Mac OS X 10.4 Info? [Archive]

nagromme

Feb 20, 2004, 12:45 PM

People often overlook two things when they complain that Apple advances Mac OS X too quickly:

First, regarding cost, $129 is NOT "full" price, it's an upgrade to whatever version of Mac OS (8? 9?) you already own. Some expect OS X should ship at two different prices--like a new version of Photoshop or Office--but that would only make sense if there were buyers who did not ALREADY own Mac OS. Apple has never sold Macs without Mac OS, so there IS no "standalone"/"first purchase" price for OS X. Everyone's first Mac OS purchase is simply bundled WITH a Mac.

Second, regarding timing, OS X was a new OS, and thus subject to faster improvement and more frequent upgrades. That's very desirable in a new product! But the update rate slows down over time--and that's clearly been the case with OS X:

Mac OS X Public Beta: 9/13/2000
$30 (free shipping, like all versions), all credited towards purchase of 10.0.

...6 months...

10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS. ($99 for Public Beta users.)

...6 months...

10.1 Puma: 9/29/2001
Free to 10.0 owners, $129 upgrade from earlier versions. Given away at CompUSA and other stores. (Mac users who have been with OS X from the beta days have still only paid for it once.)

...11 months...

10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.

...14 months...

10.3 Panther: October 10/24/2003
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.

...more than 14 months?...

10.4 ?

So the upgrade cycle, in months, has been: 6 - 6 - 11 - 14 (with two free versions early on). Apple's rate of change has naturally slowed as the OS has matured.

Panther took 3 months longer than Jaguar. What if 10.4 takes 3 months longer ( 17 months) than Panther? 10.4 would then be released in late March 2005. Or if development STOPS slowing down and 10.4 only takes 14 months again... that's still late December 2004. So even if 10.4 takes the same or slightly less time than 10.3, Apple might still wait a few days to release it in 2005. That would please the vocal people who think Apple should move slower: there would be NO paid releases in 2004.

And remember that earliest reports of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4.

Awimoway

Feb 20, 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
And remember that earliest reports of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4.

Yep, me too. MWSF would make a lot of sense. Although that would only be a 13-month turnaround. WWDC would be an 18-month turnaround and would fit the curve better.

But I agree that timing it to beat Longhorn would make sense, so perhaps the curve won't be adhered to this time around.

In any case, an improved Finder is the most needed improvement.

Spades

Feb 20, 2004, 12:59 PM

Anybody mind explaining what's the big deal about these database driven filesystems?

Filesystems ARE databases, and they're databases that are tuned for handling files. What exactly is the advantage of switching to a general purpose database? If anything, won't that make things slower? I've wondered this since Microsoft announced they were doing it, but since I don't do Windows I didn't really care. If there's a chance Apple is doing the same thing though, then I want an explanation.

DGFan

Feb 20, 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Spades
Anybody mind explaining what's the big deal about these database driven filesystems?

Filesystems ARE databases, and they're databases that are tuned for handling files. What exactly is the advantage of switching to a general purpose database? If anything, won't that make things slower? I've wondered this since Microsoft announced they were doing it, but since I don't do Windows I didn't really care. If there's a chance Apple is doing the same thing though, then I want an explanation.

It's a database on top of the regular file system that uses metadata as additional search fields for the underlying files. The files are probably still accessed through the standard filesystem "database"

nagromme

Feb 20, 2004, 01:34 PM

I don't think beating Longhorn is going to be much of a race for 10.4 :) 2008 or 2009 would NOT surprise me:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34500.html

"Longhorn in 2005 seems definitely off the agenda, and while it might ship in 2006, it could be delayed until 2008 or 2009, according to Gartner."

Even 2006 sounds like a long shot--so any OS X in early 2005 has a VERY safe lead.

Fukui

Feb 20, 2004, 02:29 PM

Doesn't HFS+ already have extensive database/mettadata support ? Its just that Apple hasn't been using it...at all.

aftk2

Feb 20, 2004, 02:51 PM

Fukui

Feb 20, 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by aftk2
Well, Apple does employee its primary developer... (http://www.letterp.com/~dbg/)
Wow, his "Practical File System Design" book is now free on the internet...I think I'll send Bill a copy just incase he missed it....might shave a year of Longhorns' release date, he he he....

stingerman

Feb 20, 2004, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
Once again we are adopting an idea that was before its time. OS X brought us Yellow Box from next and visual PS (sorta...) Now it sounds like we are scamming BeFS.

Hmmm, kind of recall the original Mac had a way of storing verbose meta-data back in 1984, in fact the data was portable as well. What did they call it? Oops got to go, I dropped my fork, it's a great resource for eating.

restiffbard

Feb 20, 2004, 04:11 PM

I believe that in order for the Finder to do meta data that Apple would have to significantly update HFS or make a whole new filesystem. I personally would love meta data. Also, Longhorn is supposed to have a similar database filesystem when it debuts in the next millenia. BeOS had metadata in its BeFS.

anyway, folks who are already going to bitch and moan about having to pay for 10.4 (which you will) meta data alone is reason to buy it. I'd be happy if 10.4 had maybe 1 gui change and meta data and nothing else.

meta data really is the shizzle folks.

cmx08

Feb 20, 2004, 04:28 PM

Tiger, it will be so gay whahaha
just like pooh's tiger whahahha

dho

Feb 20, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by stingerman
Hmmm, kind of recall the original Mac had a way of storing verbose meta-data back in 1984, in fact the data was portable as well. What did they call it? Oops got to go, I dropped my fork, it's a great resource for eating.

Oh my, what a great Resource Forks can be. "Metadata" does SOUND cooler though, or at least when I say it I feel smart :)

Vonnie

Feb 20, 2004, 05:50 PM

Haha, this would be absolutely great (assuming they will also add smart folders in the finder), but they should really integrate it.
Meaning, the ID3 tags in an MP3, should be shown as metadata in the finder, so I can search based on metadata in the finder. The same should go for my e-mails; Every e-mail is a file, with metadata (sender, subject,..). Addressbook, Safari bookmarks, iPhoto, .. If they can all use a more standarised way to store the metadata (and (smart) folder hierachy), this would make it allot easier for the user and developer.

.jason

Feb 20, 2004, 06:16 PM

Having a BeFS-like filesystem would be great!. I used BeOS from the release of 4.5 until well after the Be, Inc. died. The metadata in the filesystem combined with query & live query support allowed for things that just aren't possible on other OS's without special application code to index files and store the information in an application specific database (i.e. iTunes and it's database). I believe this is the one feature that (if properly implemented) could make me excited - no overjoyed to upgrade my OS.

restiffbard

Feb 20, 2004, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by Vonnie
...The same should go for my e-mails; Every e-mail is a file, with metadata (sender, subject,..). Addressbook, Safari bookmarks, iPhoto...

This is precisely what you got with Be and the BeFS. Hence, former and even current Be users excitement about the same possibility with OS X.

bngbrgr

Feb 20, 2004, 07:31 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if they skipped 10.4 and went right to 10.5. Anyone who used System 5, please raise your hand. Nobody? That's what I thought....

job

Feb 20, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
THEMES!!!

You can already do this in 10.3 with the help of a few share/freeware apps. Check the Macnn.com forums on GUI stuff for more info. There are actually a ton of nice themes for 10.3 now.

Awimoway

Feb 20, 2004, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by job
You can already do this in 10.3 with the help of a few share/freeware apps. Check the Macnn.com forums on GUI stuff for more info. There are actually a ton of nice themes for 10.3 now.

Plus, I don't think Jobs likes theming. It was possible in OS 9 and perhaps some previous versions (I switched after their time), but Jobs wasn't responsible for those operating systems.

mdriftmeyer

Feb 20, 2004, 09:36 PM

Database driven Finder is not surprising. With the prior implementation of DBKit and then later EOF and the Soups development within Mecca Openstep 5.0 pre-release 1 that was never implemented its about time that Engineering polished the ideas and release it.

MacBandit

Feb 20, 2004, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by cmx08
Tiger, it will be so gay whahaha
just like pooh's tiger whahahha

There's a difference between a Tiger as in a big cat and a Tigger as in a stupid little cat that bounces on his tail. Notice for one the spelling difference.

From my recollection the code name for 10.4 is Lynx.

MacBandit

Feb 20, 2004, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by september29th
In the Book - Apple Confidential 2.0 - There's a chapter on *code names*.

Code names for all the operating systems were given... thought it was kinda interesting that 10.4 was dubbed Merlot (at least I think it is... the book is at home)

This tidbit is of no signifigance... found it odd that it wasn't a feline tho'.

.mCr.

I don't remember exactly which version was Merlot but it wasn't 10.4 not that I can remember.

It might have been Jaguar. The ended up changing the name to a cat name and have ditched the wine based names all together in preference of the more powerful less turned up nose Cat names.

silvergunuk

Feb 20, 2004, 10:23 PM

OS Cougar?

Wouldn't it be great microsoft shows off this new 3D interface which looks more or less like Quartz in Panther, then Apple announces Quartz Extreme 3D where the desktop ripples like real water and folders appear as small piles that float on the surface of leaves and light reflects off the water in realtime blowing anything away in its path (including Looking Glass). 1 Can only hope.

Fukui

Feb 20, 2004, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Database driven Finder is not surprising. With the prior implementation of DBKit and then later EOF and the Soups development within Mecca Openstep 5.0 pre-release 1 that was never implemented its about time that Engineering polished the ideas and release it.
Please tell me more. I never heard of this before...Please?

Snowy_River

Feb 20, 2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Awimoway
Plus, I don't think Jobs likes theming. It was possible in OS 9 and perhaps some previous versions (I switched after their time), but Jobs wasn't responsible for those operating systems.

Yup, I keep Classic themed with an Aqua theme to avoid too much of a disjointed feeling when I'm using classic apps. There have even been a couple of times I've actually forgotten that an app was in Classic...

I like keeping things consistent. I also like themes... :D

Wonder Boy

Feb 20, 2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by job
You can already do this in 10.3 with the help of a few share/freeware apps. Check the Macnn.com forums on GUI stuff for more info. There are actually a ton of nice themes for 10.3 now.

eh, i don't trust 3rd party themers. every one ive used has mess things up for me.

id rather have them intergrated into the system by apple.

Awimoway

Feb 21, 2004, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
eh, i don't trust 3rd party themers. every one ive used has mess things up for me.

id rather have them intergrated into the system by apple.

I don't use them either, as there are inevitably jarring inconsistencies, but I have registered Shapeshifter. I believe it will someday to grow up to be a very solid kickass themer. It's also a lot more stable/safe.

mdriftmeyer

Feb 21, 2004, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Fukui
Please tell me more. I never heard of this before...Please?

If you can get yourself a copy of Mecca or ask to visit the Engineering Facilities at Apple you will see Mecca still running. Last time I worked there it was next to the Dual PPC prototype NeXT Brick that had dual fiber optic connectors on the side and a host of other goodies. The Brick had the chip that was the precursor to the PPC 601.

Now Soups was supposed to allow one to work in a Distributed Objects (PDO) environment where one could lock down sections of code, documentation, etc and jointly work on it without overwriting others changes (last one that writes scenario).

Also, DBKit had some issues that well were resolved but during a fallout between the engineer working on DBKit 2 and Engineering he left to work on other projects (This is at NeXT before 1996). Ironically, part of the code got lost due to it resided in his /home account and the Sys Admin wiped the account without checking the sources. Needless to say all source was no longer allowed to hang around in your user account--limited to 50MB, by default.

Since DBKit was all ObjC based and the new Finder is ObjC/Cocoa I wouldn't be surprised if they finally take some of the design ideas and have finally implemented it within the OS. Soups I hope they implement. I'm sure someone more qualified who had worked on it could give a much more indepth description.

Let's just say Soups is a much better solution that CVS and allows people to interact more than dealing with just locking down source from checkout/checkin.

Nermal

Feb 21, 2004, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by nagromme, heavily edited by Nermal
10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
10.3 Panther: October 10/24/2003

All 3 released on the 24th. Hmm.

Flickta

Feb 21, 2004, 01:02 AM

What is really scary, is that Microsoft (according to all the articles on delays) is actually designing a new system. Something we have never seen yet. New means completely redesigned, with lots of new features. And they take their time to polish those features. I'd expect the next release of Mac OS X (10.5? Maybe even 11?) to ship approximately at the same time as Longhorn. 2005-6-7. Mac users must have a reason not to abandon their platform. So far it has been a supremacy of the OS and (rare cases) supremacy of high-end systems. Next?

Flickta

Feb 21, 2004, 01:05 AM

And one more thing. Microsoft didn't stop to develop XP (removing bugs, then there was this Media Center Edition and more stuff will follow). So for them Longhorn is practically like OS X was for Mac users.

SeaFox

Feb 21, 2004, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
People often overlook two things when they complain that Apple advances Mac OS X too quickly:

First, regarding cost, $129 is NOT "full" price, it's an upgrade to whatever version of Mac OS (8? 9?) you already own. Some expect OS X should ship at two different prices--like a new version of Photoshop or Office--but that would only make sense if there were buyers who did not ALREADY own Mac OS. Apple has never sold Macs without Mac OS, so there IS no "standalone"/"first purchase" price for OS X. Everyone's first Mac OS purchase is simply bundled WITH a Mac.

What are you talking about? That's exactly the opposite of the truth! Every new version of MacOSX is a new, full version. That's why people complain about the price. "I already paid $129 for 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, why don't I get a discount because I own a previous version?" See, that's what the whole idea of an upgrade is, credit for a previous version you own, sometimes requiring you install on top of the previous version.

But I can go buy a copy of Panther, without showing any proof of previous ownership of the MacOS, and install it on a completely blank hard drive on a Mac. Exactly what definition of "upgrade" does this meet?

The reason Apple has never sold Macs without the MacOS is part of the proprietary hardware/software deal. They were all designed to run the MacOS by the manufacturer, so it is included. Whereas, PC's are made by everyone but Microsoft, so selling the machine OS-less is just a matter of getting all the parts together, there's no vested interest in it running any one operating system out of box for the PC maker. They use Windows because that is what's in demand by most consumers and their OEM builder licensing terms with MS are requiring fee payments whether the machine has Windows or not. The fact the machine is capable of running Windows is what's matters.

MacBandit

Feb 21, 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Flickta
What is really scary, is that Microsoft (according to all the articles on delays) is actually designing a new system. Something we have never seen yet. New means completely redesigned, with lots of new features. And they take their time to polish those features. I'd expect the next release of Mac OS X (10.5? Maybe even 11?) to ship approximately at the same time as Longhorn. 2005-6-7. Mac users must have a reason not to abandon their platform. So far it has been a supremacy of the OS and (rare cases) supremacy of high-end systems. Next?

