Panther by September? Hints? [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 2, 2003, 10:08 PM

eWeek reports (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,993485,00.asp) on Apple's next major Mac OS X upgrade -- Panther.

...sources said Panther will include significant new GUI features.

eWeek reports a mid-September date for the release of the next major revision of Mac OS X. eWeek, however, also reports on speculation that Panther may be the first 64-bit revision of Mac OS X. As a result, they make the leap that new hardware releases (presumably PowerMacs) would arrive at the same time.

MacOSRumors chimes in (http://www.macosrumors.com/) with Panther rumors -- and claims that Apple's music download service may not arrive until Panther does... reporting on tight integration between Panther and other Apple mediated purchases, including software, movies, etc...

Kid Red

Apr 2, 2003, 10:10 PM

If ready in June why wait til Sept to release it?

arn

Apr 2, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
If ready in June why wait til Sept to release it?

to fuel the fire... hardware perhaps? :)

jimjiminyjim

Apr 2, 2003, 10:13 PM

Why is it that the speculation about products taking longer to come out always make it to the front page??

Oh well. Give me Panther on a 970 with mp4 itunes and a music download service, and (sure this is a little off) perfect voice recognition, and I'll be a very happy camper.

PyroTurtle

Apr 2, 2003, 10:14 PM

panther is being brought out, maybe not in finished form?
that would make sence to me...or maybe the hardware isn't in full production yet?
those are the two posibilies i can think of...or maybe both...

Freg3000

Apr 2, 2003, 10:15 PM

MOSR says that they may integrate the music serivice with Mac OS X itself......and say it may develop into something where you could download other content like movies. Hmmmmm......I doubt it.....

But I do like it-sort of.

Whatever, it's just MOSR anyway.

macphoria

Apr 2, 2003, 10:18 PM

If Panther is 64 bit OS, would it have backward compatibility with 32 bit processors? Or would people have to purchase 64 bit machine in order to use 64 bit OS? Would it be possible that they will release 64 bit and 32 bit version?

My guess is one would have to have 64 bit machine in order to use 64 bit OS.

medea

Apr 2, 2003, 10:27 PM

damn I was ahead by two minutes on this one ;)
um, I doubt that current mac users would have to buy a new mac just to use Panther macphoria, but I could be wrong, just seems like that would piss off ten times more people than Apple has already pissed off. Anyone have more info on that?

idkew

Apr 2, 2003, 10:29 PM

it would most likely be a hybrid os. kinda akin to the fat apps that were for 040 and ppc processors.

i hate to admit it, but here is another $129 to apple. i think it should be a free upgrade for .2 users, but it won't be.

MrMacMan

Apr 2, 2003, 10:38 PM

requies

Apr 2, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
If ready in June why wait til Sept to release it?

it won't be ready for the public in june, only developers. that's why. ;)

(not like i actually know or anything.)

Fofer

Apr 2, 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by jimjiminyjim
and (sure this is a little off) perfect voice recognition, and I'll be a very happy camper.

I'd be happy with perfect voice SYNTHESIS!

"Macintalk Pro Bruce" is getting a little tired, for crying out loud. That technology hasn't been updated since 1988.

VegetaPunk

Apr 2, 2003, 10:55 PM

I was looking through amazon for OS X books and I found a book on 10.3 it is avalible in July

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ix=books&rank=%2Bpmrank&fqp=keywords%01MAC%20OS%20X&nsp=score%01proj-unit-sales%02search-type%01ss%02bq%011&sz=10&pg=6/ref=s_b_np/002-7596671-6070419

Wonder Boy

Apr 2, 2003, 11:09 PM

I don't care about panther. The only way I will have 10.3 is if it is preinstalled in a new g4 or g5. I spent 129$ last summer, im not about to do it again. The new characteristics don't appeal to me. 10.2 is stable, and more than i ever expected. I'll keep my 129$. Sorry Steve.

eric_n_dfw

Apr 2, 2003, 11:28 PM

I'd be very surprised (and pissed off) if 10.3 didn't work with existing, 32bit G3 and G4 machines.

I'd bet the installer would automatically install the correct software for whatever machine you are putting it on.

