrox of G forces emmitting electromagnetic radeonosity, which is then displayed on your screen. To the layman, it might appear like voodoo, but I assure you, it's all based in sound science.

Yeah... but I bet I can get it cheaper on a Dell! :eek: ;) :p

macEfan
Apr 18, 2006, 05:41 PM
I'd imagine they will although I found it interesting that, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X (Wikipedia), Apple didn't publicy name OS X after a cat until 10.2's Jaguar. They apparently back-tracked and gave 10.0 and 10.1 cat names after the fact.

I wonder what other names they'll be? Surely 10.9 will be LION, but what of the others? Cougar? Ocelot? How about Lynx? Is it completely out of the question?

10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

It will be intersting on what names they will choose for future OS's.... I guess we will just have to wait and see....

shooterlv
Apr 18, 2006, 05:44 PM
i'm guessing we'll see a major update to the visual appearance of the UI. brushed metal will be gone.

I'm thinking Chrome interface where the window borders and backgrounds actually reflect the user using the built in eyesight. :)

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 05:48 PM
I'd imagine they will although I found it interesting that, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X (Wikipedia), Apple didn't publicy name OS X after a cat until 10.2's Jaguar. They apparently back-tracked and gave 10.0 and 10.1 cat names after the fact.

I wonder what other names they'll be? Surely 10.9 will be LION, but what of the others? Cougar? Ocelot? How about Lynx? Is it completely out of the question?

10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

Fill in a couple of those gaps with Fictional Characters....

<Ben Affleck in 'Jay & Silent Bob">
Fic-tion-al characters! Understand? FIC-TION-ALL CHAR-AC-TERS!
</BAiJ&SB>

10.6.... Aslan!
10.7.... Bagheera
10.8.... Schrödinger's (might not want to observe that one)
10.9.... CatDog

(seriously... is there no list of pointless crap you can't find on Wikipedia? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_cats )

I kid not.

displaced
Apr 18, 2006, 05:51 PM
I'm thinking Chrome interface where the window borders and backgrounds actually reflect the user using the built in eyesight. :)

(shhh! those haxie guys at Unsanity might hear you and make this happen. The horror!)

AidenShaw
Apr 18, 2006, 06:20 PM
The Mac transfer would proceed as presently, but the Windows transfer would offer to install Windows and (permitted) apps in its own partition if desired (Boot Camp style) and/or transfer all the user's documents, pictures, and music into the analagous areas on the Mac.
And MS would be making more per Mac than Apple - since there would be a Windows license sold every time this was used.

Platform
Apr 18, 2006, 06:31 PM
I'd imagine they will although I found it interesting that, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X), Apple didn't publicy name OS X after a cat until 10.2's Jaguar. They apparently back-tracked and gave 10.0 and 10.1 cat names after the fact. [edit: Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named "Cheetah" internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was code named internally as "Puma".]

I wonder what other names they'll be? Surely 10.9 will be LION, but what of the others? Cougar? Ocelot? How about Lynx? Is it completely out of the question?

10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

This has been discussed to death, but to say they don't need to go until 10.9....they only went till 9.2 and 8.6 ;)

dejo
Apr 18, 2006, 06:46 PM
I wonder what other names they'll be? Surely 10.9 will be LION, but what of the others? Cougar? Ocelot? How about Lynx? Is it completely out of the question?

10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

Why can't 10.10 be Lion?

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 07:40 PM
Whoa, you must be a recent switcher? You cant get much more user friendly than OSX and there is a Help section in the 'toolbar' at the top of the screen in almost every application made for OSX. Or you could just hover over stuff to get a help bubble to appear. :rolleyes:

lol ya ok so I guess I did sound like a recent switcher, but no Its actually been about 4 years now. Im talking for the people who are completely new to Macs. Sure you and I all understand what something as simple as the Dock does, but alot of people will use my Mac and be completly confused just trying to find Safari to surf the net.

Im just saying, why not incorporate an "OS X Tour (or whatnot)" app that starts up (which you can easily quit and remove forever if you wanted) when you first get your Mac.

Don't get me wrong I think OS X is very user friendly. But I also very much think that something like that would help the unknowing in their first time experience instead of just being confused.

Stridder44
Apr 18, 2006, 07:43 PM
And APPLE PLEASE BRING BACK SYSTEM SOUNDS!!!

rdrr
Apr 18, 2006, 08:05 PM
My hopes are that they make it alittle more user friendly for people that have never used a Mac before (say an "OS X Tour" app, or some kind of pop-up help thing...I think there was something like that in OS 9?)

iClippy? :D

asphalt-proof
Apr 18, 2006, 09:52 PM
DFI, for example, offers overclocking options, as well as temperature warnings and dual-bios in case that you want to go back to your "safe" settings. Also they have a good cooling system and better integrated components (among other more technical stuff).

:confused: Seems like nobody read what I said about darwine....:sigh: ....It would be a GREAT feature.

I read it and agree with you 100%. I really don't want to run Windows but I really want to run some Windows-only programs occasionally. Why take up valuable disk space with a whole OS when all you need is the ability to run a different OS dependent program. This would be an absolutely killer feature and one that would certainly steal the thunder from MS. The other advantage is that the developers wouldn't have to change a thing. no longer would the Mac be dependent on developer support. Lastly, it would add one more reason to 'switch'. I know several people who would love to use the iLife suite but have too much invested in their Window's world. Sure Boot Camp offers some advantages but let's face it: Shuting down and rebooting is a pain. not to mention not being able to cut and paste or make use of cross platform programs.