It's still Microsoft.

nagromme

Feb 21, 2004, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by SeaFox
...
But I can go buy a copy of Panther, without showing any proof of previous ownership of the MacOS, and install it on a completely blank hard drive on a Mac. Exactly what definition of "upgrade" does this meet?

It's an upgrade because you can only use it if you have a previous version. And you are right, that is necessarily the case and so Apple need not enforce it artificially.

By what scheme can you imagine Apple offering TWO prices, a first-purchase full price, and an upgrade discount? The imaginary, higher "full" price of Mac OS is never seen: it's bundled with every Mac.

I think what you mean is that you wish the ONE price (upgrading your Mac) were lower. Fair enough--it's always been worth it to me, but when it's not, I'll skip that upgrade.

SiliconAddict

Feb 21, 2004, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
There's a difference between a Tiger as in a big cat and a Tigger as in a stupid little cat that bounces on his tail. Notice for one the spelling difference.

From my recollection the code name for 10.4 is Lynx.

That and Tigger isn't likely to maul you to death with one swipe of a paw. ;)

How about we split the difference?

My vote is for Sabertooth. (a.k.a Sabertooth Tiger.) It a edgy word. IMHO it conjures up hard forceful images. It’s a strong, no nonsense word. Perfect for OS X.

SiliconAddict

Feb 21, 2004, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
It's still Microsoft.

And Apple zealots are Apple zealots so it works out in the end. :rolleyes:

encro

Feb 21, 2004, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by september29th
In the Book - Apple Confidential 2.0 - There's a chapter on *code names*.

Code names for all the operating systems were given... thought it was kinda interesting that 10.4 was dubbed Merlot (at least I think it is... the book is at home)

This tidbit is of no signifigance... found it odd that it wasn't a feline tho'.

.mCr.

Updates, Colors, Lord of the Rings Characters and Wine don't have anything to do with big aggressive cats :)

...except when Apple uses them as internal code names.

encro

Feb 21, 2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Nermal

10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
10.3 Panther: October 10/24/2003

All 3 released on the 24th. Hmm.

...and the 10.2 Jaguar release date was also the same release date of Windows 95 back in the day.

GregA

Feb 21, 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by bngbrgr
I wouldn't be surprised if they skipped 10.4 and went right to 10.5. Anyone who used System 5, please raise your hand. Nobody? That's what I thought.... I used every version up to System 6 (and now X). Didn't they at one stage have system 3 with finder 4 or something? Then they brought it in line? I don't like skipping numbers myself (Did they release MacOS X before MacOS 9?)
Originally posted by Flickta
What is really scary, is that Microsoft (according to all the articles on delays) is actually designing a new system. Something we have never seen yet.Hmmm. NT meant "New Technology". Maybe this will be RNT ("Really New Technology").
Originally posted by SeaFox
What are you talking about? That's exactly the opposite of the truth! Every new version of MacOSX is a new, full version. That's why people complain about the price. "I already paid $129 for 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, why don't I get a discount because I own a previous version?" See, that's what the whole idea of an upgrade is, credit for a previous version you own, sometimes requiring you install on top of the previous version.Nah, really, when you buy a new Mac, about $400 of it is for Mac OS X. Then when you pay $129, it's to upgrade it. I DO think upgrading from the 10.2 to 10.3 should be cheaper than from OS 9 etc. They should make a special deal for people who update with every release.

Everyone says Apple makes a lot on their hardware, but the cost of OS development means they don't profit as much as it appears. There is certainly a $ value for the OS that could be added.

nuckinfutz

Feb 21, 2004, 09:40 AM

It'll never end. Every new OS is going to bring the inevitable whine from users who feel as though Apple is forcing their hand. The reality is Apples OS is their crown jewel and being much smaller than the X86 Market we need to evolve rapidly. When PC people were asking "What's 802.11?" Mac users were using it.

$129 is not a lot of money for an os the caliber of OSX. XP Professional cost what $180 as an upgrade? Apple has even created the family license with 5 seats for $40 freakin dollars a seat!

Truth be told people want to see software priced as close to zero as possible while apple wants it as far away. That's just business.

As for 10.4 I expect large changes. Apple probably staggers development teams so I'd venture to say that the team that programmed Jaguar at large is working on 10.4 while the Panther team will eventually move on to 10.5 work. This way Apple has work on their next two OS version happening concurrently. So when 10.4 comes out it will NOT be just a little over a year from Panther but in reality it will have been worked on for over 2 years by one development team. That is why Apple can add so many features at one time.

As for Longhorn there is plenty of information about Longhorn available. Nothing is really going to be a suprise. Microsoft generally has to be fairly open about what they're going to do because the developer market is so much larger. They cannot afford to be as secretive as Apple. I expect 10.5 or 10.6 to battle Longhorn and as always Apple will be 2 steps ahead.

MacBandit

Feb 21, 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
And Apple zealots are Apple zealots so it works out in the end. :rolleyes:

Hmm I'm a Microsoft Zealot for saying it's still Microsoft? I know a lot of PC people who would agree with me on the fact that even though Microsoft employees some of the most talented programers on earth they are almost always forced by some weird design plan to botch together something that is not only buggy but also has an annoying interface.

wdlove

Feb 21, 2004, 11:41 AM

So if the rumor of skipping a number is true and there is a 2 year development cycle. Then the Jaguar team could be working on 10.5. The Panther team could be working on 10.6. That way it would be well in advance of Longhorn. :)

whooleytoo

Feb 21, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
It's an upgrade because you can only use it if you have a previous version.

No, it's not just an upgrade, because it can install a full version of OSX on a partition that previously had no OS installed in it.

Apple also makes OSX upgrade CD's (which typically ship with new Macs just after a new version of OSX is released) which cannot do the above.

whooleytoo

Feb 21, 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by iJed
Sounds like Apple is doing the Mac equivalent of WinFS

10.2 Jaguar
10.3 Panther
10.4 Copycat

:D

Flickta

Feb 21, 2004, 02:17 PM

Hmmm. NT meant "New Technology". Maybe this will be RNT ("Really New Technology").

XP (NT with bells & whistles) is good. I can't stand it, but it is really good, especially taking into consideration the vast amount of hardware it has to run on. And XP was a quick hack compared to Longhorn.

May be off topic, but every new release of OS X looks more like Beta. Interface glitches (see file. For me it looks inconsistent. What about you?) of Panther and its Megabuggy Finder. My preferred bug is a drag-multiple-items-on-a-desktop-then-have-finder-relaunched bug. I often save many articles to later read them and move to trash or to pages folder. And guess what? I'm irritated by Finder not allowing me to do this. Many more bugs there are...

P.S. I admit the speed improvements. QE is sweet. But some things get worse.

SiliconAddict

Feb 21, 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by nuckinfutz

Truth be told people want to see software priced as close to zero as possible while apple wants it as far away. That's just business.

I think that goes without saying for any market. Look at the Walmart, Dell, P2P sharing, v1 Napster. People want something for nothing and the reality is this won't happen. And typically when it does you get cheap *** stuff like Dell's cheap'o puters.

As for Longhorn there is plenty of information about Longhorn available. Nothing is really going to be a suprise. Microsoft generally has to be fairly open about what they're going to do because the developer market is so much larger. They cannot afford to be as secretive as Apple. I expect 10.5 or 10.6 to battle Longhorn and as always Apple will be 2 steps ahead.

Well put. I think that's Microsoft's biggest Achilles' Heel. It's next to impossible for them to keep secrets without ticking off the entire development and IT community. That and first and foremost Microsoft is a marketing company. Software is secondary. They have to scream from the highest peaks what "wonderful" new features Windows XYZ has well before it comes out to try and create a marketing hype and get people to by into *monster truck voice* NEWER! BIGGER! FASTER! MORE RELIABLE! ULTRA SECURE! BUY IT NOW NOW NOW!!
Apple does the same but in a much narrow timeframe. That and you have such wonderful BS propaganda pendants such as news.com and zdnet.com who make front page news items for such wonderful things as "Microsoft to release Longhorn system requirements at WINHEC." WHO CARES?!?! Its 2 years away from being released! It’s a marketing ploy to keep people's attention on Longhorn and try and keep their eyes from drifting over to those "other" OS's. Again. Microsoft: A marketing company that just happens to make software too.

SiliconAddict

Feb 21, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by wdlove
So if the rumor of skipping a number is true and there is a 2 year development cycle. Then the Jaguar team could be working on 10.5. The Panther team could be working on 10.6. That way it would be well in advance of Longhorn. :)

OK. Let's see if we can nail this down. People keep talking about development teams. Does anyone know for a fact that there are multiple development teams for the various OS X versions. So is/was there truly a sep Jaguar team and Panther team? To me it that sounds convoluted. You would think that the people who developed Panther would know their code better then anyone else and who would be the perfect candidates for making OS 10.4. Why would you put anyone other then the experts on that project? Anyone?!?!

johnnyjibbs

Feb 21, 2004, 03:26 PM

With other developers, I could quite easily see different teams for different software. In a games development house, for example, the people making one game will be a different team to the ones making a completely different, INDEPENDENT game. Likewise the IE team doesn't have to be the same as the Office team.

However, 10.4 is not independent of 10.3, as is 10.3 and 10.2. They are not separate games. Although Panther has some fundamental core differences with Jaguar, it is still an evolution and, at one point, was split off from Jaguar. I'm sure parts of the team split off temporarily to keep the Jaguar minor updates coming, as Panther was being developed but would have had to have been kept 'in the loop.'

At the present time we can only widly speculate what goodies are in store for us in 10.4...

Fukui

Feb 21, 2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
That and first and foremost Microsoft is a marketing company. Software is secondary. They have to scream from the highest peaks what "wonderful" new features Windows XYZ has well before it comes out to try and create a marketing hype and get people to by into *monster truck voice* NEWER! BIGGER! FASTER! MORE RELIABLE! ULTRA SECURE! BUY IT NOW NOW NOW!!

Exactly. All the features in Longhorn are what were promised in Cairo 10 years ago...except this time they MAY ACTUALLY do it.

killmoms

Feb 21, 2004, 07:17 PM

From what I understand of this thread, it sounds like this is more copying BeOS's BFS than Windows' new WinFS. Am I correct in understanding that WinFS has an actual database running on top of it? BFS did too, before DR2, at which point they removed that and replaced it with an indexed, queryable metadata system which was much faster. It's still probably the biggest BeOS feature I miss while working in MacOS X.

--Cless

SeaFox

Feb 21, 2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
It's an upgrade because you can only use it if you have a previous version.

No you don't. That's exactly my point. There is no requirement that one have a previous version of the MacOS to buy/use a retail copy of Panther.

By what scheme can you imagine Apple offering TWO prices, a first-purchase full price, and an upgrade discount? The imaginary, higher "full" price of Mac OS is never seen: it's bundled with every Mac.

As for the "bundled" copy, I actually view it as being free rather than integrated in the system price. A computer without an OS is unusable and as I said, Apple wants everyone to use the MacOS as their operating system (instead of using Yellow Dog say). It just makes sense from a business perspective. Dell could care less what OS you use on their PC, they only get a cut of the OS price if it's a retail markup from you buying your upgrade from them (and you can buy a Windows upgrade for your HP on Dell's site). Apple gets revenue even if you shop at Amazon for your Panther upgrade.

I think what you mean is that you wish the ONE price (upgrading your Mac) were lower. Fair enough--it's always been worth it to me, but when it's not, I'll skip that upgrade.

No, I mean exactly what I said. :rolleyes: I think $129 is a fair price for the full version with new licence, which is what you buy in stores right now. I think it would be nice if Apple were to have an upgrade price as well. User's have to provide the serial numbers from their previous copies of OSX to buy the new version at the lower price. This is how upgrades work for many software companies.

And I don't fell this way because I feel jilted at having bought every version of OSX since it came out for $129. I'm still using OS9, and wont be using OSX until I get my next Mac, and it will have 10.4 preinstalled, so how Apple prices it will have no effect on me.:o

GregA

Feb 22, 2004, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by SeaFox
As for the "bundled" copy, I actually view it as being free rather than integrated in the system price. A computer without an OS is unusable and as I said, Apple wants everyone to use the MacOS as their operating system (instead of using Yellow Dog say). By your logic, Windows also just comes with a PC, you'd view it as being free. Microsoft couldn't survive if Windows was given away.

Apple gives you no choice but to buy MacOS with the computer. And as a side effect - when you upgrade to OS 10.3, as long as you're installing on Apple hardware the installer is GUARANTEED that you are upgrading. No need to check prior OS - after all, how is it possible you don't have a previous Mac OS version if you own Mac Hardware?

That's enough of that (for me anyway). Hope we get 10.4. Hope it's free (or cheaper) for people who paid for 10.3.

hulugu

Feb 22, 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
Kzin... :D

That's great...
...and we're all geeks you realize.

hulugu

Feb 22, 2004, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by restiffbard
This is precisely what you got with Be and the BeFS. Hence, former and even current Be users excitement about the same possibility with OS X.

Okay, I've been parsing my way through this thread and I really have to ask what can one do with metadata? If WinFS has it and BeOS had it, what did someone do with it.

SiliconAddict

Feb 22, 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by hulugu
Okay, I've been parsing my way through this thread and I really have to ask what can one do with metadata? If WinFS has it and BeOS had it, what did someone do with it.

OK. One example that could be implemented. You work in an insurance agency. You are the team manager that deals with 30 large companies. (Lets say Ford, NW Airlines, Paramount.) You need to review information on that account but you have maybe a half dozen people who may have hundreds of files scattered in multiple directories. (God knows we do.) The typical method users use to organize data is via a hierarchical structure. So.....