-or-

Maybe offer a DVD-ROM with the 64 bit version and a couple of CD-ROMs for the 32 bit version since, more than likely, all 64 bit capable machines would have DVD readers at a minimum. (If you remove your DVD reader, it's not their problem.)

-or-

They'll package them separately, OS X 10.3 in retail boxes is 32 bit and, for the time being included with 64 bit machines is the 64 bit version. They'd eventualy have to start selling two different retail boxes too.

I'm betting on the smart installer option.

eric_n_dfw

Apr 2, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by VegetaPunk
I was looking through amazon for OS X books and I found a book on 10.3 it is avalible in July

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ix=books&rank=%2Bpmrank&fqp=keywords%01MAC%20OS%20X&nsp=score%01proj-unit-sales%02search-type%01ss%02bq%011&sz=10&pg=6/ref=s_b_np/002-7596671-6070419 Nice find!:cool:

forcelite

Apr 2, 2003, 11:59 PM

Windows xp has a 64 bit version. Most people have the 32 bit version but you can get the 64 bit one

Macpoops

Apr 3, 2003, 12:58 AM

WWDC is going to have a Preview of Panther. just like they had a preview of Jag that was release a month or so Later. Why is this such a surprise that it will not be released to the public at WWDC. Jag wasn't. As for the 32bit 64bit issue i think it is pretty safe to assume that since the consumer line is probably staying in the 32 bit realm that there will be 2 versions. Then again the 970 can run both 32 and 64 bit code seamlessly so it could just be a 32 bit OS but i don't it

SwitchMonkey

Apr 3, 2003, 01:04 AM

A rushed implementation of 64bit computing benefits no one.

If Apple is truely committed to a 64bit version for the new 970s this year, I dearly hope they optimize their motherboards with no bottlenecks. I doubt that this will happen however.

Just ship a 32bit version with the new 970s and blow my socks off...

We need the fastest hardware NOW!

SwitchMonkey

Apr 3, 2003, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by medea
Catpower

they are playing in this area in a week or so.. Gotta see them...

pgwalsh

Apr 3, 2003, 01:21 AM

I see the 64bit version running OS X Server and not consumer desktops for a year or longer.

zephc

Apr 3, 2003, 02:23 AM

someone on slashdot claims to have seen a dev build with pop-up windows (ala OS 9)... oh DAMN do i want to see that BAD! I wouldnt even have to use the dock after that. I originally *really* would have prefered the entire OS9 look n feel kept and put on the OS X infrastructure, but I guess I'm getting used to change =P

jholzner

Apr 3, 2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
I don't care about panther. The only way I will have 10.3 is if it is preinstalled in a new g4 or g5. I spent 129$ last summer, im not about to do it again. The new characteristics don't appeal to me. 10.2 is stable, and more than i ever expected. I'll keep my 129$. Sorry Steve.

What new characteristics??? We hardly know anything about the 10.3 yet. I bet when we do you will be singing a different tune...at least I hope I will be.

gotohamish

Apr 3, 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Kid Red
If ready in June why wait til Sept to release it?

Because it will be in beta in June, Apple have said this. They pushed it to June so they could developers a pre-release version, to test bugs and compatibility and such.

Then the hardware will follow, oh yes!

gotohamish

Apr 3, 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
I don't care about panther. The only way I will have 10.3 is if it is preinstalled in a new g4 or g5. I spent 129$ last summer, im not about to do it again. The new characteristics don't appeal to me. 10.2 is stable, and more than i ever expected. I'll keep my 129$. Sorry Steve.

You say that now, but this is Apple! There'll be some amazing new features in Panther, and that will make you rethink your presious $129.

I'll be buying it, and I'll love it.

CheekyGit

Apr 3, 2003, 06:04 AM

eWeek says Mac OS X 'Panther' is on track for a September release.

Let's see...freeze development in May...preview it in June...finalize enhancements to the UI in July...annoucing release in September...finally shows up at your house in December.

Yep. Apple is on track alright.

richie

Apr 3, 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by CheekyGit
eWeek says Mac OS X 'Panther' is on track for a September release.

Let's see...freeze development in May...preview it in June...finalize enhancements to the UI in July...annoucing release in September...finally shows up at your house in December.

Yep. Apple is on track alright.

AFAIK, Apple's been fine with the 10.1 and 10.2 release dates, once they were actually announced. (There wasn't any slippage with them, I believe...)