You hit right on the head: This would be THE KILLER feature of Leopard. If if is, indeed, a feature.

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 10:14 PM
I read it and agree with you 100%. I really don't want to run Windows but I really want to run some Windows-only programs occasionally. Why take up valuable disk space with a whole OS when all you need is the ability to run a different OS dependent program. This would be an absolutely killer feature and one that would certainly steal the thunder from MS. The other advantage is that the developers wouldn't have to change a thing. no longer would the Mac be dependent on developer support.
There is no panacea. Without licensing Windows technologies (and MS won't, given that Windows can run on Macs now), there's no way to create seamless compatibility. There's also no way to simulate that compatibility without some pretty major volume of code. Windows XP can be trimmed to about 1GB, and modern hard drives are plenty big enough for that not to be significant, especially since an emulation environment or compatibility layer would be a few hundred MB in size with all the necessary Windows library replacements.

Particularly complex applications, especially those relying on DirectX and ones that will be heavily integrated with the Aero UI starting with Vista are beyond the scope of any built-in emulation. Developers of fairly basic programs wouldn't have to change anything, but specialized software and ones using complex and/or proprietary features would still have to write OS X versions. The best option for running applications reliably and at near full speed is with virtualization, and they're working on it.

asphalt-proof
Apr 18, 2006, 10:20 PM
OK. As a closet PC 'ricer' as well as Mac user, I can see the appeal. Now, overclocking and other 'enthusiast' options only really make sense if the user has full control over the components (gimme those OCZ DIMMS with crazy activity LEDs on them and insane voltage tolerances!).

Which means one of two options for Apple:

- Massively diversify their product line. Offer dozens of different build-to-order options. This isn't really do-able. You lose some of the integration of a standardised platform. You also incredibly complicate your supply chain.

- Unlock their OS to run on any hardware. I really hope we're all agreed that this quite simply is not an option. It would mean the death of Apple and OS X. Apple is not Microsoft. The reason MS is profitable is not because they sell many copies of Windows. It's the massively expensive licenses for everything else -- SQL Server, IIS, Windows Server 2003, SQL client access licenses, IIS client access licenses, Windows Server client licenses, Office licenses, SharePoint Server and client access licenses. Do not underestimate the absolutely huge amounts of money every single medium to large size business bleeds out to Microsoft. Apple does not have that arrangement, and most likely never will. Why? Because that sort of business model is under attack. Why on earth should every business Windows client need a licence just to access their own files on a Windows fileserver? Seriously: when you enable 'Windows Sharing' in OS X's System Preferences, you're enabling something which every single Windows client in the business world has to pay for. Same goes for the FTP and Web Server features on OS X.

Hardware sales are Apple's lifeblood. They've tried licensing the OS before, and they nearly died. They've tried diversifying the product line (GAAH! *How* many Performas did the world need?), and it simply led to profit dilution and consumer confusion.

Apple's a minority player. But their business is profitable. OS X development is progressing nicely. Their hardware, whilst not suited to all, is nicely built, and attractive enough that they sell enough to make money and re-invest. That's pretty much all I ask.

Yeh Apple would NEVER licence there software. Like they would NEVER go X86, or develop a two button mouse or enable dual booting. The truth is we DON'T know what Apple is going to do. The past is absolutely no help whatsoever because in the last year, they have broken so many of what we devotees have considered, taboos. Everybody states that licensing agreements almost broke Apple. Maybe they did. But that was years ago. Ancient history in internet years. So, unless you are Steve Jobs personal towel boy and he confides in you all his business strategies whilst you are toweling off his buttocks, I would suggest that this line of reasoning is getting less and less valid.

edit: jsut do you know, this subject is particularly galling for me because I remember the GIANT flamewars that would rage jsut a couple of years ago about the chances of mac going to x86 and the ramifications of that switch, the flamewars a year+ ago that raged over whether Apple would ever release a two button mouse and why a one button mouse was better or wasn't. Words were said, feelings were hurt, people were banned. It was a dark time at Macrumors. Yes, back in my day, we only had one button mice AND WE LIKED IT!

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 10:33 PM
Everybody states that licensing agreements almost broke Apple. Maybe they did. But that was years ago. Ancient history in internet years. So, unless you are Steve Jobs personal towel boy and he confides in you all his business strategies whilst you are toweling off his buttocks, I would suggest that this line of reasoning is getting less and less valid.
Internet years might be relevant for the speed of technology updates, but when it comes to business fundamentals, everyone still uses calendar years, I assure you. The OS X licensing disaster is still pretty fresh in Apple's memory, and it was a spectacular failure, unlike the Intel switch or the two-button mouse, which have no negative history within Apple. The mouse seemed inevitable to me. Back when the choice was one button or two, the companies stuck with their guns, because there was no functional difference. But now that there are 8 and 10 button mice, it made little sense to deny functionality. It was no longer about a "different" way of doing things, it was about Apple not having the functionality of competing products. The right mouse button arguably is the least important feature of the Mighty Mouse. As far as hardware switches, Apple's done it before successfully; the simple fact is that all the competing architectures have pretty much died out.