Clients ----
-------------Honda
--------------------------04
--------------------------03
--------------------------02
--------------------------01
--------------------------00

And the data paths can get even further convoluted if you are trying to organize your information into specific fields such as claims, policies, etc. With a metadatabase, esp WINFS, you can actually do searches beyond simple file names and paths. Lets go back to my example. Gathering information from this pathing nightmare can be time consuming when you are dealing with dates and filenames. Imagine these files are imbued with additional information that you can add to the metadata? So a manager no longer has to search for *Honda*.doc or *Honda*.xls They can refine their searches into a manner that can bring back information on various data types: word, excel, PowerPoint, e-mails, PDF, JPG, Access databases. And here’s the kicker. It can bring back information from data files that aren’t known or recognized because that WINFS reads the metadata not the file itself. And since WINFS is going to be using XML it would be simple to craft additional data fields such as authors address, and IM number and if that user is currently online and display all that information in a results page. So lets say that manager is wading through this information that was returned and saw that X user who crafted the 02 policy that is up for renewal this month is currently online they could IM right there.
Even better. WINFS will be able to go beyond the local hard drive, beyond even the local server. Potentially one could search every computer in a network. In Microsoft’s case they will be utilizing XML along with a large feature set of API’s for WINFS. So the potential for creating apps that utilize WINFS is huge.
Metadata is not a new idea but the potential to change how we look at data is. I pray that Apple works on direct integration of WINFS with either 10.4 or 10.5 to allow searches from Longhorn systems to be expanded to Mac systems. I think WINFS is going to be a huge motivator for companies to move to Longhorn. There is a major hesitation to move to XP right now. Many companies don’t see a major advantage to moving from 2K to XP. This could change in Longhorn.
Again I think I have a very basic conceptual understanding of how this works. I just haven’t had enough time to dive into the topic in any meaningful way. It’s fascinating though. If you want more info on it:

http://www20.tomshardware.com/storage/20040129/winfs-01.html

JFreak

Feb 22, 2004, 05:17 AM

regarding licenses, it may be true that apple forces customer to buy the OS license with apple hardware and further installs would be upgrades to the original license. however, the way retail packs work (allowing os install to a computer without os at all) the packs could be described as new/first install packs instead of upgrade which would check if the previous version was already installed.

customers are confused because incense policies and install software behaviour talk a different story. BUT - come to think of it - apple can also be credited for it, because apple could easily sell only upgrade install disks forcing users wishing to erase install to first restore the older software to a formatted drive, prior to upgrading to the newest. this would be really annoying and therefore i just say "thank you" to apple giving me the option to only put in a panther install disk and be done with it.

one think i never have figured out, though, are the coupons included in the os pack. what's the point? one can buy a panther box in store without coupons and by showing copuon of previous os purchase, one doesn't get discounted. that tells me that the retail boxes are in fact new licenses instead of upgrades. if that's true, apple should really give a discount for customers that are truly upgrading the existing license of os "ten" to the newest version. this ownership could easily be proven with the coupons.

that said, i'm happier paying usd129 every year compared to usd400 every three years. apple is really doing a wonderful job.

nagromme

Feb 22, 2004, 05:20 AM

You misunderstand me. You truly CAN'T use Mac OS X unless you already own a version of Mac OS. I aready said what you did--that this is not artificially enforced. You can install on a blank drive. But that blank drive is ALWAYS in a Mac that came with Mac OS.

OS X needs no more "proof of prior version" beyond the fact that it can only run on Mac.

Yes, some apps have a price scale depending on HOW old your old version is, but that's a lot of complexity for the company, for user, and for stores--so while I think it's a fine idea, it doesn't surprise me that it's often not done. That fact is not Apple-specific.

johnnyjibbs

Feb 22, 2004, 07:14 AM

The point SeaFox was trying to make was that Panther for $129 (or 10.4 for that matter, if it is also $129) is much better value for someone like him who only has OS 9 than someone who has Jaguar (i.e. the previous version). They currently don't run Mac OS X (OS 9 has more similarities with Win 3.1 than OS X IMO) so they are not really 'upgrading' in the true sense.

Also, an upgarde path may help sell more copies of the previous version prior to the next one's release. Yes, Apple doesn't announce when the next version will ship until a month or so before, but there's a lot of users who would stay clear of paying $129 for Panther when they know that 10.4 is imminent (e.g. from MacRumors, other rumours sites, Apple's own sneak previews). (Remember, all the clueless switchers, of which I am one, would have bought their new Mac and had Panther for free, so it's only the people who were established Mac users who would be in the market for buying Panther/10.4 retail).

Regarding metadata, so it sounds like it's just a faster way of searching for files :o

ifjake

Feb 22, 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by nagromme
I don't think beating Longhorn is going to be much of a race for 10.4 :) 2008 or 2009 would NOT surprise me:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34500.html

"Longhorn in 2005 seems definitely off the agenda, and while it might ship in 2006, it could be delayed until 2008 or 2009, according to Gartner."

Even 2006 sounds like a long shot--so any OS X in early 2005 has a VERY safe lead.

i think the release of Longhorn depends really on when apple releases a new OS anyway. that's where MS get's all it's ideas. like the new user interface renderer "Avalon" being based on 3D technology. i suspect it's merely a Direct3D version of the OpenGL Quartz Extreme. all this time that it takes MS to finally deliver is because they have to find some way around the copyrights and such.

whooleytoo

Feb 22, 2004, 11:42 AM

Spades

Feb 22, 2004, 01:21 PM

I have an even better idea. Let's create a standard for defining and accessing metadata, and then let the implementation specifics be OS specific. Supporting WINFS in OS X would be an awful mess, if only because it probably wouldn't work right all the time. Interoperability and Microsoft simply don't belong in the same sentence, or at least it doesn't as long as Microsoft is the one defining everything. Just look at the problems people have with Samba and Windows systems.

If metadata is really such a big deal, the first thing to do should be to create a standard for it. Once there's a standard way that allows anybody to access anybody else's metadata, then people can start implementing it. Given Microsoft's history the odds are their design is half baked, and, as has been mentioned, WINFS seems a lot more marketing driven than technically driven.

Incidentally, if your hypothetical insurance agency wasn't already storing such things in a database I'd fire the CTO and trim IT a little.

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
I pray that Apple works on direct integration of WINFS with either 10.4 or 10.5 to allow searches from Longhorn systems to be expanded to Mac systems.

Fukui

Feb 22, 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Spades
Incidentally, if your hypothetical insurance agency wasn't already storing such things in a database I'd fire the CTO and trim IT a little.

Well, now that SQL server is integrated into windows (will be) you could say those database companies are as good as netscaped...

bernardb

Feb 22, 2004, 02:39 PM

Don't yell at me, but WHAT THE HECK IS METADATA?

thanx

Spades

Feb 22, 2004, 03:57 PM

Metadata literally means "data about data." It's basically extra information about whatever you're looking at. The metadata for a document might have the name of the person that created it and the software it was written with. Whether you knew it or not, you've already been using metadata. If you take a picture with a digital camera, it probably includes metadata that describes the settings the picture was taken with. If you use iTunes then you've seen the metadata first hand. Song name, artist, playcount; that's all metadata.

Now that you know what metadata is, feel free to forget about it. Metadata can be useful for humans, but its real purpose is to help programs. SiliconAddict's example shows this perfectly. A document can have the IM number of the person that made it, and when you open the document it could show if that person is online. Just like Mail.app already does...ahem. Anyways, you don't care that it was the metadata that allowed that. As the user, you just know it works. Smarter interaction between programs is the real power of metadata, not searching. Searching is just the best (and pretty much only) application for metadata that's human usable.

That's why I find it so strange that Microsoft is marketing WINFS so strongly. The average person has nothing to gain from WINFS. It's developers that have something to gain. Consumers will get the benefits from the programs developers write for WINFS.

Originally posted by bernardb
Don't yell at me, but WHAT THE HECK IS METADATA?

thanx

Yeah. If I was a DBA, I'd start looking for a new job before metadata caught on.

Originally posted by Fukui
Well, now that SQL server is integrated into windows (will be) you could say those database companies are as good as netscaped...

SeaFox

Feb 22, 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by GregA
By your logic, Windows also just comes with a PC, you'd view it as being free. Microsoft couldn't survive if Windows was given away.

Because as we all know, Microsoft doesn't make any money off the Windows upgrades people are buying to upgrade what came on their box.

Plus, it's just as easy sell MS Office to Linux users, who can't run it at all, as it is people who got Windows on their machine to start with. The Windows bundling isn't about selling Windows copies, it's about 1) making the PC for sellable for consumers to the vendor, and for Microsoft 2) about getting your foot in the door and locking people into proprietary formats like WMA.

Arguably, the bundled copies of Windows are free, since according to the licence they can only be used on the hardware they were sold with. They are a part of the PC hardware, not a software program that came with it in licencing terms.

Apple gives you no choice but to buy MacOS with the computer. And as a side effect - when you upgrade to OS 10.3, as long as you're installing on Apple hardware the installer is GUARANTEED that you are upgrading. No need to check prior OS - after all, how is it possible you don't have a previous Mac OS version if you own Mac Hardware?

If you built the Mac yourself out of parts. All that is really required is the motherboard and processor.

Snowy_River

Feb 22, 2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by SeaFox
...If you built the Mac yourself out of parts. All that is really required is the motherboard and processor.

Well, technically, you'd be breaking the law, then. Part of the license agreement with Mac OS X states that you can only install it on Apple hardware.

:)

Jonathan Amend

Feb 23, 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by Fukui
Well, now that SQL server is integrated into windows (will be) you could say those database companies are as good as netscaped...

There has always been a free version of SQL Server called the Desktop Engine and it's what WinFS will use. It just has severely limited licensing compared to SQL Server and it can only serve up to 25 users at a time, so Oracle, Postgre, etc have nothing to worry about.

Originally posted by SeaFox

If you built the Mac yourself out of parts. All that is really required is the motherboard and processor. [/B]

Well, you could theoretically do it, but the price of an upgrade/replacement motherboard itself will set you back by quite a bit. PC PCI devices will also not work in Macs so you'd have to buy the "special" versions (for example, the Mac Radeon 9800 Pro costs $100 USD more than the PC version). Alternatively there are companies that sell PowerPC-based computers (http://www.pegasosppc.com/) but they don't have the Mac roms and therefore they can't run the Mac OS.

MacBandit

Feb 23, 2004, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, technically, you'd be breaking the law, then. Part of the license agreement with Mac OS X states that you can only install it on Apple hardware.

:)

It would be Apple hardware and no he wouldn't be breaking the law. It's only illegal to commercially resell Apples motherboards for use in building Mac boxes for sale by other then Apple.

I can understand both sides of this argument. For one yes the OS and the Mac can not be separated they are one and the same so yes every os is an upgrade. On the other hand Apple does also offer upgrades to the the upgrades at reduced prices for those that purchased a new Apple without the latest OS. What would be nice is if Apple offered those sorts of discounts to people that have the newly replaced OS. For instance I own 10.3 it would be nice if Apple offered me a discount when they come out with 10.4.

On the other hand I have purchased nearly every version of the Mac OS since system 7. Either through a direct purchase of the software or by buying a new Mac. That includes every version of OSX including the preview version. It would be doubly cool if Apple offered addicts such as me a lifetime subscription for say $1,000.

SeaFox

Feb 23, 2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Well, technically, you'd be breaking the law, then. Part of the license agreement with Mac OS X states that you can only install it on Apple hardware.
:)

Yeah, the motherboard and processor are all that should count for a hardware requirement, otherwise you legally could not run MacOSX on your computer after replacing the HD or upgrading the RAM.

But I meant buying parts from junked Macs on eBay. The original owners are gonna keep the restore disc if they can use it (or sell it separately) so if you used parts from lots of differnt sources you would have technically not bought an entire machine in a way that would count as purchasing an OS license.

Considering that MacOSX is a completely different OS from the Classic MacOS, buying Panther to run on a machine currently running OS9 could not be considered an "upgrade" from any standpoint.

Flickta

Feb 23, 2004, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by ifjake
like the new user interface renderer "Avalon" being based on 3D technology. i suspect it's merely a Direct3D version of the OpenGL Quartz Extreme.

Will it be the samesituation like there is with games? Will direct 3d version be faster? :)

thajeztah

Feb 23, 2004, 05:01 AM

Using a database for storing Metadata sounds -very- interesting! (Hope we won't need to rebuild the desktop-database as often as in the old days ;) )

Regarding 'SiliconAddict's example;

"With a metadatabase, esp WINFS, you can actually do searches beyond simple file names and paths."

Apple should use an XML database, not a 'SQL' variant like MySQL or Postgresql

I've read an very article in this month's Linux Magazine (http://www.linux-mag.com/). The article describes the Berkeley XML DB (http://www.sleepycat.com/products/xml.shtml), which is a database that uses XML as the native format. In other words; XML-documents are stored just as they are.. as an XML document.

So -why- is this interesting?

The Berkeley XML DB is designed for the ever increasing 'not-so-structured' data; It would be impossible to design a database for every kind of data that's on your computer (how much sense will it make to search for the 'size in pixels' of a plain text document? the 'fax number' of a picture?, Why create space for data that's not there, or, don't create space that should have been there?).

The Berkeley XML DB makes it possible to search -inside- the document; And a lot smarter than currently with OS X 'file indexing'; With this database it would, for example, be possible to search things like:

Documents with 'first name is' and 'last name is' (Contacts? Word Documents? Pictures?)
Documents which 'Resolution is 72 dpi', 'ColorSync Profile is kodak.icc' and 'Camera Manufacturer is 'Fuji'
Possibilities are endless!

Adding extra information to a document will not be very difficult (Wouldn't it be nice to Search for documents that were 'last back-upped 1 week ago', documents that are on 'Backup-disk 1' (mm I like that one!), Or even 'Show me on what disks I have a backup of this file!', Documents that were 'based on this document' (wow!), 'The website where I copied this text from').

Many of these things are possible -right now!- for example, Both Photoshop CS and Apple store extra properties -inside- your (jpeg) files -using- XML! (to check this, open a picture that was saved by Photoshop CS in a text-editor (like BBedit). If the file has been saved with a preview and printersettings, you will see XML-data inside the file)

But.... XML? why XML?

More and more programs start to use XML for their file-formats. PDF, MS Word, HTML, OpenOffice documents basically -are- XML documents. Other, Non-xml, files can easily be 'wrapped' inside a XML document. I think it will be very easy to have the filesystem automatically 'wrap' a document inside XML and add it to the database when it's created or modified.

According to Sleepycat, Apple currently uses Berkeley DB 'for mission-critical applications'. So the companies are 'aware' of each other :):

'Our customers rely on Berkeley DB (..) for their mission-critical applications:
Apple, Hitachi, HP, Sun ....'

Can't wait for more information on this!

thajeztah

Feb 23, 2004, 05:32 AM

Sorry to bother you all again, but I think this article will be interesting to some;

This articles describes some details of the Berkeley XML DB (in an early stage)

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/05/07/bdb.html

Some quotes:
An XML database has several advantages over key-value, relational, and object-oriented databases:

XML data is dropped straight into the database; it does not need to be manipulated or extracted from a document in order to be stored.
When inserted into the database, most (in Berkeley DB XML, all) aspects of an XML document, including white space, are maintained exactly.
Queries return XML documents or fragments, which means that the hierarchical structure of (XML) information is maintained.[/list=1]

(...) to process very large documents will run into this problem; a 100 megabyte file may require as much as 1.2 gigs of available memory. Berkeley DB XML can easily hold gigabytes of (XML) data..