Hardware and software release scheduling and delays are completely different in the way they're handled :)

BenRoethig

Apr 3, 2003, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by zephc
someone on slashdot claims to have seen a dev build with pop-up windows (ala OS 9)... oh DAMN do i want to see that BAD! I wouldnt even have to use the dock after that. I originally *really* would have prefered the entire OS9 look n feel kept and put on the OS X infrastructure, but I guess I'm getting used to change =P

I would prefer Apple give us a choice of Appearance themes. With a choice between Platnum, Aqua, and Brushed Metal and allow for the users to create more. Also bring back system sounds and a customizable Apple menu. I didn't mind buying haxies for those features, but I'd much rather Apple include them in the Operating System.

DGFan

Apr 3, 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by idkew
it would most likely be a hybrid os. kinda akin to the fat apps that were for 040 and ppc processors.

i hate to admit it, but here is another $129 to apple. i think it should be a free upgrade for .2 users, but it won't be.

Ripoff or not, I would pay $129 just to have the finder actually work....

Frobozz

Apr 3, 2003, 09:18 AM

Frobozz

Apr 3, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by BenRoethig
I would prefer Apple give us a choice of Appearance themes.

Apple will never officially allow appearance themes. It breaks every UI consitency rule in the book. Granted, they have toyed with the idea in OS 9... and have even tried this to an extent with the brushed metal theme... but there will never be an Appearance manager in OS X. Even with brushed metal, they are using the metaphore that certain tools are "metal" because of their utilitarian nature... which works... even if I don't like it.

If you want to hack the look that bad, you're a prosumer and would know how to d/l a shareware app to do it.

cryptochrome

Apr 3, 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I'd be very surprised (and pissed off) if 10.3 didn't work with existing, 32bit G3 and G4 machines.

I'd bet the installer would automatically install the correct software for whatever machine you are putting it on.

-or-

Maybe offer a DVD-ROM with the 64 bit version and a couple of CD-ROMs for the 32 bit version since, more than likely, all 64 bit capable machines would have DVD readers at a minimum. (If you remove your DVD reader, it's not their problem.)

-or-

They'll package them separately, OS X 10.3 in retail boxes is 32 bit and, for the time being included with 64 bit machines is the 64 bit version. They'd eventualy have to start selling two different retail boxes too.

I'm betting on the smart installer option.

Eh? Obviously you're not familiar with the package system. All you ever need is one drag and drop application. You can have multiple versions of the same application inside the package to support different hardware or OSes, with the appropriate one running when you double click. Of course installer packages will probably do a lighter, hardware specific install. In any case, having multiple versions for different processors would be both confusing to the consumer, and inefficient since resource files often make up a major fraction of the application's size.

Try ctl-clicking and browsing Photoshop, and you'll see what I mean. We'll see one DVD-Rom or two CD-Roms when it comes out.

DakotaGuy

Apr 3, 2003, 10:43 AM

jettredmont

Apr 3, 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by macphoria
If Panther is 64 bit OS, would it have backward compatibility with 32 bit processors? Or would people have to purchase 64 bit machine in order to use 64 bit OS? Would it be possible that they will release 64 bit and 32 bit version?

My guess is one would have to have 64 bit machine in order to use 64 bit OS.

A 64-bit PPC OS has the ability to utilize 64-bit hardware, but does not necessarily require it. Kinda like how Jaguar is an Altivec OS, and loves to use Altivec, but doesn't require it.

IMHO, if the 970 isn't debuted fairly soon (ie, WWDC or even MWNY) there is still a good chance that Panther will be a 64-bit clean OS, although perhaps not publicized as such until the hardware itself comes out. Kinda like how iTunes 3 had all the integration plumbing for iLife in it for months before iLife itself debuted ...

As for Panther only running on new hardware ... has Apple ever done this? Not that I can remember. Especially not recently. There is too much platform leverage in having your latest OS run on years-old hardware that would be lost in such a move. Apple can always surprise, but I don't see this as a likely surprise at all.

jettredmont

Apr 3, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by MrMacman
Basically all the dev. that optomized their code to velocity will do this an a couple more.