I'm certainly not suggesting that I know for certain they won't open OS X, but I know that there is no compelling reason to do so that isn't more costly than NOT doing so. And I also know that rational entities would not make that choice. Unless those dynamics change or someone who isn't Steve Jobs makes the decision, Apple won't license OS X again.

shigzeo
Apr 18, 2006, 10:56 PM
Dictionary 2.0?

This may sound like a silly thing to say, but it is one function that I use almost everyday. I am an English major studying things from Post Colonial literature to Milton and that function plays such an important part of my studies that merely an upgrade would be cause enough for me to throw down some money for leapard. The fact it is OED, though very abridged is great, if they could somehow get a self-updating version with the ability to produce proper English spelling, I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl.

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 11:01 PM
The fact it is OED, though very abridged is great, if they could somehow get a self-updating version with the ability to produce proper English spelling, I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl.
It does have proper English spelling, and British spelling, too. If you want to change the pronunciation to British, you can (it's in IPA). If you want to change the spell check language, press command-colon and change it to British (or Canadian) English.

shigzeo
Apr 18, 2006, 11:07 PM
It does have proper English spelling, and British spelling, too. If you want to change the pronunciation to British, you can (it's in IPA). If you want to change the spell check language, press command-colon and change it to British (or Canadian) English.

Well, I had the IPA set to British pronunciation, but I have not yet figured out how to press command and colon at the same time. Haha, how is that? :D
I guess, I have spent some time in library with the beauty of OED which documents when the very first written instance of a word appeared; from there you can basically see in its lineage how the bloody thing has been twisted and or enhanced. Inclusion of OED was clincher for me for Tiger, that and 88$ student price! Alas, soon I will be out of student discount days and off into the real world... more or less. Anyway, I may be a happier young man when I have figured out what you mean by command-colon!:cool:

treblah
Apr 18, 2006, 11:08 PM
10.0 = CHEETAH
10.1 = PUMA
10.2= JAGUAR
10.3 = PANTHER
10.4 = TIGER
10.5 = LEOPARD
10.6 = ?
10.7 = ?
10.8 = ?
10.9 = LION ?

Any thoughts?

Apple gave us some hints way back in 2003. (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/07/20030724025054.shtml) ;)

My 2¢ : Apple will not go to OS 11 for a very long time, if ever. OS X is a brand of its' own now and fortunately for Apple, 99% of the John Q Public's (i.e., people not on this board) call it OS Ecks anyway (even The Steve has slipped a few times), so there is no need to change the name because they don't think of it as the 10th version of the Mac operating system.

matticus008
Apr 18, 2006, 11:12 PM
Anyway, I may be a happier young man when I have figured out what you mean by command-colon!:cool:
Oops, that's my fault! I guess the shortcut only works in some applications, like TextEdit. The settings hold across applications, though, as far as I know.

cybermiguel
Apr 18, 2006, 11:49 PM
I read it and agree with you 100%. I really don't want to run Windows but I really want to run some Windows-only programs occasionally. Why take up valuable disk space with a whole OS when all you need is the ability to run a different OS dependent program. This would be an absolutely killer feature and one that would certainly steal the thunder from MS. The other advantage is that the developers wouldn't have to change a thing. no longer would the Mac be dependent on developer support. Lastly, it would add one more reason to 'switch'. I know several people who would love to use the iLife suite but have too much invested in their Window's world. Sure Boot Camp offers some advantages but let's face it: Shuting down and rebooting is a pain. not to mention not being able to cut and paste or make use of cross platform programs.

You hit right on the head: This would be THE KILLER feature of Leopard. If if is, indeed, a feature.

Indeed.

A professor in my University's chemistry department, for example, have some chemistry software (IR Spectrometry) that runs only on Windows. He loves the power of Mac OS, but that spectrometry software came bundled with the IR spectrometer and it only runs on windows and unix. It would be VERY nice to run it like windows....easy, with no hasstle.

Of course, this solution MUST be made "the Apple way", i.e., using the aqua interface when possible, making the configuration something simple, etc. etc. etc. in order to be successful.

dejo
Apr 18, 2006, 11:56 PM
...but that spectrometry software came bundled with the IR spectrometer and it only runs on windows and unix.

Um, I guess you and your professor don't know that Max OS X is Unix-based (http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/).

Supa_Fly
Apr 19, 2006, 12:36 AM
Sorry if my post rehashes a tired subsubject, however I feel worth mentioning.

There is a major reason why people dont build their own PC in droves. Its also the main reason for Dells XPC desktop/laptop brand & for Alienware's entire lineup exists (along with Falcon too). Support!

Support of all those PC hand-picked components can be a bad thing when things go horribly wrong. I dont care HOW smart a PC geek you are, or if your ccna/A+ certified; when a component doesnt work there are 3 questions you'll be asked when calling the manufacturer of any 1 of your frankenstein PC.

1> what is the error your getting?

2> What system contains the component your calling about, and did you search our FAQ's site? (you'll be like "I bought retail and built my PC Myself)

3> Did you check that all other components are running at optimimum levels with the other Manufacturers!?