Metadata can be associated with individual documents inside of a container, which allows you to store information about a document without having to alter the content of the document itself.....

And... from the Sleepycat documentation:
[list]
DBXML is officially supported on Apple MacOS X, Linux, Solaris, and Microsoft Windows 2000
and XP...
Supports both XML and non-XML data
.. up to 256 Terabytes for containers and 4 Gigabytes for each document

That's it for now :) enjoy reading!

ph8te

Feb 23, 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by johnnyjibbs
Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?

Well we've had "Jaguar" and "Panther" that leaves a few...

Leopard - it's about time an african cat got used
Cheetah - which will be reserved for the fastest OS ever ... ;-)
Linx - a bit too similar to Linux
Tiger - naw.. too much like a cerial

and "Lion" won't work since there is a dispute if a Lion is really a feline, and then there are the smaller cats as well.

ph8te

Feb 23, 2004, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by SeaFox

Arguably, the bundled copies of Windows are free, since according to the licence they can only be used on the hardware they were sold with. They are a part of the PC hardware, not a software program that came with it in licencing terms.

[/B]

Not really - at least here in germany it is not - there are some PC vendors out there who will sell you the hardware alone, a complete system without the OS, and if you want Windows on in you pay an extra 100 to 150 euros for it, so the OS is not for free. It's the same a buying a new car with a 20 % discount, but they don't give you a key for it. In essence it is useless without the key.

DaveGee

Feb 23, 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by ph8te
Well we've had "Jaguar" and "Panther" that leaves a few...

Leopard - it's about time an african cat got used
Cheetah - which will be reserved for the fastest OS ever ... ;-)

Huh?!? Cheetah was already used (as was Puma).

Cheetah 10.0
Puma 10.1
Jaguar 10.2
Panther 10.3 (was Pinot if I remember correctly)

It appears that Apple filed a number of new trademarks in early July (2003). Apple has added:

- Lynx
- Cougar
- Leopard
- Tiger

To their collection of trademarks, under the common category of "computers; computer software; computer operating system software".

Source: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33151

That list should give us some idea what to expect for 10.4 (I'd assume)

Dave

MacBandit

Feb 23, 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by DaveGee
Huh?!? Cheetah was already used (as was Puma).

Cheetah 10.0
Puma 10.1
Jaguar 10.2
Panther 10.3 (was Pinot if I remember correctly)

That list should give us some idea what to expect for 10.4 (I'd assume)

Dave

Well I'm pretty positive that prior to 10.3 Panther being released we found out the code name to the next version and it was Lynx.

As I stated previously I don't think 10.3 was Pinot I think that was 10.2 as 10.0 and 10.1 both had wine names internally but they later leaked the cat names. When 10.2 came out it was the first on they actually marketed by the developing name and 10.3 started from the beginning using the cat name internally.

MacBandit

Feb 23, 2004, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by ph8te
Well we've had "Jaguar" and "Panther" that leaves a few...

Leopard - it's about time an african cat got used
Cheetah - which will be reserved for the fastest OS ever ... ;-)
Linx - a bit too similar to Linux
Tiger - naw.. too much like a cerial

and "Lion" won't work since there is a dispute if a Lion is really a feline, and then there are the smaller cats as well.

It's Lynx not Linx so it's not that similar to Linux afterall.

DaveGee

Feb 23, 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
As I stated previously I don't think 10.3 was Pinot....

Yes it was...

Linky: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020802113210.shtml

And 10.4 internally is/was Merlot (least that's what it was being called last year by the OS engineers) Unfortunately how I came to know this last year will not help me present day since ... Well lets just say people change jobs all the time and what was once a really good friend and contact is now just a really good friend. ;)

Dave

MacBandit

Feb 23, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by DaveGee
Yes it was...

Linky: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020802113210.shtml

And 10.4 internally is/was Merlot (least that's what it was being called last year by the OS engineers) Unfortunately how I came to know this last year will not help me present day since ... Well lets just say people change jobs all the time and what was once a really good friend and contact is now just a really good friend. ;)

Dave

Thanks for the info. I think they dropped Pinot pretty early on and maybe changed Merlot at the same time. On the other hand they could still be using these wine names on all the updates in house for the early builds.

SeaFox

Feb 23, 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by ph8te
Not really - at least here in germany it is not - there are some PC vendors out there who will sell you the hardware alone, a complete system without the OS, and if you want Windows on in you pay an extra 100 to 150 euros for it, so the OS is not for free. It's the same a buying a new car with a 20 % discount, but they don't give you a key for it. In essence it is useless without the key.

Well, the only problem with that car anaolgy is I can buy an igition switch for twenty buck and the car can be driven just like I did pay the extra 20% for it. But I can't go buy an OS other than Windows and get a PC that can run all the same programs.

You can certainly buy a new PC in the U.S. without the OS, or a get the PC and a standard install disc. But most people buying Dells or HP's or whathaveyou that come with Windows are getting "restore" discs and the Windows licence they're buying says the OS is part of the hardware in effect. If they build a new PC later on and take Windows off the store bought, they can't put it on their new home built box legally, or technically either since the restore disc will only work on their old PC.

DaveGee

Feb 23, 2004, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Thanks for the info. I think they dropped Pinot pretty early on and maybe changed Merlot at the same time. On the other hand they could still be using these wine names on all the updates in house for the early builds.

Engineer code names and 'external' code names aren't the same... Last year (year before?) it would seem marketing was given authority over 'official' code names... I'd be willing to bet marketing was 'late' in choosing a formal name for 10.3 and hence the internal (Pinot) name finally got around to enough people at Apple that that name stuck (for a little while) till 'Panther' was blessed...

Fact is at Apple a single project could have quite a few different name depending on what group you were talking to.

OS X to the software developers (who actually write the code) start out referring to a new version with a wine designation. Pinot, Merlot etc etc etc... until marketing decides on an 'official code name' (cat name)...

Also each 10.X.y build at one time got a named designation too... In 10.1 (I think) or was it 10.2 I think they referred to those releases with different colors as their names.

Who'da thunk code names could be so mired in red tape and politics... :)

Dave

encro

Feb 24, 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
-“MICROSOFT: Where do you want to go today? APPLE: Where do you want to go tomorrow? LINUX: Are you coming or what?”

I've always wanted to change this back to the original BSD tag and add a bit ;)

-“MICROSOFT: Where do you want to go today? LINUX: Where do you want to go tomorrow? BSD: Are you coming or what?” APPLE: **** you ****s are slow!

encro

Feb 24, 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
It's Lynx not Linx so it's not that similar to Linux afterall.

Funny you should say that :)

encro

Feb 24, 2004, 07:23 AM

Regardless of what 10.4 really has to offer; at some point Apple is going to have to provide a new filing system if only for performance reasons.

HFS+ is not much better than HFS.

cubist

Feb 24, 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by job
You can already do this in 10.3 with the help of a few share/freeware apps. Check the Macnn.com forums on GUI stuff for more info. There are actually a ton of nice themes for 10.3 now.

I don't see why I should have to load a potentially buggy third-party app, which may interfere with future system upgrades, just to change the system font size or frame color.

Windows has done that stuff out of the box since 1995. In Windows, I can change the size or color of any GUI element to any color or font I have on my system. No third party band-aid needed.

ccuilla

Feb 24, 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by Vonnie
Haha, this would be absolutely great (assuming they will also add smart folders in the finder), but they should really integrate it.
Meaning, the ID3 tags in an MP3, should be shown as metadata in the finder, so I can search based on metadata in the finder. The same should go for my e-mails; Every e-mail is a file, with metadata (sender, subject,..). Addressbook, Safari bookmarks, iPhoto, .. If they can all use a more standarised way to store the metadata (and (smart) folder hierachy), this would make it allot easier for the user and developer.

This reminds me of a post WAY long ago by a guy that claimed some inside connection at Apple and was spelling out this long term Apple strategy that REALLY looks like it is beginning to take shape.

Essentially, one of the things that came out of that was that things like iPhoto and iTunes were really just "specialized Finders". And in fact they really are. Think about it, iTunes are really what happens if Finder and QuickTime got together and had a baby. Well, more like a three-way (no offense intended) between Finder, a database and QuickTime.

Now the revision of the Finder UI (in light of this) maybe makes much more sense. AddressBook may be exactly the same thing.

It's just that it is taking them some time to get there. Apple's approach of these (far more) incremental OS releases is a much wiser strategy than MS's Longhorn "whole ball of wax in one super duper humungo release" strategy.

encro

Feb 24, 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by ccuilla

Essentially, one of the things that came out of that was that things like iPhoto and iTunes were really just "specialized Finders". And in fact they really are. Think about it, iTunes are really what happens if Finder and QuickTime got together and had a baby. Well, more like a three-way (no offense intended) between Finder, a database and QuickTime.

Now the revision of the Finder UI (in light of this) maybe makes much more sense. AddressBook may be exactly the same thing.

It's just that it is taking them some time to get there. Apple's approach of these (far more) incremental OS releases is a much wiser strategy than MS's Longhorn "whole ball of wax in one super duper humungo release" strategy.

Whoa! Who would have thought code could have so much fun :p

Apple now has an implementation of Smart Folder's to add to Carbon and Cocoa applications so merging metadata with the finder is indeed a almost certain possibility.

a_iver

Feb 24, 2004, 02:55 PM

This is just my opinion but I think 10.4 will be around in fall

MacBandit

Feb 24, 2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by a_iver
This is just my opinion but I think 10.4 will be around in fall

Unless they have a speedier development cycle then 10.3 it will be early next year before 10.4 makes light of day but you never know.

john123

Feb 25, 2004, 12:21 AM

I second the desire for some built-in GUI customization. I hate using haxies and want a more OS9ish experience.

Gimme what I want, Apple!

MacBandit

Feb 25, 2004, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by john123
I second the desire for some built-in GUI customization. I hate using haxies and want a more OS9ish experience.

Gimme what I want, Apple!

Use system hacks and you can have an OS9ish experience. Crashes and hangs and lossed work........;)

john123

Feb 25, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Use system hacks and you can have an OS9ish experience. Crashes and hangs and lossed work........;)

System hacks don't help me with the fact that the OS X GUI is simply one that uses bloated and unnecessary code. Given the OPTION to turn off stuff like antialiased fonts, OS X would go a lot faster in the Finder...

wdlove

Feb 25, 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by a_iver
This is just my opinion but I think 10.4 will be around in fall

We should have a good idea about 10.4 during Steve's Keynote at WWDC at the end of June. That has been when they release a CD of the next OS. Hopefully we will have an apporximate target date.

thedbp

Feb 25, 2004, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by MongoTheGeek
Now it sounds like we are scamming BeFS.

Well, the guy who wrote Be's file system now works for Apple, so you tell me if its scamming or a better reimplementation by the same guy with a lot more funding and time.

thedbp

Feb 25, 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by nagromme
You misunderstand me. You truly CAN'T use Mac OS X unless you already own a version of Mac OS. I aready said what you did--that this is not artificially enforced. You can install on a blank drive. But that blank drive is ALWAYS in a Mac that came with Mac OS.

I bought a beige G3 logic board and case from eBay. I bought RAM from 1-800-4-MEMORY. I bought white-label HDs and a Combo Drive from various online vendors. I installed 3rd party video, LAN, and FW/USB/ATA133 PCI Cards.

At no time did I pay for the Mac OS, yet I have built a fully functioning Mac. I then paid for the OS. This would be a 'first license.'

I bought a Mac including Mac OS X new 6 months ago. The new OS came out and now if I want it I have to pay the same price as I did for the 'first license' for my beige hack job.

Then I open the box for my new Mac OS X purchase and see software proof of purchase coupons - which have come w/ every version of Mac OS X - but no offers are ever made to use these coupons for any upgrade pricing or anything else.

You have to admit, it seems a little odd.

tortoise

Feb 25, 2004, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by encro
Regardless of what 10.4 really has to offer; at some point Apple is going to have to provide a new filing system if only for performance reasons. HFS+ is not much better than HFS.

I'm not particularly thrilled with HFS(+) either. It is functional, but could be significantly better and more performant.

Since I'm soapboxing, I vote for XFS.

Azeron

Feb 25, 2004, 08:16 PM

The easiest way to put this, is that winFS is ontop of ntfs. There are going to be no fundemental changes to ntfs itself, so there is no need to upgrade. They are only using the SQLserver's query engine, thats it, as part of a new winAPI thats far reaching for the new windows version, longhorn. Toms hardware has a particulairly good article on this topic.

Tell you the truth, I don't care what windows does, I have fallen in love with OS X, and windows simply doesn't appeal to me anymore. I think apple shouldd chart its own course instead of trying to play the me too game with MS, cause apple can't win that game since MS has more money to spend then it knows what to do with, $50 billion in cash right now.

Apple should continue to persue the WOW factor, and be on the curve of what people don't know they want, until they see it from apple.

Screw linux and virusdows, I will take the sanity of OS X and my powerbook over that any day.

encro

Feb 27, 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by thedbp
Well, the guy who wrote Be's file system now works for Apple, so you tell me if its scamming or a better reimplementation by the same guy with a lot more funding and time.

Dominic Giampaolo is a very talented man.

bousozoku

Feb 27, 2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by encro
Regardless of what 10.4 really has to offer; at some point Apple is going to have to provide a new filing system if only for performance reasons.

HFS+ is not much better than HFS.

HFS+ still requires HFS underneath it anyway. It's not really that bad but it's time for something better. HFS+ filled the gap as larger hard drives came along. I still haven't seen anyone with a need to format a 10 Terabyte hard drive. ;) My main dislike is that it has case preservation but not case sensitivity.

May the ideas of Dominic Giampaolo benefit us all.

nek

Feb 29, 2004, 03:33 PM

...With a metadatabase, esp WINFS, you can actually do searches beyond simple file names and paths. ... So a manager no longer has to search for *Honda*.doc or *Honda*.xls They can refine their searches into a manner that can bring back information on various data types: word, excel, PowerPoint, e-mails, PDF, JPG, Access databases.

How is this so revolutionary compared to OS X 10.3 and the ability to search all connected disks based on: name, content, date modified, date created, kind, label, size, extension, visibility, type, and creator?

doogle

Feb 29, 2004, 05:07 PM

...the sig says it all.

johnnyjibbs

Feb 29, 2004, 05:44 PM

Metadata sounds a bit like it could get like spyware, keeping tabs on everything. Is this in any way connected to those new hard drives I heard about (don't know from where, sorry) that will remember certain things so that, for example, they won't let certain copyrighted files (for example) be copied because they know the original owner and the drive it was 'assigned' to? Couldn't this become a breach of freedom in the long run?