Note that utilizing Altivec is incredibly complex in comparison to supporting 64 bits. In general, with the switch to 64-bit clean code you won't require more than a few tweaks and a recompile. Altivec support requires a full-on rearchitecting of key subsystems (assuming you can wedge your code into the SIMD paradigm, which isn't the case all the time), and quite often implies the maintenance of two branches of code (one opimized for Altivec, the other optimized for non-Altivec).

IMHO, any actively developed software will be 64-bit enhanced within 1-2 product releases after the 970 debuts. There is just no reason it shouldn't be.

Of course, what it means for a bit of software to be 64-bit "enhanced" may or may not be significant on most applications.

jettredmont

Apr 3, 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by jimjiminyjim
Why is it that the speculation about products taking longer to come out always make it to the front page??

How is September for Panther "longer" than what we've heard previously?

We have heard, in chronological order:

1) Panther will be late 2003
2) Panther will be in Sept 2003
3) WWDC moved back for a Panther preview in June 2003

I haven't seen any rumors or especially statements from Apple saying that Panther will be ready prior to September.

Note also that Jaguar was previewed (at WWDC 2002) in May and released at the end of August, precisely the same distance between those two events as a June preview and Sept release for Panther ...

dongmin

Apr 3, 2003, 01:17 PM

sources report that the "Panther" release will reach end users in mid-September.

Probably just an educated guess on their part. WWDC is at the end of June. Apple announce the new 970 PowerMacs then and start taking orders. The actual ship time is beginning of September, along with Panther and about 10 weeks after the announcement. Ten weeks is a bit long, but then again this is one of the biggest announcements will have made.

mrothenberg

Apr 3, 2003, 02:14 PM

Probably just an educated guess on their part.

It could be, but it's not! :cool:

That's what's always amused me about Apple's perpetual struggle to quiet Mac "rumor and speculation"; while we can debate the merits of the former, it's almost impossible to avoid the latter and engage in intelligent discussion on any topic that is based on past experience.

Yes, this date matches up fairly closely with past precedent; but no, it's not based on guesswork of any stripe.

Matthew Rothenberg
Managing editor
Ziff Davis Internet

seamuskrat

Apr 3, 2003, 03:16 PM

To put minds at ease. It is entirely possible to create a smart installer. This would check processor type and install binaries and files associated with a 970 or G3/4.

Also, the OS could be made in a manner similar to old 040/PPC code and contain the code for both 32 and 64 bit chips.

Lastly, 10.3 probably will be far from 'full-64' bit. As the 970 *IS* backwards compatible, its a safe guess to say that certain parts of the OS will allow for access to the benefits of the 64 bit system.

Eventually, MacOS WILL be optimized past 32 bit compatbilityu, but not for MANY iterations. Far too many peopel have long lived Macs. My company still has Performa 5200 in service running 9.1.

10.3 will be an exciting upgrade. Probably with enough enhancements to make it worth paying for. Of course, if they fix bugs in 10.2 and require a 10.3 upgrade then its not cool. But if we get a faster, sleeker, better integrated OS with more innovative features and the same/better stability of 10.2 then we all win.

My last thought is a compromose. $49 for .2 purchasers, and $129 for new folks or .1 holdouts. Pays for the new stuff and takes the sting away for those that recently purchased.

D0ct0rteeth

Apr 3, 2003, 03:26 PM

I dont care how much it costs, but for the love of god I hope they include true 5.1 audio support in the DVD Player.

and more sherlock channels ala watson would be nice.

-Doc

seamuskrat

Apr 3, 2003, 03:28 PM

On a related note:
Macs have an undeniable longevity for certain uses that exceeds PCs. I have a number of old machines in use for simple tasks like wordprocessing and email, and these are SLOW by todays standards but the reality is that the folks using them cannot exceed the type buffer, and they work and print just fine. Yes, having shiny new imacs on each desk would be sweet, having a few old performas and 8600's is not that bad either.
It will be a long time before at an OS level the G3/4 is abandoned for support. You WILL aspects of it 'unavailable' for older machines i.e. Quartz Extreme.
The 970 is considered a compatible chip set. So the compiled code for a G3/G4/970 will all work interchangeably. Assumming the code is compiled at 32 bits. Compiling in 64 bits (once a compiler has been written) vs. 32 bits is just a matter of a few clicks of the mouse.
For the sake of sanity, lets not gripe about what will happen years from now. Eventually you WILL need to buy an upgraded Mac. Just as those with Mac IIfx had to upgrade years before. And that state-of-the-art 9600 is a dog today, but once was the machine to beat. But that 9600 with 21 inch Supermac monitor is STILL running Quark down the hall from me just as fast as it did in 1997.
I think its a safe bet that 10.3 will run on the same platform subset as 10.0, 10.1, 10.2. Performance on an iMac 233 will probably be on par with existing 10.2.4- not great but usable- and MAYBE we will even see a boost. Like 10.2.4 on a Wallstreet with video!
Until WWDC or when previews leak out and people have USED it and reported back, all we can do is wait and hope the IBM factory is pumping out fast 970s at a fast pace.