(this last question even if you lied & said Yes, you're answer to question 2 above is reason enough for a smart tech support representative to do 2 things! a> confide in you that your problem resolution is towards the OTHER manufacturer thats causing this issue with their product. b> pointing you to the fact that your repair under warranty may be voided with use of other components or you must pay for shipping receiving but upon arrival of a replacment or repaired device you've got less than a 30% chance of your initial problem being fixed)

Remember young PC component by component frankenstein building padawan's .... "We Dont Support That!";) :D

Stridder44
Apr 19, 2006, 01:11 AM
This may sound like a silly thing to say, but it is one function that I use almost everyday. I am an English major studying things from Post Colonial literature to Milton and that function plays such an important part of my studies that merely an upgrade would be cause enough for me to throw down some money for leapard. The fact it is OED, though very abridged is great, if they could somehow get a self-updating version with the ability to produce proper English spelling, I'd be giddy as a schoolgirl.


Funny thing is I use it all the time as well and find your suggestions (self-updating etc.) would be really awesome.

The reason I even mentioned it as a joke is because I have a shortcut of it on my desktop.

displaced
Apr 19, 2006, 01:35 AM
And MS would be making more per Mac than Apple - since there would be a Windows license sold every time this was used.

Sorry, no. Apple make much more money from the sale of a computer than Microsoft do from the sale of a copy of Windows.

Personally, I'd find some kind of migration assistant handy. One that'd take an existing Windows system and auto-migrate email, bookmarks, etc to the Mac. Then, it could offer suggestions for Mac software based on the Windows software owned, and finally offer to install Windows (from the user's Windows CD) for the remaining software.

joelypolly
Apr 19, 2006, 01:43 AM
And APPLE PLEASE BRING BACK SYSTEM SOUNDS!!!
I agree.... makes me remember back in the system 7 and Mac os 8 days... sweet memories

JFreak
Apr 19, 2006, 01:53 AM
But, it's safe to say that Apple will *never* do true 64-bit for PowerPC. Not only would it take a lot of effort, but it would be an excuse not to buy a new Intel 64-bit system!

I wouldn't be so sure. Apple has always been proud of its products, and offering full true 64bit operation for current (PPC) hardware is just what we have grown to expect from the company.

Harold Blair
Apr 19, 2006, 02:45 AM
What will be the unexpected announcement this year? The agenda describes 'Build modern, platform-differentiated products with powerful new and existing frameworks', Bootcamp recently released, will we now see XCode for Windows XP/Vista? (NSWindowsXPView)

displaced
Apr 19, 2006, 03:15 AM
Yeh Apple would NEVER licence there software.

Ok -- let me add a caveat: judging by what apparently is Apple's business model, including references to their SEC filings, I do not believe they will license their operating system. It has been done before, we have seen the result: many people stopped buying their computers in favour of cheaper, faster clones. Their bottom-line suffered enough to threaten the survival of the company, and the programme was killed. The simple fact is they do and would make less money from software alone than hardware.

Like they would NEVER go X86, or develop a two button mouse or enable dual booting.

Completely different. The CPU inside their machines or the number of buttons on their mice has absolutely no impact on their business model or profitability. They saw a market for a 2-button mouse, developed technology for one which met their criteria and produced it. Likewise, they saw the x86 platform as being better for the long-term development of their chief moneymaker: computer hardware. Personally, I never ruled out an x86 switch or multi-button mouse. Such arguments were based on an esoteric notion of Apple's "spirit". I say again: Apple is not as dogmatic as many of its users. It's a business which will not (or should not) make moves which will fundamentally harm its profitability.

The truth is we DON'T know what Apple is going to do. The past is absolutely no help whatsoever because in the last year, they have broken so many of what we devotees have considered, taboos.

See my point above: there's a world of difference between Apple fans' dogma and pure business sense.

Everybody states that licensing agreements almost broke Apple. Maybe they did. But that was years ago. Ancient history in internet years.

So what's changed in the intervening years to make licensing work?

So, unless you are Steve Jobs personal towel boy and he confides in you all his business strategies whilst you are toweling off his buttocks, I would suggest that this line of reasoning is getting less and less valid.

Ok... ignoring the borderline ad hominem comment, in what way is the reasoning faulty? I don't pretend to have insider information, I'm just basing an opinion on what fundamentals I can observe about Apple's business model based on their publicised financial statements. If you can read them some other way, please, let's discuss it!

edit: jsut do you know, this subject is particularly galling for me because I remember the GIANT flamewars that would rage jsut a couple of years ago about the chances of mac going to x86 and the ramifications of that switch, the flamewars a year+ ago that raged over whether Apple would ever release a two button mouse and why a one button mouse was better or wasn't. Words were said, feelings were hurt, people were banned. It was a dark time at Macrumors. Yes, back in my day, we only had one button mice AND WE LIKED IT!

Again: Apple fans' dogmatic opinions ("x86 Sucks! One-button mice are superior!") has next to no impact on their business model. The business case for the switch makes perfect sense. It safeguards the future of the hardware platform which is Apple's key moneymaker. Licensing the OS would (IMO) irrevocably harm their hardware sales.

HKmacaddict
Apr 19, 2006, 06:07 AM
Hey um...I thought Steve said that OS 10.5 is gonna be the last of OSX right? So there can't be 10.6, 10.7 etc.

If 10.5 isn't really groundbreaking and all that, I don't think I'm gonna be liking Apple anymore...:p

MacsRgr8
Apr 19, 2006, 07:27 AM
Hey um...I thought Steve said that OS 10.5 is gonna be the last of OSX right?