MacBandit

Feb 29, 2004, 11:06 PM

...the sig says it all.

Agreed. This is part of the reason I bought a 40GB iPod. Besides for just normal storage.

a_iver

Feb 29, 2004, 11:07 PM

Screw linux and virusdows, I will take the sanity of OS X and my powerbook over that any day.

Now hold on a second. Leave Linux alone. I know Mac OS X is beautiful and efficient and what not, but you have to remember a few things

1. The developers in most Linux distributions work for very little pay or none at all.

2. Linux people love to make open source and free softare. I know there's a few distro's out there that charge money, but I'm still talking about the majority.

3. Linux isn't going bankrupt. Why? Because they aren't really a coorperation. Many work on improving things out of the goodness of their heart.

4. Mac OS X wouldn't exist if Linux was never born. When Steve Jobs broke away from Apple, back in the day, he got in a Linux group called NeXtStep. After a while Apple eventually bought their operating system. They slapped a pretty GUI on and modified a few things, and thus Mac OS X was born.

Now I'm actually a mac person myself, but to avoid linux is a little blind. In fact to all the kids out there. If you plan on getting into the computer business in just about in area and you haven't at least tried linux, your a bit behind. Also I've noticed this in myself, that when you have the computer do everything for you automatically you start getting dumb again. So to have Linux and mac on your computer is not a bad thing. Sorry for the lecture, although I'm suprised nobody else said anything.

GregA

Feb 29, 2004, 11:13 PM

<snip>
one of the things that came out of that was that things like iPhoto and iTunes were really just "specialized Finders". And in fact they really are. Think about it, iTunes are really what happens if Finder and QuickTime got together and had a baby. Well, more like a three-way (no offense intended) between Finder, a database and QuickTime.

Now the revision of the Finder UI (in light of this) maybe makes much more sense. AddressBook may be exactly the same thing.Interesting. All this talk about BeFS and WinFS and now your comment makes me wonder...

What kind of database or filing system does iPhoto now use (and iTunes) to organise access to photos and songs?

sjk

Mar 1, 2004, 04:18 PM

I'm not particularly thrilled with HFS(+) either. It is functional, but could be significantly better and more performant.

Since I'm soapboxing, I vote for XFS.ReisferFS4 (http://www.namesys.com/v4/v4.html) looks interesting.

...

Under WinFS Inside (http://www20.tomshardware.com/storage/20040129/winfs-03.html) in the Tom's Hardware Guide article:From the user's standpoint, items degrade the files' physical storage location to the point of insignificance. Instead, Windows organizes the data according to content in virtual folders. In searching for these data, user-based criteria such as "All vacation pics of the last two years" replace details such as file format, author and storage location.

[etc.]The significance of that can't be understated or underestimated, IMhO.

I'll certainly be relieved when traditional folders, mailboxes, etc. become a ubiquitous "convenience" (ephemeral, optional) instead of a fixed structure that imposes limited choices on how data is stored, organized, searched. The iTunes and iPhoto libraries (each using XML files for metadata storage, to party answer GregA's question) already gives some illusion of "location-insignificance", with [smart] playlists and albums ("virtual containers") created from user-based criterial (albeit limited, e.g. no hierarchies). Those "specialized Finders" (thanks, ccuilla :)) foreshadow more flexible, broadly scalable content management interfaces that could (and I believe will, for survival's sake) eventually use some generalized, pervasive system service (e.g. unified XML database), similar to BeOS/BFS (as I understand it; no direct experience). "Layering" on HFS+ seems a similar strategy to WinFS/NTFS. Anyway, if Dominic Giampaolo has kept busy in Apple's file system group I no little doubt we'll see something interesting emerging from there, hopefully with the next OS X release.

Whew.

killmoms

Mar 1, 2004, 06:10 PM

My understanding of BeOS's structure (and resulting speed) was from two main factors:

1) The metadata was stored right alongside the file itself, transparently, so that it "WAS" a part of the file.
2) The metadata was indexed, along with the rest of the more standard filesystem data, in real-time.

This real-time index meant that changes to any file in the system that matched a saved query would immediately be displayed. For instance, if you had a search on all MP3 files whose Year was no greater than 1970 but no less than 1967, and you changed the year on another MP3 to 1969, it would immediately appear in the query results. The speed of this was amazing, and I think this method is the best way to obtain similar results.

DISCLAIMER: I'm no filesystem engineer, and have only a basic grasp of the concepts involved; it's been a LONG time since I've used BeOS, so any other experts out there should feel free to correct me if my assumptions are wrong.

--Cless

hulugu

Mar 1, 2004, 06:30 PM

I second the desire for some built-in GUI customization. I hate using haxies and want a more OS9ish experience.

Gimme what I want, Apple!

Someone already said it, but the OS9ish experience w/ GUI customization is troublesome. However, try TinkerTool, it lets you mess with some of the options in the dock, etc. that works very well. Also adds the Debug Menu to Safari etc. It's not a full 'remove all chrome' but it does add a little something.

simX

Mar 1, 2004, 07:48 PM

I love hearing all these predictions for Mac OS X 10.4. Funny how people forget all the rampant speculation about Mac OS X 10.3 before it was released and the focus on specific features (i.e.: piles/stacks/whatever-you-call-ems), when the real Mac OS X 10.3 was entirely different.

While a new file system would be nice, I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure John Siracusa is, though. :P

By the way, Merlot has never been the codename of Mac OS X 10.4. It was the codename of Mac OS X 10.2.2 (http://www.hmug.org/HowTos/JFS.html), and I think ThinkSecret also reported this. The codenames of the big upgrades have always been names of cats from the start... Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, and Panther.

[UPDATE:] Err, nevermind. After perusing the archives at ThinkSecret, it appears that Panther was originally named Pinot (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/panther.html). ThinkSecret did indeed report on the 10.2.2 update as being named Merlot (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/macosx1022.html), though.

ffakr

Mar 1, 2004, 10:19 PM

Hmmm. NT meant "New Technology". Maybe this will be RNT ("Really New Technology").

You know what is really beautiful? NT, aka. "New Technology", is based off of VMS and OS/2. The NT Kernel is partially based off of an OS that ran on Mainframes and Minis over 20 years ago.
Classic Microsoft.

I can't wait to see what types of new technologies actually make it into Longhorn, and which are put off for SP1.

Roland

Mar 7, 2004, 02:47 PM

My 2 pennyworth on what might be in 10.4 is just to look at what markets Apple is sucessful in and what markets they are pushing to do better in.

For example notice that they upgraded the audio and MIDI side of the OS just as they bought emagic?

So perhaps the following might happen:

They seem to like being a supercomputer manufacturer all of a sudden. So perhaps a system level version of Xgrid that's as easy to use (or an extension of) Rendezvous? Suddenly every Mac network becomes a super computer - sort of.

Linking more of the current non iapps to ilife - such as linking ichat to garageband for collaborative on line jamming.

This whole Linux thing needs to be sorted out too. Native running of linux programs within OS X would end this whole debate.

Any of this make sense?

AhmedFaisal

Mar 7, 2004, 05:47 PM

This whole Linux thing needs to be sorted out too. Native running of linux programs within OS X would end this whole debate.

Any of this make sense?

Well, what I would like to see is X11 actually coming with built-in GUI adaptive support for GTK+ (both 1.2 and 2) (w/ Gnome support) as well as KDE support and whatever engine that uses. But, at least for GTK+ this would require to completely change the way the engine works for it to look decent under OSX. I have been doing a lot of skin building for both GTK+ 1.2 and 2 and I have to say both engines do some stuff that is completely ****ed up, excuse my language. Skinning them smoothly Aqua style is an absolute pain in the ass, I doubt this could be easily fixed.
Cheers,

Ahmed

dcentity2000

Mar 8, 2004, 06:50 AM

wdlove

Mar 8, 2004, 11:00 AM

:o I have heard that OS 10.4 will be known as "Cougar" although the name "Lion" was floating about a little while ago... these names have both been recently registered by Apple, along with other big cats :)

"Cougar" is the name that I have heard also. We should have a definitive answer in just about 120 days from now. It will come from no other than Steve himself.

hayesk

Mar 8, 2004, 03:04 PM

But I can go buy a copy of Panther, without showing any proof of previous ownership of the MacOS, and install it on a completely blank hard drive on a Mac. Exactly what definition of "upgrade" does this meet?

Upgrade is derived from "up" and "grade", meaning you are going to a better (up) grade than what you had before. i.e. It only means you have a newer version than what you had before. It does not mean you need to install it over existing code. It's just happens to be that way with other software products.

It costs $129 to get the latest version of MacOS - for everyone. Everyone has a previous version, therefore they are upgrading to the latest version. Not really a difficult concept if you separate it from the actual install code.

j_maddison

Mar 8, 2004, 04:52 PM

hulugu

Mar 8, 2004, 05:47 PM

Ok, can someone please explain if osx is better than linux? Could osx become a linux os?

i dont really know much about linux?? if osx isnt a better os, will it become a better os than linux? am i talking rubish here?

someone educate me!

jay

Simply, OSX is based on BSD which is the UNIX version that came from Berkley. Linux uses some similar shared code but was created by Linus Torvalds who wrote Linux as his own version of UNIX, using free libaries under FreeBSD, etc.
There are numerous variations of Linux including versions that work on the Mac's PPC chips (Yellow Dog Linux).
So, while Linux and OSX share some things including X11 (it's installed w/ Panther) they will not coverge because most Linux distros (versions) work only on x86.

sjk

Mar 8, 2004, 06:05 PM

someone educate me!Start with Open Source OS (http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-12/bsd_01.html) and follow the links to learn more about specific versions that interest you.

j_maddison

Mar 8, 2004, 08:07 PM

Start with Open Source OS (http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-12/bsd_01.html) and follow the links to learn more about specific versions that interest you.

Thanks for the information :)

So if im reading this right, macos x has the potential to be a better os thank linux for not only the desktop but servrs as well?

jay

GregA

Mar 9, 2004, 04:18 PM

FileMaker 7 released today now allows rich media types for it's data - they mention pdf files, graphics, music, and word documents.

I imagine that if Apple is smart they would use their Filemaker DB expertise for any file-system database they end up using.

Can anyone see a relationship there?

sjk

Mar 9, 2004, 07:06 PM

Can anyone see a relationship there?I don't see any significant connection. Other databases that already handle rich media types wouldn't be suitable either. I suspect Apple's file system group is working on something else.

If anything, I'd have thought FileMaker 7 would be used with PowerSchool 4.0 but apparently Apple's staying with 4D.

scooby

Mar 9, 2004, 09:24 PM

"Cougar" is the name that I have heard also. We should have a definitive answer in just about 120 days from now. It will come from no other than Steve himself.

Well, IMO it should be called Tiger (well they missed Elephant, Nashorn :( ) Then we can have TigerII (a.k.a. Royal Tiger)(has two verions "Production turret" and "Porsche turret" and finally "Maus" (ah well, maybe also Jagdpanter and Jagdtiger somewhere between)

(Sorry guys, this catname game is floating around for so long time and I couldn't stop myself :p )

iMeowbot

Mar 9, 2004, 10:24 PM

You know what is really beautiful? NT, aka. "New Technology", is based off of VMS and OS/2. The NT Kernel is partially based off of an OS that ran on Mainframes and Minis over 20 years ago.
Classic Microsoft.

The exact same thing is true of OS X. RSX-11M and VMS were even written for the same hardware family as Unix =)

mangoduck

Mar 10, 2004, 12:01 PM

Upgrade is derived from "up" and "grade", meaning you are going to a better (up) grade than what you had before. i.e. It only means you have a newer version than what you had before. It does not mean you need to install it over existing code. It's just happens to be that way with other software products.

It costs $129 to get the latest version of MacOS - for everyone. Everyone has a previous version, therefore they are upgrading to the latest version. Not really a difficult concept if you separate it from the actual install code.

seafox was right.

apple's os price model is the same as most every other commercial software model used in the past number of decades. with those, you pay some extraordinary price for the initial package, and any smaller additions to it, also known as upgrades, cost a fraction of that base price. sometimes a credit is given to those with just-barely-out-of-date versions of the same package.

with os x, $129 is the price of the initial package, and any further point-point releases are both downloadable and free. it's only fair seeing as how most of them are for maintenance and don't add entirely new functionality to the system, but they do in my opinion qualify as upgrades as much as patches. all people see however is $129 repeated over and over, not thinking about the work apple programmers put into it the rest of the year. you should be glad we're not talking about sgi boxes here.

can you upgrade 10.1.5 with a 10.2.8 installer? of course not. there's a large enough gap between 10.1 and 10.2 to qualify the latter as an entirely separate package. apple has long since abandoned their version seven and eight era "half-way" releases, 8.5 and so forth, which naturally costed less due to their nature. also, i don't see the point of a credit system for owners of previous packages because each new mac comes with some version already. nobody would have reason to pay full price because everyone would qualify for a credit.

with that said, i do think the current annual charge is a bit steep. all apple should do is decrease this, not throw a wrench in the model. $75 to $99 seems more reasonable to me. if i recall, os 8 was $99.

aswitcher

Mar 10, 2004, 02:52 PM

SNIP

with that said, i do think the current annual charge is a bit steep. all apple should do is decrease this, not throw a wrench in the model. $75 to $99 seems more reasonable to me. if i recall, os 8 was $99.

I think I would prefer a new OS at least 18months-2years between releases.

Partly price (yearly suggests trying to geenrate an annual revenue stream).

Partly the pain/risk of installing

Partly the support tech books and magazines, whose shelf life makes them questionable value if they need to be replaced each year

Partly the general problems that seem to be occuring with OSs that are not fully mature suggesting they need more testing time -> how many people would trust filevault at this point?

Partly because I would prefer Apple spent more time on iLife and especially Appleworks, although I think they have struck a secret deal with M$ not to compete with Office for a few years

juniormaj

Mar 11, 2004, 02:30 AM

... My preferred bug is a drag-multiple-items-on-a-desktop-then-have-finder-relaunched bug. I often save many articles to later read them and move to trash or to pages folder. And guess what? I'm irritated by Finder not allowing me to do this. Many more bugs there are...

