Mac OS X Updates Less Frequent

[MacRumors]

CNet reported (http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5215281.html) last week that Apple will be slowing the pace of Mac OS X releases in the future.

Apple has released 3 major updates to Mac OS X since it's initial release in 2001. A preview of the newest version (Tiger; Mac OS X 10.4) is due at the World Wide Developer's Conference in June of this year.

Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer Avie Tevanian is quoted as saying "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit...because that's not a sustainable rate." But does promise that "You'll still see us go really fast".

[hob]

Well, that seems fair - they've done a lot of work since 2001, and I don't think they can really sustain all the new features - like in panther, they've kind of hit a wall, there's only so much you can add to an OS before it gets clutterred!

[Windowlicker]

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.

[adamfilip]

personally i love the yearly releases.

keep it comming.. hey lets bump it up too a new version every 8 months!

its only like 120 bucks

[dizastor]

so... $129 every 18 months ??

[mklos]

I think this is the best thing Apple can do. Right now in my opinion they have the best OS in the industry and they can afford to slow down a little. This will give them a chance to sit back a little but and really put some thought into some really cool new features. It gives them the time needed to implement these new features too. Since they've announced this they will no longer be forced to release an OS every year. So now they can make sure its actually ready to be released. It gives them a chance to do an in depth check for bugs, security holes, etc. Finally, it calms down the customers from bitching and complaining that they have to spend $129 every 12 months for an OS update. You poor babies! Now you'll have to wait 18-20 months to spend that $129! The OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do.

[mklos]

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.

Thats what I thought about Jaguar! I thought man this does everything I need it to do, but then Apple seems to keep coming up with great ideas to add to the OS and keeps me buying it every year. Plus, I'm an update freak!

[oingoboingo]

Hopefully this means that some of the core frameworks and APIs in Mac OS X have been bedded down. While it is a common refrain that "Mac hardware remains useful longer" (regardless if that is actually true or not), it is not as true for Mac operating systems. If you want access to the latest software, you really need to be running Jaguar (OS X 10.2) or later. I do understand the reasons for this...OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were really about Apple actually getting OS X to a state where it was truly 'finished', which having something modern and updated to ship to customers and developers in the meantime. But adding new graphical and usability features from here on in to OS X hopefully doesn't have to mean that new applications won't run on older versions of OS X. For example, Internet Explorer 6 still runs on Windows 98...the latest versions of Safari require OS X 10.2 or better.

A little more core OS/API stability would be nice.

[JFreak]

as long as they keep optimizing and manage to release a faster os (with the same hardware) than the previous, it's fine. no need to release every year, but i'd like them keeping up the pace at least until longhorn - microsoft needs a good slap in the face by apple on a regular basis ;)

[gadg]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

[Stella]

Good news that apple are going to slow down osx releases.. Apple cannot expect consumers to pay $129 every year, plus its a headache to business uesrs who cannot upgrade every year. Makes an Apple expensive to own. Yes, you don't have to upgrade, but how many people want to be on an old OS (Windows doesn't matter, OSX does).


I just want to see optimized version of OSX with plenty of good features regularly, but not every calendar year! If Apple can do this, then I'm happy. :)

Also, I'm wondering if this will be the last OSX .... will the next one be 11?

[oingoboingo]

The OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do.

Presumably the OS X developers are being paid for their efforts, and afforded whatever standard benefits Apple provides their employees such as vacation time and sick leave. We pay for OS X when we buy our Macs, and we pay US$129 for the upgrades. Apple is a profitable company, with large cash reserves. While I congratulate the OS X development team for their fine work, let's not get too misty eyed for them either. They're just doing their job, and I believe the Mac user base pays a very solid premium for them to do this.

[pjkelnhofer]

Does this mean I should not plan on pitching at tent in front of the AppleStore in Cambridge this October.

Seriously, people have been complaining about updates coming to quickly, now I wonder if people will start complaining about have to wait too long for OS updates. IMO, Panther is what OS X should have been when it first came out. The original OS X and 10.1 were both jokes. With Jaguar, Apple finally got it right, and with Panther the added a few things that were left out.

Now they can start to work on the true next generation OS rather than worry about minor improvements to the current one. I wonder if the means we should expect more from Tiger and if we will not see it until 2005. Maybe it will even be designed for the G5 and not be availible until the whole line has migrated to the chip which could be quite some time from now.

[nsb3000]

If I remember correctly, did Steve jobes say something like, "Because Mac OS X is so modern , we are making updates that much faster"...