Where did you hear that??? :confused: :eek:

JC4
Apr 19, 2006, 08:04 AM
I read it and agree with you 100%. I really don't want to run Windows but I really want to run some Windows-only programs occasionally. Why take up valuable disk space with a whole OS when all you need is the ability to run a different OS dependent program. This would be an absolutely killer feature and one that would certainly steal the thunder from MS. The other advantage is that the developers wouldn't have to change a thing. no longer would the Mac be dependent on developer support. Lastly, it would add one more reason to 'switch'. I know several people who would love to use the iLife suite but have too much invested in their Window's world. Sure Boot Camp offers some advantages but let's face it: Shuting down and rebooting is a pain. not to mention not being able to cut and paste or make use of cross platform programs.

You hit right on the head: This would be THE KILLER feature of Leopard. If if is, indeed, a feature.

This is the feature I want! But, it wouldn't be a good thing for Apple. Remember OS/2? It ran Windows apps, even better than Windows. It left no incentive for people to port their Apps to OS/2. OS/2 died!

The only hope for OSX is increasing Market share, to drive developer incentive. A slightly PITA to use Dualboot, or VM is a better approach for Apple. Licensing a second hardware source would help too.

dr_lha
Apr 19, 2006, 08:45 AM
Where did you hear that??? :confused: :eek:
He didn't. Steve has said no such thing.

ModernGeek
Apr 19, 2006, 10:00 AM
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding regarding the resolution independent UI. Think of it this way, most of the time somebody will turn down their resolution so that they can see things better. Now, instead of turning down the resolution, they will turn down the DPI, and the OS will still drive the monitor at the native resolution so that they can see better without the monitor looking all scaled and icky. The days of fixed sized icons and graphics are coming to an end, and this will just be the better way of embracing it. With CRT monitors, simply scaling the resolution wasn't that bad of a thing, but on LCD's, it is.

edit: It would be pretty cool if you could adjust the DPI in real time.

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 10:35 AM
The OS X licensing disaster is still pretty fresh in Apple's memory, and it was a spectacular failure

I think you mean licensing the old mac OS? OSX has never been licensed.

I wouldn't be so sure. Apple has always been proud of its products, and offering full true 64bit operation for current (PPC) hardware is just what we have grown to expect from the company.

But 64 bit hardware has been shipping for years. If they were going to optimize for it, wouldn't they have done it by now? You think it's going to happen right before they discontinue the hardware?

AidenShaw
Apr 19, 2006, 11:16 AM
But 64 bit hardware has been shipping for years. If they were going to optimize for it, wouldn't they have done it by now?

You think it's going to happen right before they discontinue the hardware?
And even if Apple did make a true 64-bit OSX for PPC, how many application vendors will go to the expense of porting to 64-bit PPC?

It's a chicken and egg problem - without the chicken and without the egg.

milo
Apr 19, 2006, 02:23 PM
And even if Apple did make a true 64-bit OSX for PPC, how many application vendors will go to the expense of porting to 64-bit PPC?


I don't know. Frankly, I don't care if they update the OS to 64 on PPC. If they'd just get Logic to use more than 4 gigs of ram, that would be plenty.

Well, that and getting Logic to use more than two of the four processors on a quad.

wms121
Apr 19, 2006, 03:08 PM
...Apple's Darwin..not sure.

OpenDarwin...ahem...take a look at what they are already doing:

http://www.opendarwin.org/en/projects/DarwinCoda/

Some Darwin/Linux/BSD "multiple mixed" and patched* versions (similar
to what is being done with Win XP and the new Intel Dual chips..) could
be ported...but how many errors ...system holes..and outright kernal
panics will be allowed before anything "walks out of the lab"?

Ask Steve.

I am sure there will be developers who get all kinds of answers before August.

Avie is going to get "some type of cell software" ready..too much money
involved otherwise..ask IBM.

WW

*( The Cell BE already uses a Linux version see:

http://www.mc.com/products/view/index.cfm?id=32&type=software
http://www.mc.com/products/view/index.cfm?id=96&type=boards

)

matticus008
Apr 19, 2006, 09:57 PM
I think you mean licensing the old mac OS? OSX has never been licensed.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I've gotten too used to typing the "X" after OS after all these years :p

peharri
Apr 20, 2006, 07:49 AM
Yeah, that's what I meant. I've gotten too used to typing the "X" after OS after all these years :p

The funny thing is that OS X has been licensed before (in the sense of "made available for white box PCs without licensing restrictions on which machines it can be installed upon") with limited success. All versions of NextStep from 3.x to Rhapsody (albiet the latter only available to licensed Apple developers) could legally be installed on third party PCs.

NeXT used this to save themselves from oblivion when hardware sales failed to take off as they'd hoped. It had limited success.

The thing that everyone has to remember is that the industry is constantly changing. In the mid-eighties, Apple or Commodore could have taken over the market with a more open attitude towards licensing as they had superior systems that were hampered by the limitations of only being available from one vendor, with one image. Apple's Macs were over-priced and under-powered. Commodore's Amiga suffered from lousy management and branding issues.

In the early-nineties, everyone saw Microsoft as the future and all third party platforms as dead in the water, never able to recover. Most non-Microsoft computer makers had gone bust or stopped selling hardware altogether. Apple was flailing. Apple's licencees sold Mac compatables to the existing Mac user base precisely because there was nobody else they could sell the things to. People otherwise generally bought Windows 95, or if they wanted a "technically superior solution" they chose NT or OS/2, both of which were better than Mac OS 7 on pretty much every level except the GUI (and that's a subjective point.)