I get that Finder relaunch bug on occasion, too.
I didn't know anyone else was getting it. I thought maybe it was my PowerBook G3 showing its age, and lack of memory (I'm limited to 256MB because my lower RAM slot is faulty. I really need a new Mac! But I digress...)
My workaround is to open another Finder window and navigate it to Desktop. I then do my group drags from there instead of the actual Desktop. Kind of a pain, but it works. Logging out and back in usually ceases the behavior, also.
In the end, I agree that it should be fixed.

johnnyjibbs

Mar 11, 2004, 03:30 AM

I think I would prefer a new OS at least 18months-2years between releases.

Partly price (yearly suggests trying to geenrate an annual revenue stream).

Partly the pain/risk of installing

Partly the support tech books and magazines, whose shelf life makes them questionable value if they need to be replaced each year

Partly the general problems that seem to be occuring with OSs that are not fully mature suggesting they need more testing time -> how many people would trust filevault at this point?

Partly because I would prefer Apple spent more time on iLife and especially Appleworks, although I think they have struck a secret deal with M$ not to compete with Office for a few years
Of course you could get away with only buying every other release, hence getting a double step up with each $129. Most programs only require 10.1 currently anyway and Jaguar users are not left much in the dark so that wouldn't be a problem.

aswitcher

Mar 11, 2004, 04:50 AM

Of course you could get away with only buying every other release, hence getting a double step up with each $129. Most programs only require 10.1 currently anyway and Jaguar users are not left much in the dark so that wouldn't be a problem.

Sure. That would save money and hassles, but for me they aren't the main issue.

Buggy software is a big issue, a few more months could save a whole bunch of hassles and bad press.

I would love it if Apple Works had extensive enough features and cross compatability that I could remove Microsoft and all its viruses etc from my life.

wdlove

Mar 11, 2004, 11:08 AM

Well, IMO it should be called Tiger (well they missed Elephant, Nashorn :( ) Then we can have TigerII (a.k.a. Royal Tiger)(has two versions "Production turret" and "Porsche turret" and finally "Maus" (ah well, maybe also Jagdpanter and Jagdtiger somewhere between)

(Sorry guys, this catname game is floating around for so long time and I couldn't stop myself :p )

I'm very anxious to have Apple use the code name Tiger. Maybe they will use it on 10.5. The coat for a tiger is really sleek.

nighthawk

Mar 11, 2004, 11:55 AM

I would prefer if Apple had an 18 month development cycle for OS's as well, but not because of the price. The way that it is right now, there are two many versions to support for your software development (although almost everyone I know is either running 10.2 or 10.3). WWDC last year seemed more about how use the *new* features in 10.3 instead of using what is already available in 10.2.

xy14

Mar 11, 2004, 06:40 PM

Here are two features that should go on 10.4:

The option to use OS 9 - style Program Switcher in the menu bar (OS X's dock consumes too much space and it's a hassle to try to get rid of it)

More network printer compatibility - I can not get my HP psc 1210 to run on my Network and it sucks big time.

ktlx

Mar 11, 2004, 09:49 PM

aswitcher

Mar 12, 2004, 12:47 AM

I'm very anxious to have Apple use the code name Tiger. Maybe they will use it on 10.5. The coat for a tiger is really sleek.

Yep Tigers are way cool...perhaps a Siberian coat.

wdlove

Mar 12, 2004, 11:43 AM

Yep Tigers are way cool...perhaps a Siberian coat.

This is the tiger that I would like to see Apple adopt for the next X look.

http://www.5tigers.org/Directory/allabouttigers.htm

stealthelephant

Mar 15, 2004, 05:36 AM

wrldwzrd89

Mar 15, 2004, 10:04 AM

very interesting read, but i didnt see anyone mention the most obvious 1 that 10.4 would probably be a complete 64 implementation (at the very least by 10.5) rather than the 1/2 assed mix it is at the moment

That's highly unlikely, given that there are still G4 processors in Apple's lineup. Come to think of it, there are still G3 users out there too if you count buyers of the G3 iBooks. As long as less than 80-95% of Mac users have a pre-G5 Mac (according to Apple's estimates), this won't happen. Remember that it'll probably be at least a year before iBooks get G5 processors; even then, Apple can't expect all iBook owners to get a G5 iBook. I would think the switchover to total 64-bit won't happen until Mac OS XI (11) is released (my best guess is in 2008).

stealthelephant

Mar 15, 2004, 10:22 AM

That's highly unlikely, given that there are still G4 processors in Apple's lineup. Come to think of it, there are still G3 users out there too if you count buyers of the G3 iBooks. As long as less than 80-95% of Mac users have a pre-G5 Mac (according to Apple's estimates), this won't happen. Remember that it'll probably be at least a year before iBooks get G5 processors; even then, Apple can't expect all iBook owners to get a G5 iBook. I would think the switchover to total 64-bit won't happen until Mac OS XI (11) is released (my best guess is in 2008).
G3 users, it was my understanding that os runs lamely on the older ppc chips, well anyways, since the OS already has significant modifications to use the 64 bit capibilities and maintain its compatibility with the existing 32 bit instruction set, i would not count a large migration from 32 to 64 bit out in the subsequent releases (- maybe something along the lines of seperate installs for 64 bit vs 32 bit in some cases) and go thro a transistion the way windows 16 bit went to 32 bit (windows 95, 98, ME were 16 bit code eventually disappeared)

wrldwzrd89

Mar 15, 2004, 10:42 AM

G3 users, it was my understanding that os runs lamely on the older ppc chips, well anyways, since the OS already has significant modifications to use the 64 bit capibilities and maintain its compatibility with the existing 32 bit instruction set, i would not count a large migration from 32 to 64 bit out in the subsequent releases (- maybe something along the lines of seperate installs for 64 bit vs 32 bit in some cases) and go thro a transistion the way windows 16 bit went to 32 bit (windows 95, 98, ME were 16 bit code eventually disappeared)

That's a good point; however, I don't think Apple is willing to split up their OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions. It would be more trouble than it's worth for them, since they'd need to put it on a DVD, and not every (recent) Mac has a DVD drive. As far as I know, Apple's current lineup includes at least a DVD-ROM on every model; the same can't be said of previous lineups, which Apple will surely support.

stealthelephant

Mar 15, 2004, 10:56 AM

That's a good point; however, I don't think Apple is willing to split up their OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions. It would be more trouble than it's worth for them, since they'd need to put it on a DVD, and not every (recent) Mac has a DVD drive. As far as I know, Apple's current lineup includes at least a DVD-ROM on every model; the same can't be said of previous lineups, which Apple will surely support.

i dont think they can afford not to take full advantage of the 64 bit instruction set

gopher

Mar 15, 2004, 10:58 AM

wrldwzrd89

Mar 15, 2004, 11:04 AM

i dont think they can afford not to take full advantage of the 64 bit instruction set
The big question is, "Will this change break any of Apple's applications, my applications, or other 3rd Party applications?". If it does break things, then it's not worth it for ANYONE right now. 64-bit instructions don't matter if existing apps will break.

wdlove

Mar 15, 2004, 11:09 AM

That's a good point; however, I don't think Apple is willing to split up their OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions. It would be more trouble than it's worth for them, since they'd need to put it on a DVD, and not every (recent) Mac has a DVD drive. As far as I know, Apple's current lineup includes at least a DVD-ROM on every model; the same can't be said of previous lineups, which Apple will surely support.

It would seem that since the majority for now is pre-G5, then continue to offer a X version for 32-bit. For those that own a G5 Apple should offer a fully compatible 64-bit version. Then someday in the future, put both versions on a DVD.

wrldwzrd89

Mar 15, 2004, 11:19 AM

It would seem that since the majority for now is pre-G5, then continue to offer a X version for 32-bit. For those that own a G5 Apple should offer a fully compatible 64-bit version. Then someday in the future, put both versions on a DVD.
Great idea, wdlove! I don't know if Apple is willing to commit the resources to do this, but that would be the best solution (again, IF Apple has the guts to carry it through).

Colonel Panik

Mar 15, 2004, 06:12 PM

Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?

Pu$$y Galore???

Don't mean to be crude.

Anyway, Microsoft should trademark the name 'Cheeta' for it's method of business.

I think that the cat name is wearing thin. Apart from the Sabretooth name. And what'll the box look like?

gopher

Mar 15, 2004, 11:03 PM

Pu$$y Galore???

Don't mean to be crude.

Anyway, Microsoft should trademark the name 'Cheeta' for it's method of business.

I think that the cat name is wearing thin. Apart from the Sabretooth name. And what'll the box look like?

The Cheetah believe it or not was Apple's codename for Mac OS X 10.0.

The fastest of cats got the slowest of Xes.

sonyrules

Mar 16, 2004, 01:09 AM

You misunderstand me. You truly CAN'T use Mac OS X unless you already own a version of Mac OS. I aready said what you did--that this is not artificially enforced. You can install on a blank drive. But that blank drive is ALWAYS in a Mac that came with Mac OS.

I disagree with the simple fact is that i bought a 200 gig drive to put in my G4, and this dirve dont have nothing on it, took my 10.3 discs and installed with no prior installation os Mac OS, and it didnt ask for proof either.

Every verision of OS X (except 10.1) is a full verision, they can be installed on a fresh HD without a current or past verision of ANY OS. I do it every time a new verision come out, I never upgrade, I start fresh, a small pain in the ass, but i like the outcome better

Jr

DaveGee

Mar 16, 2004, 06:08 AM

The Cheetah believe it or not was Apple's codename for Mac OS X 10.0.

The fastest of cats got the slowest of Xes.

Yep...

I like to think they used 'cheetah' because they 'cheated' and released it before it was ready for prime time. ;)

Dave

wdlove

Mar 16, 2004, 11:40 AM

I disagree with the simple fact is that i bought a 200 gig drive to put in my G4, and this drive dont have nothing on it, took my 10.3 discs and installed with no prior installation os Mac OS, and it didn't ask for proof either.

Every version of OS X (except 10.1) is a full version, they can be installed on a fresh HD without a current or past version of ANY OS. I do it every time a new version come out, I never upgrade, I start fresh, a small pain in the ass, but i like the outcome better

Jr

What advantage have you seen each time when to do a clean install, by which doing a zero erase of the HD? I'm not sure if I'm correct or not, but if you save your Library and would install that wouldn't that save a lot of time? Or is "pain" caused by having to reinstall software?

DaveGee that is a interesting thought about the use of 'Cheeta" and 10.0.

JohnMacDonald@M

Mar 16, 2004, 12:34 PM

Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?

How about Lynx. It could be pronounced Lyn-X. :)

etoiles

Mar 16, 2004, 03:07 PM

How about Lynx. It could be pronounced Lyn-X. :)

ouch :D

ingenious

Mar 17, 2004, 01:17 PM

Apple's already begun making separate versions of 10.2 for G5 and <=G4. Note the 10.2.8 update which was G5 only:

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=120248

It is possible that a completely 64 bit iteration of 10.3 would exist but only for G5s.

No its not- I had 10.2.7 on my PB G4 when it was sent off to apple for a new HD and it updated to 10.2.8... but there were G5 only builds of these O/S's

jsw

Mar 17, 2004, 05:00 PM

That's a good point; however, I don't think Apple is willing to split up their OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions. It would be more trouble than it's worth for them, since they'd need to put it on a DVD, and not every (recent) Mac has a DVD drive. As far as I know, Apple's current lineup includes at least a DVD-ROM on every model; the same can't be said of previous lineups, which Apple will surely support.

I doubt that a DVD requirement would stop them - they could always include CDs and a DVD - that would bump their cost by, what, a dollar a box?

jsw

Mar 17, 2004, 05:03 PM

Great idea, wdlove! I don't know if Apple is willing to commit the resources to do this, but that would be the best solution (again, IF Apple has the guts to carry it through).

I don't see how Apple can put off a 64-bit version for too long without severely downplaying the strengths of the G5. Unless you go 64 bit, the G5 is really just a faster G4 in most cases, but if you do go 64 bit, then it truly flies.

nesbitt_a

Mar 18, 2004, 08:17 AM

I don't see how Apple can put off a 64-bit version for too long without severely downplaying the strengths of the G5. Unless you go 64 bit, the G5 is really just a faster G4 in most cases, but if you do go 64 bit, then it truly flies.

My guess is that Apple will wait until their entire hardware line-up is G5 based, and then start to ship a 64bit OS - something that will provide incentive for users to buy their new hardware.

ingenious

Mar 18, 2004, 12:26 PM

My guess is that Apple will wait until their entire hardware line-up is G5 based, and then start to ship a 64bit OS - something that will provide incentive for users to buy their new hardware.

i dont know much about 32bit/64bit, but wouldn't they have to have two emulators then? classic and 32bit OS X? I'm confused

I cannot wait until 10.4, altho we just got 10.3.3...... i want iSync to actually sync a PDA, even tho im not getting one now, and iChat to have compat with MSN and Y!

wdlove

Mar 18, 2004, 02:04 PM

My guess is that Apple will wait until their entire hardware line-up is G5 based, and then start to ship a 64bit OS - something that will provide incentive for users to buy their new hardware.

I certainly not want to see them wait on the entire line. Due to the problems with heat issues, it could take years. I would prefer the 2 separate OS option.

jsw

Mar 18, 2004, 07:58 PM

I certainly not want to see them wait on the entire line. Due to the problems with heat issues, it could take years. I would prefer the 2 separate OS option.

Ditto. Regardless of whether the whole line is G5, there will be legacy systems for years to come.

scottstover

Mar 18, 2004, 10:40 PM

ingenious

Mar 18, 2004, 10:46 PM

Not 2008, but probably 2011 is when OS 11 will come out. Steve Jobs stated that OS X will be the next major OS for ten years to come (said this when 10.0 was released in 2000).
i knew he said that, but that seems like a long time away.... WOW i'll be 21..... ;)

GregA

Mar 19, 2004, 12:22 AM

Not 2008, but probably 2011 is when OS 11 will come out. Steve Jobs stated that OS X will be the next major OS for ten years to come (said this when 10.0 was released in 2000).Yeah... but you have to be careful about version numbers vs actual operating systems. The MacOS had one general technology for 17 years, now it has a new one. The new one will last at least 10 years. It doesn't mean they won't release something called MacOSX 11, 12 or whatever though, in my opinion...

wrldwzrd89

Mar 19, 2004, 07:12 AM

Not 2008, but probably 2011 is when OS 11 will come out. Steve Jobs stated that OS X will be the next major OS for ten years to come (said this when 10.0 was released in 2000).
That may be the case, but my point still holds; we won't be seeing Mac OS 11 or 64-bit only Mac OS for quite a while, even if it's later than I thought it would be.

wdlove

Mar 19, 2004, 11:42 AM

i knew he said that, but that seems like a long time away.... WOW i'll be 21..... ;)

I would certainly not like having to wait till I'm 65 plus to see a fully 64 bit OS. We need it for the G5 ASAP.