But really, while I think Apple needs to do a better job at supporting the OS's it has out there, there is no reason they should stop adding new features. Just because Mac OS X is mature enough to be a usable OS for everyday use, doesn’t mean Apple should stop now. You know Microsoft is not.

[macmunch]

And again Apple User dont look on the side of windows ?!

What does a Windows XP cost ?
more than 300 $ !

So 129 $ are more than fair !

But I am also would like to see updates every 1 1/2 year or at latest 2 years cycle.

[nsb3000]

Does this mean I should not plan on pitching at tent in front of the AppleStore in Cambridge this October.

Seriously, people have been complaining about updates coming to quickly, now I wonder if people will start complaining about have to wait too long for OS updates. IMO, Panther is what OS X should have been when it first came out. The original OS X and 10.1 were both jokes. With Jaguar, Apple finally got it right, and with Panther the added a few things that were left out.

Now they can start to work on the true next generation OS rather than worry about minor improvements to the current one. I wonder if the means we should expect more from Tiger and if we will not see it until 2005. Maybe it will even be designed for the G5 and not be availible until the whole line has migrated to the chip which could be quite some time from now.

Exactly, now that we (Finally) have a decent OS we need to keep the updates coming to stay ahead of the competition…

[johnnyjibbs]

Tiger will have to have G3, G4 and G5 support, or there will be many annoyed customers. I also think that Mac OS X will be with us for a long time. Who cares whether it's called OS X or XI? The name of Mac OS X is a clear distinction from the classic Mac OS (1-9), which is not compatible. There's no reason why Mac OS X cannot last the decade. This way it also establishes itself firmly as a brand.

Maybe the answer for Apple would be to not charge £129 for each and every update. After all, most of their sales come from new Macs or other software (or iPods). New Macs include the latest release of the OS with them.

[jelloshotsrule]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

they are going to talk about it in a few weeks. it would be released in several months at the earliest

[JFreak]

Maybe the answer for Apple would be to not charge £129 for each and every update. After all, most of their sales come from new Macs or other software (or iPods). New Macs include the latest release of the OS with them.

osx for free and 100 dollars for the yearly ilife package? that way they would be able to push the latest os for everyone and charge the premium for software eveyone wants to have...

[soosy]

I loved the yearly updates too. Hopefully it won't slow down too much.

I could see how the yearly updates wouldn't work as well for businesses and organizations. And I think it would great for Apple to devote more effort to stable and documented API's (how 'bout opening up iSync, for example?)

[wPod]

they need to slow down software and speed up hardware development!!! are they ever going to come out with new monitors?!!! or maybe spend more time with iPhoto and less with the OS . . . i have never had a problem with OS X cause its soo good, why do they have to upgrade it?!

[geneshifter]

Well, that seems fair - they've done a lot of work since 2001, and I don't think they can really sustain all the new features - like in panther, they've kind of hit a wall, there's only so much you can add to an OS before it gets clutterred!

I can think of one thing that might help - how about write priviledges for FTP in the Finder. This read-only stuff is outrageous. :mad:

[Sped]

I don't know anything about writing OS code, but it seems that slowing down will coincide nicely with 64 bit computing coming online. It will take some time for Apple's entire lineup to become G5 or better, and of course there will still be G4 and older machines being used for a long time. Like I said, I am not a software designer, but it seems supporting 64 bit and 32 bit hardware has the potential to bloat the code. If this assumption is correct, slowing down will allow the user base to gradually transition to newer hardware.

By the way, remember the tremendous bitching going on about how OS X was crap and that many would never stop using OS 9? I was switcher during that time and have never really used OS 9. I think it's funny now how hardly anyone is griping anymore.

[BornAgainMac]

I bet it is from all those people complaining about yearly O/S updates. Well, it was nice while it lasted. What Panther doesn't do for me today, I try to find addons from Versiontracker. Perhaps having an update every 18 months is the right balance and if it includes 300 new features.

I hope we still get iLife updates every year and really improve .Mac for that $99 bucks a year.

[Mord]

damn my inability to use anything but the latest os :( i will get 10.4 even if it just has a few cosmetic changes

[johnnyjibbs]

I don't know anything about writing OS code, but it seems that slowing down will coincide nicely with 64 bit computing coming online. It will take some time for Apple's entire lineup to become G5 or better, and of course there will still be G4 and older machines being used for a long time. Like I said, I am not a software designer, but it seems supporting 64 bit and 32 bit hardware has the potential to bloat the code. If this assumption is correct, slowing down will allow the user base to gradually transition to newer hardware.
For that to happen they need everything to move to G5 first :p :D

[mj_1903]

damn my inability to use anything but the latest os :( i will get 10.4 even if it just has a few cosmetic changes

The Mac OS X team has been working on 10.4 now for at least 7 months. I don't think cosmetic changes are the only achievement for some reason. :)

[themadchemist]

Also, I'm wondering if this will be the last OSX .... will the next one be 11?