Now we're in 200x. Windows is popular, but a significant number of people want out. GNU/Linux is about the only option unless you want to invest significantly in hardware that's rarely going to be cost effective. (Insert usual claims about Mac and Dell equivalents generally having the Mac being cheaper. That's not how it works though. Most people want X, if Apple sells X+Y for $1,999 and Dell sells X+Z for $999, then Dell's machine is, sans operating system, more cost effective. If I want a 17" widescreen on my laptop with DVD playing ability, enough power to run moderately good games, and otherwise just the ability to browse the net, I'm better off buying the sub-$999 laptop (w/ 17" WS, ATI graphics, and a Pentium M) I saw in Staples yesterday afternoon than waiting for the 17" MacBook.)

And generally, GNU/Linux isn't that popular. It might be. GNOME is heading (finally!) in the right direction, but if I say it's not there yet on a Mac forum, I'm preaching to the choir. So people dabble with GNU, go back to Windows, and wait.

I don't think this is the same situation as the mid-nineties when everyone wanted Windows 95. When Windows 95 was truly revolutionary, with a UI that was almost there, and with an underpinning that was far more powerful (pre-emptive multitasking, automatic memory management, built-in TCP/IP networking, and past and future compatability with content that simply wouldn't be available for other platforms) than what Apple had to offer at that time.

To sum up: the market is different:

- Most content available today is platform neutral. It wasn't in 1995.
- Mac OS X is an equal to Windows, and clearly superior on the front-end. Mac OS 7 was a poor cousin of Windows 95, and its UI was only marginally better.
- People are willing to consider non-Microsoft platforms again. In 1995, Microsoft was the land to swim to from the sinking ships of Commodore, Atari, and Apple.

And it's worth noting that Apple/NeXT have tried two different models - licensing to manufacturers (Apple) without restrictions on marketing (ouch!) and licensing to users without restrictions on hardware (NeXT), the former failed, the latter did as well as it could given the circumstances - the one thing it did do was ensure that the OpenStep platform never died.

So can we, for once, hit this "Apple tried it before and it failed" thing about licensing Mac OS on the head? There are many good arguments on both sides about whether Apple should license Mac OS X, but comparing Apple licensing a different operating system in a different market using a lousy licensing model or irrelevent licensing model isn't really providing anything useful.

dr_lha
Apr 20, 2006, 08:03 AM
Unfortunately your post, although well informed, didn't really add anything either. It all comes back to the fact that "Apple is a Hardware Company" I'm afraid, just like NeXT was. NeXT only started selling the OS (as you say) when hardware sales plummeted.

Apple right now are sitting pretty with hardware sales. Sales are up during a period when they should be lowest (mid transistion) and 50% of new Mac sales are going to people who previous weren't Mac users. I.e. growth.

The business model is working, why change it?

peharri
Apr 20, 2006, 08:20 AM
Unfortunately your post, although well informed, didn't really add anything either.

My post was dealing with the myth that because Apple has "done it in the past", that this is relevent to whether they "do it in the future". For a variety of reasons, this isn't the case: the market is different, and the way they did it isn't the only way to do it.

The fact this isn't relevent to an entirely different argument "Apple is a hardware company" (actually, I have difficulty with this. People buy Apple for the software: the hardware has served a purpose in the past and is often elegant, but if they were a hardware company, they would have switched to Windows a long time ago. The hardware's role is to run the software Apple produces, the software that everyone lusts for) doesn't make the comment "not add anything".

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 09:21 AM
My post was dealing with the myth that because Apple has "done it in the past", that this is relevent to whether they "do it in the future". For a variety of reasons, this isn't the case: the market is different, and the way they did it isn't the only way to do it.
Absolutely the market is different--it's much thinner. There are few viable operating systems and even fewer hardware architectures. But history does matter tremendously, not only to stockholders, but to Jobs himself--he has inherited TWO failed attempts at software licensing. Apple's clone debacle, and NeXT's complete failure. To date, no mixed hardware-software company has successfully licensed their products--most no longer exist at all, others are manufacturers of Intel clones. The market share difference today is so tremendous that the atmosphere makes it far riskier than the early 90s. Even giants like HP and IBM were unsuccessful when their closed loops were opened, and there were many more competitors then, not one giant to topple.

The fact this isn't relevent to an entirely different argument "Apple is a hardware company" (actually, I have difficulty with this. People buy Apple for the software:
But Apple pays for the software through its hardware. The company generates money by means of selling hardware, and that money alone fuels software development. So from a market perspective, Apple is a hardware company that basically gives its software away. Obviously, the reason its hardware sells is because of the software, but with their current business model, they are first and foremost a hardware company. Software sales account for a negligible amount of revenue.