Doraemon

Mar 19, 2004, 11:49 AM

Yeah... but you have to be careful about version numbers vs actual operating systems. The MacOS had one general technology for 17 years, now it has a new one. The new one will last at least 10 years. It doesn't mean they won't release something called MacOSX 11, 12 or whatever though, in my opinion...

But Apple did not stay with the classic MacOS because they loved it so much, but because all attempts to create a next-gen MacOS failed (Pink, Copland, etc.). Therefore, one can assume that they learned from their mistakes in past.

trek7k

Mar 19, 2004, 12:32 PM

It's Lynx not Linx so it's not that similar to Linux afterall.

It is pretty similar (in fact identical) in name to the text-based web browser Lynx. Obviously the Lynx browser has fallen by the wayside what with the introduction of these fancy "graphical browsers" :) but people still use it (based on an informal perusal of my website's logs).

hulugu

Mar 19, 2004, 12:57 PM

i dont know much about 32bit/64bit, but wouldn't they have to have two emulators then? classic and 32bit OS X? I'm confused

I cannot wait until 10.4, altho we just got 10.3.3...... i want iSync to actually sync a PDA, even tho im not getting one now, and iChat to have compat with MSN and Y!

I'd assume they would finally abandon OS9 and Classic entirely at that point. Two versions of the operating system could be a pain in the ass, but less so if the entire line goes to the G5, in which case it's only legacy systems, plus a push to moving newer machines. Obviously for the first year or two provide 32-bit versions for those legacy machines, but eventually they will need to go 64-bit.
Hopefully this can happen sooner than later, Intel appears stuck at 3.4 and a 3.0 Dual G5, a 2.0 G5 PB, would alliviate at least one of the major hurdles regarding switchers.

GregA

Mar 19, 2004, 04:42 PM

But Apple did not stay with the classic MacOS because they loved it so much, but because all attempts to create a next-gen MacOS failed (Pink, Copland, etc.). Therefore, one can assume that they learned from their mistakes in past.I'm not sure what you're implying... that Apple would get rid of their Mach/BSD underpinnings very soon? I thought the 10 year mark was a good spot to look at a replacement.

64bit is a separate issue. There are many OSes that have 64bit and 32bit versions. Mach has both, so does BSD. Cocoa (as Openstep) used to run on Solaris so I assume it's clean too. Maybe they'll call it OSX 11, maybe not... what they number it is one issue, what technology is underneath is a separate one.

Sayer

Mar 19, 2004, 05:28 PM

Actually Apple hired the BeFS engineer. BeOS is a dead product while Mac OS X is currently growing both in features and adoption. Would you rather they ignore what was done elsewhere and never caught fire in the marketplace?

As for HFS+ Mac OS X does make use of its features, but in different ways than before. HFS+ supports permissions on OS X that OS 9 doesn't do anything with, yet is present. File type/creator codes are supported, but despite what Apple claims file name extensions override type/creator many times and Cocoa-based software typically wipes out type/creator when you edit a file.

Apple: not all files with .html must belong to Safari, okay?

OS X forgoes multi-forked files for all-flat files, even for resources. HFS+ actually supports multiple forks for files, not just two data/resource forks. Why Apple never exploited this for additional Mac-only metadata storage is beyond me. Maybe they will now, who knows.

Mac OS X 10.3 includes an extension to HFS+ with case-sensitive file name handling in addition to the case-preserving behaviors of Mac OS 9 and lower. You can't format a drive with this new format in Disk Utility, but you can on the command line. I think they called it HFSX or something like that.

Apple also added journaling on top of HFS+ (sort of). Apple isn't standing still in disk formats by any means.

GFLPraxis

Mar 19, 2004, 11:24 PM

Doesn't HFS+ already have extensive database/mettadata support ? Its just that Apple hasn't been using it...at all.

What are they going to call it?
Leopard?
Cougar?
Wildcat?
Lion?
Housecat?

reckless_0001

Mar 26, 2004, 03:38 PM

What are they going to call it?
Leopard?
Cougar?
Wildcat?
Lion?
Housecat?

LOL! Housecat...

How about "Tigger" from Winnie the Pooh.

sjk

Mar 26, 2004, 05:58 PM

Mac OS X 10.3 includes an extension to HFS+ with case-sensitive file name handling in addition to the case-preserving behaviors of Mac OS 9 and lower. You can't format a drive with this new format in Disk Utility, but you can on the command line. I think they called it HFSX or something like that.HFSX is described in the HFS Plus Volume Format (http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1150.html#HFSX) technote.

nesbitt_a

Mar 27, 2004, 08:41 AM

LOL! Housecat...

How about "Tigger" from Winnie the Pooh.

Haha, why not? Ta-ta for now!

-- Andrew.

wdlove

Mar 27, 2004, 11:25 AM

What are they going to call it?
Leopard?
Cougar?
Wildcat?
Lion?
Housecat?

You are missing the one that I'm looking forward to, which is Tiger! :cool:

iRobert

May 4, 2004, 09:41 AM

Jup, i read it on de developer site just yet (might have been on there longer though :) ) That it's going to be 'Tiger'

Anyone has specs?

wdlove

May 4, 2004, 11:44 AM

Steve Jobs to Kick Off Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference 2004 with Preview of Mac OS X "Tiger"

CUPERTINO, California— May 4, 2004— Apple® today announced that Steve Jobs will kick off its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) with a keynote on Monday, June 28, 2004, beginning at 10:00 a.m. at San Francisco’s Moscone West. This year's keynote will include a preview of “Tiger,” the next major release of Mac® OS X.

The five-day event, which runs from June 28 to July 2, will host close to 200 technical sessions with new content designed to serve a wide range of Mac developers, including an in-depth look at the latest Mac OS X technologies, hands-on labs with the latest Mac systems, expanded tracks on Enterprise IT and a dedicated track for QuickTime® developers and content creators.

This is great news, as mentioned in my post above.

raynegus

May 9, 2004, 01:54 PM

Maybe they will bring back some form of the Apple menu. That would be cool!

ffakr

May 9, 2004, 03:42 PM

Maybe they will bring back some form of the Apple menu. That would be cool!

I doubt that they'd bring back the functionality that'd you're probably thinking of.
The new Apple Menu, and the other menus actually make a lot more sense. If you think about the Classic Mac OS.. it was typically used like this:
Apple menu:
system stuff: control panels, chooser, about this mac, system profiler
finder stuff: shortcuts, aliases, favorites...
application stuff: about this application
Special Menu:
system stuff: shutdown and such...
File Menu:
general options of the active app like quit

Now in OS X...
Apple Menu:
System stuff: about this mac, sys prefs, dock, shutdown and such
finder stuff: recent items
New App Menu (the one next to Apple Menu): all things related to the particular app including about and quit.
Dock: shortcuts, aliases...

I'm not sure well I've made my point.. but if you look closely at the menus in OS X, they actually make more sense than in Classic. Apple has chosen to group similar functionality into more descrete areas.. Apple menu is lower level system stuff, the new app-name menu has low level application functionality, the dock takes up some of the functionality that was previously smushed into the Apple menu.
I think an easy test would be to look at a particular menu in OS X and in Classic and try to describe the potential functionality of each menu. In classic, you'll find that it's more difficult to describe the functionality of classic menus because their tasks overlapped more.. and you'll find that you are repeating functionality quite a bit more.

I'm pretty happy with the way the menus are arranged now. I think it makes a lot more sense, and it particularly makes a lot more sense to new users.

justin216

May 9, 2004, 05:12 PM

I'd like to see options to disable some of the nice goodies in OSX. I like the simplicity, but for lots of number crunching I really don't have to have my windows animate around and bounce things in a dock. I'd just like more control over the visual part of 10.4.

sjk

May 9, 2004, 05:32 PM

Kiko

May 12, 2004, 06:11 AM

Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?

On the subject of Apple using (mostly endangered) big cat names, I've set up an online petition for Apple to help make sure we don't run out of cool animal names out there:

http://www.petitiononline.com/grangato/

Please sign it and spread the word!

Cheers

Kiko

MacBandit

May 12, 2004, 09:24 AM

On the subject of Apple using (mostly endangered) big cat names, I've set up an online petition for Apple to help make sure we don't run out of cool animal names out there:

http://www.petitiononline.com/grangato/

Please sign it and spread the word!

Cheers

Kiko

I do like your cause but I think it's improper for someone to tell someone else the proper way to spend there money. Why don't you set up your own Paypal or some other method of collection site for donation from Mac people who want to save big cats?

Also the Panther/Puma/Cougar is not endangered as they are still legal for hunting. Same goes for Leopard and many other big cats.

iRobert

May 13, 2004, 01:29 AM

Seems people who've used pre-X Mac OS (not me) miss its Apple menu more than people who've only used X (me) want it. What really makes it so special that some people can't seem to live without it or find alternatives (maybe even superior ones) for it? I can understand why WindowShade functionality might be missed since (AFAIK) there's no non-haxie replacement for it. And spring-loaded folders, before those returned. But, seriously, what's such a big deal with the old Apple menu? Whenever I tried using it while helping fix a friend's iMac a few years ago it looked like a bloated clutter magnet.

Well, you could say i'm a classic veteran (using it since 6.0.8 or something). At first, i was absolutely against X. but the first time i tried it, i was in love :) As for the AppleMenu, it did have it's charm. Being able to put anyhing in it you like. I don't need it these days.
I'm still uncertain about windowshading, sometimes it feels like i could use it, but then again, i don't miss it for most of the time, same goes for window-tabs :)
But for me, it's not a big deal, for i use Mac OS X :)

redAPPLE

May 13, 2004, 06:59 AM

Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?

GARFIELD

michaelrjohnson

May 13, 2004, 09:03 AM

Seems people who've used pre-X Mac OS (not me) miss its Apple menu more than people who've only used X (me) want it. What really makes it so special that some people can't seem to live without it or find alternatives (maybe even superior ones) for it? I can understand why WindowShade functionality might be missed since (AFAIK) there's no non-haxie replacement for it. And spring-loaded folders, before those returned. But, seriously, what's such a big deal with the old Apple menu? Whenever I tried using it while helping fix a friend's iMac a few years ago it looked like a bloated clutter magnet.

somehow it never occured to me that there are now people out there who never used classic mac OS... people who start their mac experiences on OS X. wow... that not only makes me feel old, it makes me think we might have to start explaining ourselves when we talk about OS 6-9... wow..

MacBandit

May 13, 2004, 09:31 AM

GARFIELD

Or Heathcliff.

wdlove

May 13, 2004, 11:20 AM

somehow it never occured to me that there are now people out there who never used classic mac OS... people who start their mac experiences on OS X. wow... that not only makes me feel old, it makes me think we might have to start explaining ourselves when we talk about OS 6-9... wow..

For now we are still a majority. I have used Mac OS since 1983. My experience with Classic was only a matter of weeks though!

michaelrjohnson

May 13, 2004, 12:00 PM

For now we are still a majority.

true, but now i forsee a future of youngins who never knew the joy and frustration in transitioning... the development... extensions, control panels, system folders, etc. {sigh} the memories...

MacBandit

May 13, 2004, 08:50 PM

true, but now i forsee a future of youngins who never knew the joy and frustration in transitioning... the development... extensions, control panels, system folders, etc. {sigh} the memories...

Some are memories, some are joyous ones, yet many are horrible frightening nightmares. Oh how I love Mac OSX.

sjk

May 13, 2004, 10:56 PM

somehow it never occured to me that there are now people out there who never used classic mac OS... people who start their mac experiences on OS X.I used to play Dark Castle (its sound effects still haunt me) on a friend's Mac II* systems and let him impress me doing cool things with MacsBug. Classic Mac OS was too modal and single-task-oriented for me in comparison with the Unix (work) and Amiga (home) systems I was using at the time. And being so GUI-centric made it more of a black box from a sysadmin perspective. Anyway, I certainly don't have the experience of using it "productively" enough to have any reason to miss or want something from it in OS X.

Fukui

May 14, 2004, 12:21 AM

I used to play Dark Castle (its sound effects still haunt me) on a friend's Mac II* systems and let him impress me doing cool things with MacsBug. Classic Mac OS was too modal and single-task-oriented for me in comparison with the Unix (work) and Amiga (home) systems I was using at the time. And being so GUI-centric made it more of a black box from a sysadmin perspective. Anyway, I certainly don't have the experience of using it "productively" enough to have any reason to miss or want something from it in OS X.
I remember the first time I really used a mac was at school when some friends were playing this game, I think it was marathon...they really loved it...I hated it...thought macs were OK, but didn't understand them then...of course SJ changed all that... :)

Cap'n Hector

May 14, 2004, 12:48 AM

For now we are still a majority. I have used Mac OS since 1983. My experience with Classic was only a matter of weeks though!

'83? It wasn't released until '84!

If you were on a Lisa…that was similar but not the Mac OS…and back then it was System $Version.

And on Tiger, I will have to quote Apple:

"Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond."

wdlove

May 14, 2004, 11:22 AM

true, but now i forsee a future of youngins who never knew the joy and frustration in transitioning... the development... extensions, control panels, system folders, etc. {sigh} the memories...

I just happens to be a part of the growing process. To the "youngins" it's history. For those that lived it, our memories. At least we get to actually realize how great the improvements are!

MacBandit

May 14, 2004, 03:41 PM

I just happens to be a part of the growing process. To the "youngins" it's history. For those that lived it, our memories. At least we get to actually realize how great the improvements are!

I was going through this a couple months ago thinking about the kids who have never used a text only interface who didn't or had to enter a program that they received in the mail (snail mail) into the computer manually because you couldn't send it over the internet and floppies where unheard of and tape drives were uncommon.

ingenious

May 14, 2004, 06:03 PM

I remember the first time I really used a mac was at school when some friends were playing this game, I think it was marathon...they really loved it...I hated it...thought macs were OK, but didn't understand them then...of course SJ changed all that... :)

same here. i first used an original PowerPC... was in 2nd grade and had no idea what the diff was between windows and mac.. altho i did notice that the mac was easier to use and it didnt have to be turned off as often. i thot it was made by magnavox tho, cuz of the "ma." id never really heard of windows or mac or apple or m$. :D

sjk

May 14, 2004, 06:05 PM

Reminds me of someone on the Mulberry discussion list who mentioned that some students (of his?) had never heard of desktop e-mail clients because all they'd ever used or seen webmail. It's a bit disturbing to imagine if those were computer science students (I'm not sure)... ;)

Anyone remember a video (produced by Sun Microsystems?) where kids would make a bold statements about things they had/hadn't ever seen or used? Most of it would seem startling to anyone older, in an "I can't be *that* old and things can't have changed *that* much" kind of way. Wish I could think of a specific example... it was something like "we are the children of this generation" ... "we've never listened to the radio". I only saw it once so my memory is vague but it definitely relates to this off-topic theme and I'd sure like to see it again.

ingenious

May 14, 2004, 06:09 PM

Some are memories, some are joyous ones, yet many are horrible frightening nightmares. Oh how I love Mac OSX.

those were horrid nightmares.... not as bad as windoze tho.... definitely.

i do love mac os x... a lot :D

killmoms

May 18, 2004, 12:28 PM

Actually Apple hired the BeFS engineer. BeOS is a dead product while Mac OS X is currently growing both in features and adoption. Would you rather they ignore what was done elsewhere and never caught fire in the marketplace?