I'm not sure. Previous versions of Mac OS were branded strongly as Mac OS, with the numbers being for practical and operational use only. However, Apple has chosen to make 'OS X' a strong brand name. This might mean we'll see it for a while.

On the other hand, knowing Steve Jobs, Apple will probalby want to up it to 11 (or whatever it chooses) about a year before Longhorn comes out. That would put OS 11 coming out around 2038. :D

Seriously, that would mean we could see OS 11 next year or 2006, which would put you, Stella, right on target, with 10.4 being the last OS X revision.

[awinn233]

Also, I'm wondering if this will be the last OSX .... will the next one be 11?

I don't think so, I remember reading somewhere that Steve Jobs said that we'll be on OS X for the next 15 years.

[xtekdiver]

I think Arn must be slowing the pace of his posts. This is days old news.

[JGowan]

I have no doubt that Tiger will support G3 computers -- this will simply following in Pather's footsteps as being a feature-fest for Mac users with some stability thrown into the mix. I think they're slowing down for several reasons:

1) Ideas that support this OS (& G3 technology) are getting more & more scarce. They pulled out a few great ideas last time with the improved finder, Expose, FileVault & Fast User Switching, but hitting a homerun time after time is going to take extra months and Apple is realizing this.

2) To support the current hardware (including G3), they're limited to what they can do technically. They have to wait some until G3s become even more History, which will be a bit tough considering it shipped with iBook for so long. I'm will to bet that OS 11 won't support G3s.

3) I woner how many people are running Panther... perhaps, financially, it makes more sense to wait. Releasing too frequently could be hurting sales with people deciding to skip a big release. I know plenty of people who are still running Jaguar. Maybe when "Lion" comes out, it'll be numbered 10.7 so people will think "My God! They're going from 10.4 to 10.7! I've got to get me some of this!"

4) They need to save some big tricks for OS 11. I truly believe they have quite a good idea about the feature-set for this (and probably are even working on it). Can't Wait!

Honestly, for some who spends thousands on Apple hardware every couple 2-3 years (and I'm not alone), I don't mind spend $129 every fall to have an even better Mac. To me, I wouldn't care if they continued the trend as long as the software was always full of great new innovation. If the updates just became boring on the features, I would probably get annoyed and only update when it got interesting again. However, since Jobs has been back, Apple has been anything but boring.

[autrefois]

So let's see—last week a new iPod division was announced, and this article came out saying we'd be seeing OS updates less frequently. Are they maybe going to be spending less money developing OS X and more on the iPods?

[jtquick2001]

So let's see—last week a new iPod division was announced, and this article came out saying we'd be seeing OS updates less frequently. Are they maybe going to be spending less money developing OS X and more on the iPods?


Dear god I hope that is not going to happen! :eek: Steve may be a beatles fan but apple is a computer company at heart. I strongly think that the whole ipod+itunes thing is a gimmick. I think we will switch to imovie for a while for the regular comsumer.

[sun-ice]

This slow down sounds like the end of Mac OS X...
Why slowing down if it's not to have time to developpe a new major OS version...
And they need time...
Time to push 32bits architecture away...
The support of G3, G4 and G5 is not so simple...
how is this ?
"if (G3) { ... } else if (G4) { ... } else if (G5) { ... } "
what about optimisation ?

So
1- iMax G5, PowerBook G5
2- Tiger => for G4 and G5 only
3- eMac et iBookG5 (sepember 2005)
4- 2006 the fight between OS XI and M$ LongHorn
the 64bits OS against the compatibility

:D

[qubex]

I'm more than willing to spend $129 (or worse still, €129) for a new version of OS X every year. It's simply a negligable sum to pay for such a great increase in functionality.

That said, OS X in its 10.3 incarnation is far from complete. It still has serious flaws. For example, the Finder is still awful. It is badly in need of being rewritten to stop crashing - it panicked my kernel a few days ago when moving a bunch of .jpg images with preview. It's also sluggish and terribly unresponsive. It needs to be made multithreaded.