eric_n_dfw

Apr 3, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by cryptochrome
Eh? Obviously you're not familiar with the package system.Settle down there, Beavis. :p
All you ever need is one drag and drop application. You can have multiple versions of the same application inside the package to support different hardware or OSes, with the appropriate one running when you double click.I know all about packages and fat binaries and all that. (I'm a former NeXT geek FWIW)
Of course installer packages will probably do a lighter, hardware specific install.Exactly my point in the 1st part of my post.

I don't think anyone wants 2 copies of every executable and/or library installed on their machines. The installer should detect which machine it is running on and copy only the correct binaries over. (The installer itself would, of course be a fat binary though).
We'll see one DVD-Rom or two CD-Roms when it comes out. I think this is correct - maybe. That is, afterall, what they did with iLife. I wonder, at what point will they go to DVD-ROM only packaging? The only machines that need CD-ROM's selling today are the bottom level iBook and the XServe.

How about this - what if the 64 bit, 970 based machines (assuming they ever come to be) aren't called PowerMac's? Maybe they will be the called: "Macintosh 64" or "Macintosh III" or something. Then you've got "Mac OS X 10.3" for older machines and "Mac OS X 10.3 - Mac III Edition" for newer machines.

Okay - that's stuipid - I'll go back to work now :p

bousozoku

Apr 3, 2003, 05:24 PM

Please don't call it Macintosh III! Remember how well the Apple III did? Between that and the Lisa, I'm surprised that Apple survived.

Saying that something is a 64-bit operating system could mean many things. The system could have a memory space of 64-bits or a virtual memory space of 64-bits. It might also be able to address a file 64-bits long or be able to handle a quantity of 64-bits worth of directory entries.

As big iron was moving to 64-bits in the mid-1990s, many of these were used until the operating systems could be considered 64-bit in every way. The only operating system that was truly made use of 64-bits at the beginning was IBM's OS/400 and that's because it had a 256-bit internal virtual machine architechture.

Apple could do anything. There's only one thing that's certain at the end of september: Mac OS X v10.3 will be able to run on currently-sold 32-bit machines.

MyLeftNut

Apr 3, 2003, 06:01 PM

I dont care what Apple do with the software it'll be great and have bugs for a while...just GET IT DONE FAST!

Theres no time to muck around Apple....

Kid Red

Apr 3, 2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by requies
it won't be ready for the public in june, only developers. that's why. ;)

(not like i actually know or anything.)

But it will be feature frozen for nearly 2 months?

The only justification I see is the this gives developers 2 months to get used to a 64 bit OS and 2 months to prepare their apps for a 970 release in September.

bousozoku

Apr 3, 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Kid Red
But it will be feature frozen for nearly 2 months?

The only justification I see is the this gives developers 2 months to get used to a 64 bit OS and 2 months to prepare their apps for a 970 release in September.

Maybe you should be debugging code for Apple since you do it so much more quickly than they do! :)

arn

Apr 3, 2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by mrothenberg

Matthew Rothenberg
Managing editor
Ziff Davis Internet

Welcome Matthew... must have missed your other posts.

Thanks for the clarification.

arn

mathiasr

Apr 4, 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by cryptochrome
You can have multiple versions of the same application inside the package to support different hardware or OSes, with the appropriate one running when you double click. Of course installer packages will probably do a lighter, hardware specific install.

Multi-architecture support has nothing to do with packages (.app wrappers?), it's a property of the Mach-O binaries archive format:

http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/DeveloperTools/MachORuntime/8rt_file_format/chapter_4_section_8.html