I'm confused. Are you damning Apple for yoinking BeOS features or praising them? Keep in mind that BeOS in 1995 was doing some amazing things that MacOS X STILL doesn't do well. BeOS failed in the marketplace, but for reasons completely unrelated to technical prowess.

--Cless

MacBandit

May 18, 2004, 11:02 PM

I'm confused. Are you damning Apple for yoinking BeOS features or praising them? Keep in mind that BeOS in 1995 was doing some amazing things that MacOS X STILL doesn't do well. BeOS failed in the marketplace, but for reasons completely unrelated to technical prowess.

--Cless

The way I read it you're basically repeating exactly what he/she was saying.

newamiga

Jun 5, 2004, 01:38 PM

No inside info.. just watching some streaming video from Sun's latest quarterly meeting in China. The demo of some of the Java desktop functionality gave some interesting ideas for extensions to the current expose functionality. Sun is experimenting with some unique ways of interacting with a 3D desktop. This is not some radical 3D fly through, but rather the ability to flip windows on their edges to fit more open documents on their sides.. kind of a real fancy version of the proposed stacks capability previously hypothesized. If you go to Sun's web site and check out this link it has some cool demos.. wonder if we might see something like this from Apple later this month?

http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/ :)

Dom

Jun 5, 2004, 05:49 PM

I just happens to be a part of the growing process. To the "youngins" it's history. For those that lived it, our memories. At least we get to actually realize how great the improvements are!

I started using Macs in '88. After '92 I was forced into the Windows world, and I can tell you that it was a joyous day when I finally got back to Apple.

It was OS 8.6 I returned to, and for all its flaws, I can honestly say it was a lot less frustrating, a lot more reliable, and a lot more pleasant to use than the alternative of Windows.

Yes OS X has raised the bar. But I still prefer to think as 'classic' as an old friend I worked with rather than an old piece of software that I toiled with.

Montserrat

Jun 11, 2004, 07:31 AM

First time I used a Mac was whe my 12" G4 PB arrived. (Kinda toyed with them in shops beforehand, but didn't know what I was letting myself in for). I've uninstalled Classic, cos I simply don't use it. I had to live through years of M$ crap, but now am happy with a great machine and excellent OS.

I've seen the improvement from Jaguar to Panther, but it would have been more exciting to have seen development from 9 or earlier to X. Now I'm Apple for good - waiting for something else to buy from them. Maybe an iPod, maybe a G5. Or even one of those new APExp things. I'd buy anything with the logo :D

Seriously I wish I'd had the opportunity to use macs earlier, but better late than never

jap4n

Jun 15, 2004, 11:40 PM

yeah - i also dont like M$ products.

turned me to apple since all my years of dealing with crappy errors, corruptions, vireees and spywares/adwares. :confused:

hope the tiger likes DPG4 as much as G5.

you guys reckon apple will get rid of that ghastly metal finder in x.4? i'm using a trial of Unsanity's ShapeShifter - thinks i might gets it.. its so dope to use, and look at.

Also that annoying browse Network/network problems :\

osprey76

Jun 16, 2004, 01:02 AM

The file system is already a database. It knows where to find your files. Something sorely missed is metadata from OS 9. That's half the reason we get to see .xls, etc. on our files now; so, the OS 10 Finder knows what to call to open a given file type rather than the creator code in 9. Someone mentioned Be attached the metadata to the file, just like OS 9 did. If not, I don't see how the metadata is terribly useful since it is not portable off the source machine. That's half of what I'm wondering is what would this metadatabase do? Perhaps it would be essentially a cache file of all the metadata for files on the computer. That would make searching through it much faster. To be useful, it still seems to me that the metadata must physically reside in the file. In Apple's adoption of open standards, it seems like XML would be a good fit. XML doesn't say anything about what sort of database might be under the hood for searches, etc.

This thread is growing faster than I can read it, so here is my 2 cents.

osprey76

Jun 16, 2004, 01:09 AM

Well, you could say i'm a classic veteran (using it since 6.0.8 or something). At first, i was absolutely against X. but the first time i tried it, i was in love :) As for the AppleMenu, it did have it's charm. Being able to put anyhing in it you like. I don't need it these days.
I'm still uncertain about windowshading, sometimes it feels like i could use it, but then again, i don't miss it for most of the time, same goes for window-tabs :)
But for me, it's not a big deal, for i use Mac OS X :)

I actually like the setup with hierarchy to the left-most menus. It's very logical. I understand folks missing the Apple menu, but it's fairly easy to replicate with the Dock. I have a folder of aliases in my Dock that has all of my commonly used apps in various folders (Utilities, Internet, Games, etc.) The physical folder resides in my ~/ directory, but I just right-click (control-click) on the folder in the Dock and launch what I need to, just like what you could do in the Classic Apple menu.

iKwak

Jun 16, 2004, 02:11 AM

I know I won't be upgrading to 10.4.

GregA

Jun 16, 2004, 02:21 AM

I know I won't be upgrading to 10.4.I guess they wouldn't want to market it to you then! (market to the people who are undecided and can be swayed)

For you, what would make upgrading to 10.4 worthwhile? (I assume you have a Mac etc)

rendezvouscp

Jun 16, 2004, 04:03 AM

I started using Macs in '88. After '92 I was forced into the Windows world, and I can tell you that it was a joyous day when I finally got back to Apple.

It was OS 8.6 I returned to, and for all its flaws, I can honestly say it was a lot less frustrating, a lot more reliable, and a lot more pleasant to use than the alternative of Windows.

Yes OS X has raised the bar. But I still prefer to think as 'classic' as an old friend I worked with rather than an old piece of software that I toiled with.

Makes me remember of my first Mac, an LCIII. System 7 I think, but I was only 5. To think that 10 years later, the Mac is so much different, as is all technology.
–Chase

wdlove

Jun 16, 2004, 01:07 PM

I know I won't be upgrading to 10.4.

I'm very sorry to hear that, it's sad. Maybe you will change your mind after WWDC. The wow fact might make all the difference.

Krizoitz

Jun 16, 2004, 04:58 PM

4. Mac OS X wouldn't exist if Linux was never born. When Steve Jobs broke away from Apple, back in the day, he got in a Linux group called NeXtStep. After a while Apple eventually bought their operating system. They slapped a pretty GUI on and modified a few things, and thus Mac OS X was born.

I love it when people try and speak with authority about something they know nothing about and are absolutely WRONG about.

Steve Jobs left Apple and founded NeXT. They built the NeXTStep OS to run on their own proprietary hardware. NeXTSTEP was based on UNIX not Linux. Linux != UNIX. They are like cousins maybe. Anyhow he didn't JOIN a group he started it. Eventually NeXTSTEP became OPENSTEP and ran on non-NeXT hardware. When Apple bought NeXT they used their expertise with a UNIX core operating system to help craft MacOS X. If Linux never existed NeXT would still have had a UNIX based NeXTSTEP.

osakans

Jun 16, 2004, 06:45 PM

GregA

Jun 16, 2004, 07:17 PM

I love it when people try and speak with authority about something they know nothing about and are absolutely WRONG about.

Steve Jobs left Apple and founded NeXT. They built the NeXTStep OS to run on their own proprietary hardware. NeXTSTEP was based on UNIX not Linux. Linux != UNIX. They are like cousins maybe. Anyhow he didn't JOIN a group he started it. Eventually NeXTSTEP became OPENSTEP and ran on non-NeXT hardware. When Apple bought NeXT they used their expertise with a UNIX core operating system to help craft MacOS X. If Linux never existed NeXT would still have had a UNIX based NeXTSTEP.Yeah, Linux wasn't an issue when NeXT formed.

Unix history is much more complicated than Linux. Even the basics!
Linux has a Linux microkernel with GNU OS,
NeXT had a Mach microkernel with the open source BSD OS,
The open source BSDs (Free/Net/OpenBSD) were developed separate to Berkeley's BSD,
Berkeley's BSD branched off from the SVR releases at some stage.
The SVR releases were used by SCO, Interactive (later Sun), and others
and somewhere in the mix is AIX, HP etc. etc.
(also somewhere is SCO Xenix, and Microsoft's Xenix used before NT...)

If Steve Jobs had founded NeXT 5 years later he may well have used Linux. As it stands, even now, the OpenStep APIs run on Linux ("GNUstep"), the NeXT/Sun versions ("OpenStep") ran on BSD, HP/UX, Solaris, Windows 95, and Windows NT/2000, and the Apple version ("Cocoa") runs on MacOS X.

It's got to be my biggest wish for Apple that they release an updated Cocoa for Linux & Windows XP. Let developers develop using Xcode, and compile for Mac, Linux, & Windows. What a great way to encourage development using Cocoa (and hence Mac OS X)!!!

Apple's original plan back before MacOS X was released was also to have OpenStep (then "YellowBox", now "Cocoa") released on Windows (the earlier version already ran), but it hit a snag which people thought was Adobe wanting US$10 for every Windows release (for their Display PostScript). Apple removed DPS and used PDF instead - but no final Windows release ever happened (though Apple's WebObjects still uses Openstep on Windows 2000sp3 and Solaris 8). Pity!

Mac Dummy

Jun 18, 2004, 05:23 PM

The timing sounds correct. I was expecting Steve to announce 10.4 at WWDC and then released by the end of the year. Essentially keeping with the same timing. That was a very interesting comment that they might just skip to 10.5, because it's scheduled to be a radical change. Maybe that would explain the code name change from Ocelot.

Why totally upgrade Mac OS so soon when "Panther" has only been out since October 2003? Doesn't make sense to me. Unless of course Apple is trying to do what Microsoft did with Windows Me.

gopher

Jun 18, 2004, 05:38 PM

Why totally upgrade Mac OS so soon when "Panther" has only been out since October 2003? Doesn't make sense to me. Unless of course Apple is trying to do what Microsoft did with Windows Me.

10.3 is a great operating system. Definitely nothing like ME. However, if you don't have need for its features, there isn't much sense in upgrading. As for Tiger, it may not be out until January. I'm testing the spoken user interface, and it is nowhere near the completeness they would want.

ffakr

Jun 18, 2004, 05:55 PM

Linux has a Linux microkernel with GNU OS,

Linux doesn't have a Microkernel. Linus doesn't think much of microkernels.. even though he wrote the linux kernel on a system that had a microkernel (MINIX).

Linux has a monolithic kernel. Linux runs a lot of code inside the kernel space and as a result a lot of code runs faster on linux than other microkernel based systems.

Mac OS X, in comparison, uses a microkernel.. the Mach Kernel. Mach, like any real microkernel, does very little in the grand scheme of things. It's basically a 'shim' between the OS and apps and the hardware. It manages thread access to the hardware, it manages memory access.. not much more.
The linux kernel has all kinds of crap running in kernel space.. hardware drivers, file system code..

The upside to big monolithic kernels is the speed advantage. A lot of routines have a lower latency in Linux. The big disadvantage to a monolithic kernel is that all that code running in kernel space is a potential security vulnerability. The argument about which is more insecure.. MS Windows or Linux will rage for years, but if you subscribe to a Linux security list, you'll see a LOT of security warnings and resultant patches. From my experience there are MORE security vulnerabilites in linux than Windows.. the difference is, the linux community patches them faster and people automate more attacks against Windows.

ffakr

Jun 18, 2004, 05:58 PM

10.3 is a great operating system. Definitely nothing like ME. However, if you don't have need for its features, there isn't much sense in upgrading. As for Tiger, it may not be out until January. I'm testing the spoken user interface, and it is nowhere near the completeness they would want.

Not only does 10.3 have more features than 10.2, but it's also faster.. especially on SMP boxes and older machines. That's probably as good a reason as any to have upgraded.

Tiger is due this fall.. just like 10.3 was released in the fall. Apple has already announced this.
Apple also publicly stated that there will be a longer delay before 10.5 is released. Perhapse a year and a half. Avie Tevanian said they can't sustain a yearly release schedule. It's not hard to see why.. the more polished OS X becomes, the harder it will be to come up with enough changes to justify a full rev of the OS.

weezer160

Jun 20, 2004, 10:25 PM

somewhere in this forum, or some mac forum, i remember somebody suggesting the idea of multiple docks in tiger. i think it would be a good idea because you can have two kinds (or more) of docks. you can have a dock for your applications and a dock for your folders. of course, you can have the option of having the, what would be called, 'class dock,' the dock we have, where the folders and apps are on the same dock and seperated by that little line. or, you can have you applications dock on the bottom, and your folders dock on the right or left side, or vice verse. of course, some critics might say that having two docks at once might cost you a little space on the screen. but some others, like myself, i'd probably have my applications dock on the right all the time, and then have my folders dock on the left with hiding turned on. that's just myself, but i think it would be a good idea.

gopher

Jun 20, 2004, 10:30 PM

weezer160

Jun 20, 2004, 11:21 PM

Dockfun gives you this ability:
http://www.dockfun.com/

I checked. it seemes like complicated software. i mean, TWO docks, not something that you can just change the icons according to groups - i could do that easily for free. if only i had photoshop, i think i'd show you. :(

Fukui

Jun 20, 2004, 11:26 PM

Dockfun gives you this ability:
http://www.dockfun.com/

Can two run at the same time though? I would like that.

StrangeQuark

Jun 21, 2004, 01:36 AM

I was going through this a couple months ago thinking about the kids who have never used a text only interface who didn't or had to enter a program that they received in the mail (snail mail) into the computer manually because you couldn't send it over the internet and floppies where unheard of and tape drives were uncommon.

Similar feelings here. I am a member of the last generation that will remember not having an internet connection. I clearly remember signing up with our first ISP back in 1996. It was a local provider, and it had such great features as no hourly charges on weekends. All this on a blazing fast Performa 6116CD with a 14.4Kbps modem. Soon, I'll be a part of the last generation of mac users that remembers extension conflicts, and resource forks.