Consumer software sales alone won't support Apple, and Microsoft could easily undercut Apple for pricing. Apple also lacks the resources to create broad compatibility for generic PC hardware, and OS X has very limited support for PCI peripherals and older hardware, with companies disinclined to write the drivers themselves. Windows is better at all of these things. After the first wave of "wow, OS X on my PC at last!" customers dries out, along with the accompanying massive drop in Mac sales, they'll be stuck. If Apple drops the ball just once and Microsoft claims its customers back, that's the end of Apple. Apple computers need OS X to sell at profitable rates, and OS X can't survive on broad PC hardware and needs Macs to keep its appeal. Upsetting this balance is extraordinarily dangerous.

peharri
Apr 20, 2006, 10:41 AM
Absolutely the market is different--it's much thinner. There are few viable operating systems and even fewer hardware architectures.

I'm not sure what you mean here. In 1995, there was one viable operating system and one viable hardware platform, Windows 95 and ix86 respectively. Today there's still one viable hardware platform, but three viable operating systems - ix86, and Windows XP, GNU/Linux, and Mac OS X, respectively.

Anyone comfortable with "how the operating system is used" can easily switch from one to the other without major problems. For the most part, you can access the same content on all three without issues. Right now, XP has the marketshare because Apple only provides OS X for its own PCs, and most distributions of GNU/Linux aren't as friendly as either XP or OS X.

But history does matter tremendously, not only to stockholders, but to Jobs himself--he has inherited TWO failed attempts at software licensing. Apple's clone debacle, and NeXT's complete failure.

No, he's inherited one, the Apple clones debacle. The NeXT licensing was a success on its own terms. The aim wasn't to make NextStep the next Windows (if it was, it wouldn't have been priced 5-20x as much), the aim was to use it to keep revenue coming in while NeXT repositioned itself as a software development platform company.

In any case, this is irrelevent. The MARKET is different. It is as ridiculous to say "Apple's failure in 1995 means they shouldn't do it now" as it is to say "Microsoft's success in 1981 means they should do it now."

To date, no mixed hardware-software company has successfully licensed their products--most no longer exist at all, others are manufacturers of Intel clones.

That's kind of an odd statement to make. Apple is the only company that has ever done this, with the possible exception of IBM with OS/2, but OS/2 is an entire story in itself, and it was doing pretty well until Microsoft told IBM to drop OS/2. But then OS/2 was Windows compatable, so it's still different. And, of course, it was in a different market.

Apple certainly still exists, so "most no longer exist at all" is false, 1/1 still exists. But Apple is a manufacturer of Intel clones, so I guess the second part works.

NeXT stopped selling hardware when they started selling NeXTStep. Be did too. Commodore never sold AmigaOS seperately, and Amiga Technologies ultimately did the same thing as NeXT and Be, but only when it was too late. Palm also split up, but suffered problems due to the aging PalmOS platform not really being competitive with Windows CE. Atari went bust. So they don't really count as examples.

The market share difference today is...

...irrelevent, and largely affected by the fact Apple's software sales are tied to their hardware sales.

But Apple pays for the software through its hardware. The company generates money by means of selling hardware, and that money alone fuels software development. So from a market perspective, Apple is a hardware company that basically gives its software away.

*sigh* No. Apple sells packages of software and hardware, and it uses the software to sell the packages. I'm not aware of many people who just buy the hardware. If BootCamp results in most Mac owners installing Windows, I'm 99% certain Apple will try to improve Mac OS X if it can to compete, rather than giving up and selling Windows PCs.


Apple also lacks the resources to create broad compatibility for generic PC hardware, and OS X has very limited support for PCI peripherals and older hardware, with companies disinclined to write the drivers themselves. Windows is better at all of these things. After the first wave of "wow, OS X on my PC at last!" customers dries out, along with the accompanying massive drop in Mac sales, they'll be stuck. If Apple drops the ball just once and Microsoft claims its customers back, that's the end of Apple. Apple computers need OS X to sell at profitable rates, and OS X can't survive on broad PC hardware and needs Macs to keep its appeal. Upsetting this balance is extraordinarily dangerous.
There are many good and bad arguments for Apple to sell OS X for "whitebox" PCs. My point is that the "They've done it before" one is bogus. It's not relevent. It's actually moronic. They screwed it up, at a time when even if they hadn't, they'd have had problems anyway. The market conditions are right today, the question is would Apple be better off if it became an operating systems vendor instead of selling the whole widget? Not can they make it successful. In my view, they can, but that doesn't mean it's the best option for them.

matticus008
Apr 20, 2006, 11:29 AM
I'm not sure what you mean here. In 1995, there was one viable operating system and one viable hardware platform, Windows 95 and ix86 respectively. Today there's still one viable hardware platform, but three viable operating systems - ix86, and Windows XP, GNU/Linux, and Mac OS X, respectively.
Why 1995? I'm talking about the whole early 90s--there were several operating systems that commanded a sizeable market and Windows was still far from the 90% mark. In terms of hardware approaches, there were several which showed promise but never really took off. Today, there is almost no independent development, the point being that all have reached out for compatibility have effectively dissolved.

No, he's inherited one, the Apple clones debacle. The NeXT licensing was a success on its own terms. The aim wasn't to make NextStep the next Windows (if it was, it wouldn't have been priced 5-20x as much), the aim was to use it to keep revenue coming in while NeXT repositioned itself as a software development platform company.
Which also failed to gain traction. NeXT was widely respected, but never popular. NeXT licensing happened because they couldn't sell their own hardware, so they switched to a more mainstream platform. When that didn't work, they transitioned into their "software development" phase and created OpenStep.

In any case, this is irrelevent. The MARKET is different.
Exactly right, but the current market makes Apple more reliant on its hardware sales, not less.

That's kind of an odd statement to make. Apple is the only company that has ever done this.
Patently untrue. IBM couldn't fight Microsoft (Apple can't, either). AS/400 didn't work out too well for HP, despite its high potential, because Microsoft took steps to make its products more appealing to businesses. Then there are the examples you mention below:

NeXT stopped selling hardware when they started selling NeXTStep. Be did too. Commodore never sold AmigaOS seperately, and Amiga Technologies ultimately did the same thing as NeXT and Be, but only when it was too late. Palm also split up, but suffered problems due to the aging PalmOS platform not really being competitive with Windows CE. Atari went bust. So they don't really count as examples.
How is it that they don't count? They're all companies that couldn't compete in both markets, released one of the two, and then collapsed entirely. These are spread across 15 years and multiple different situations and market conditions, and none of them ended well.

...irrelevent, and largely affected by the fact Apple's software sales are tied to their hardware sales.
No, not irrelevant. The current situation and the current market are very much stacked against Apple, and regardless of who licensed what, today's market share differential is the critical market force that needs to be overcome.

*sigh* No. Apple sells packages of software and hardware, and it uses the software to sell the packages.
The movement of Mac hardware is the sales vector. The software is an input expense, just like the keyboards. It's a purely perceptual difference. Most of the software that leaves Apple is not "sold" and cannot be accounted for as a sale. The fact that it drives the sales is financially unimportant--they don't deduct a portion from each Mac sale and move it into "software" revenue. From an accounting perspective, it's a 100% hardware sale. That's why they're considered primarily a hardware company--hardware accounts for the overwhelming majority of revenue.

I basically agree with you on your assessment of conditions, but I disagree with your interpretation that those conditions indicate that now is the "right" time for a potential licensing attempt. The high level of consumer interest is not sustainable. Vista will be out soon, and Apple can't guarantee the "Mac experience" beyond Apple hardware--OS X would fall flatly on its face and the newness of Vista will likely satisfy the thirsts of the majority of people itching for OS X, especially with news of Leopard being so scarce. If anything, the right time would have been moving the Intel announcement up a few months and releasing it on, say, Sony Vaios--let the PC manufacturers do the Intel test run (it would have helped with the compatibility problems) and still be far enough away from Vista that a significant chunk of the market could be captured.

I don't think the "what they did in the past" card should be overplayed, but it definitely plays a role.

whooleytoo
Apr 20, 2006, 11:59 AM
I can't understand all these "Apple is a hardware company" v "Apple is a software company" arguments. Neither is completely true - you can't buy a Mac without the OS & bundled software, and you can't buy OSX, iLife, or it's pro apps and install them on any PC (legally, at least).

Apple is a solutions company, always has been. When you buy a Mac, you buy an integrated hardware, OS & applications solution. When you buy an iPod, you're using an integrated iPod hardware and iTunes software & download service solution.

pilotError
Apr 21, 2006, 10:02 AM
The start of something big?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060420.html

wms121
Apr 21, 2006, 11:43 AM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=189675&highlight=Avie+Tevanian


...hello PLAN9?

http://cm.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/9grid/



Some have said if/when Apple decides on issues like "Cell Processors", 256-bit operating systems, LCARS interfaces...HAL 9000 units at your local Apple Store (along with you personal servant Robot..ahem)..that perhaps, there shoulda coulda woulda been nice if some time "back then"..in the early 2000's..Cupertino and its brain trusts (Avie you can still participate...just reactivate your consulting career..call it "MY NeXT Programmer"..onward)..that a (wait for it) new approach might have been:

a nice new CLEAN SHEET OF PAPER operating system...

...one reason I posted the Darwin CODA page URL...there are also CELL Os's ..other experimental stuff at Stanford Steve could go back in and steal,

(hey Steve..steal us a nice 14 year old child computing prodigy....)

..anyway.

Developers want a break from the IBM breath on my neck all day long pace..
and besides..we are coming up on that "software engineering millstone"..predicted for the early part of this century right?

That soon most computers will have to program themselves..because of "complexity issues"..and that "no-one programmer or programmers" (except for the Redmond Brain Farm) could possibly complete all these "external taskings" by one methodology (read system, software, language or concept).

That is why they are looking at Cell OS, CODA's and its variants..and all kinds
of real poopy head nonsense..just in time for the next planetary information-space emergency.

Rememeber they DID have some Y2K breakdowns..just not in "info-aware"
locations..like the Swedish Air Force.

WW

Multimedia
Apr 22, 2006, 09:40 AM
I don't know. Frankly, I don't care if they update the OS to 64 on PPC. If they'd just get Logic to use more than 4 gigs of ram, that would be plenty.

Well, that and getting Logic to use more than two of the four processors on a quad.I'll second that Milo. Seems like the next version of Logic needs to release that ram limit as its primary advancement. Perhaps that will be something they will put out as a free update soon. Have you asked them about this?

I don't see any point in giving up the PPC Quad for a First Gen Intel Quad anyway. We're only a year away from 8 cores inside right now and meanwhile Adobe's CS2 is not going Intel native until then either. I'm excited about how much better performance we may see on the original Quads with Leopard on-board.

pablofmichel
Apr 25, 2006, 11:52 PM
No, no Chess 3.0

I'd rather say a new excellent version of Calculator.