They need to add the ability to control message-box buttons with the keyboard: I really wish being able to to "left-arrow, enter" to go from "OK" to "Cancel" on Windows. Forcing me to take my hands off the keyboard and fiddle with the trackpad is silly, IMHO.

And they need to recompile everything with IBM's XCC PowerPC-optimised compiler. Yeah I've said it before but nobody seems to listen. C'mon Steve, you reading this? ;)

And I do not expect pure 64-bit OSX to be imminent. 4 years minimum. They're still tottering from the OS9 to OSX switch, forcing another one would drive developers and consumers mad. OSX retains NeXTStep's ability to handle "fat binaries" compiled and optimised for multiple architectures, so I expect we'll be seeing Apple and software vendors taking advantage of that instead, at least in the short-to-middle-term.

[DrGruv1]

4- 2006 the fight between OS XI and M$ LongHorn
the 64bits OS against the compatibility



I would hope the 64bit os would be NOW, this summer, - really give people the incentive to upgrade the os to 64bit and their computers....

:rolleyes:

[adamfilip]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

well thats your fault.

Panther has been out for a while now

[niall2]

People here seem to worry about software costs. For personal users yes that is about it. However if you are trying to support schools or businesses where time is money, there is more overhead in upgrading. The 129 bucks is only a small part of the real cost, where you have to make sure all the software and drivers you use in all your machines works with the new version. This can be much more than the cost of upgrading the XServe or, as is in the case of most institutions, going around with a CD and upgrading everyones box.

That being said, I love the fact that some parts of OS X are really unbundled from the OS. Safari, ICal, ITunes. They can be released on different time scales. So really, with the kernel reaching stability along with the graphics engine, the only lag in software that this lowering of the frequency of upgrades will be in how long it takes to get a new Finder. And other than more ways to clutter my desktop, I find Finder does all I need it to because Apple took the time to get it right.

[FaasNat]

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.
I can see them making the newers iApps to work only on the newer OS versions. Something like how it was with iChat.

[sun-ice]

Why a new migration ?
G5 is G4 full compliant...
So, this is juste an optimisation of the OS to G5 and next...
all applications would be able to run under OS XI like under OS X...
but libs will be 64bits optimized... so this will be faster!!!

It could be juste 2 differents OS versions one for G4 / G5 and one rebuild espacialy for G5

When you change the version on your Kernel linux on a PC from 2.6.6-i386 to 2.6.6-i686-SSE2 you don't change all your applications... you juste use a faster kernel because he is made juste for U :D
Why coundn't we do the same with OS XI (or os 10.4 :D ) ?

[SWC]

OS X developers deserve a little break as said before they've worked their @$$ off for 3 or 4 years getting an OS released every year since its introduction, something Microsoft has failed to do.

Microsoft has never tried to release an upgrade every year. One thing that kind of irks me about mac people on this board (not necessarily you, just in general) is complaining that microsoft charges $200 hell even $300 for the pro version every 3 or 4 years because $200-$300 is wayyyyyyyy to much but when you add it up for the same time frame your paying $520 for OS X. I'm not a microsoft fanboy, I use both platforms and I prefer OS X over windows. Fact of the matter is windows is cheaper to own and costs less to upgrade. And sure no one forces you to buy OS X but no one forces you to upgrade your copy of windows either, so thats all relative.

[sweetaction]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

pay attention. been to the apple.com site even? they are already talking tiger there as well.

[kansast]

This makes sense.. I guess. Sure it was a brand new OS at one point.. and needed some quick updates.. new features etc.. but I agree with some here that have said.. all is good and well now.. my system is as stable as can be.. as far as the OS goes.. give me updates to iphoto, itunes, garageband and the like.. that would be fine with me.

[sinisterdesign]

when i was working at Apple a few years ago & they were just showcasing OSX, jobs likened operating systems to a house. OS9 was like an old house that had had a garage, a new patio, a couple stories and some other crap all tacked on over the years. he said the house had gotten tall, wobbly & unstable. it was time to raze the house & start from a new foundation. i thought that was an excellent analogy (especially for us visual types).

to take that analogy a step further...when they released OSX, it was a nice new foundation, but the interior of the house still needed LOTS of fixes and holes patched in the walls. 10.1 brought a lot of those and it became a USABLE operating system (10.0 was nothing more than eyecandy for me). that's when they brought in a lot of new furniture and really organized the rooms. 10.2 seemed to straighten things up & it was a lot quicker to move around the house. 10.3 reorganized the furniture, changed the locks on the doors and added some nice things to the walls.

my point is, we've GOT the foundation, the house has been straightened up and the leaky roof has been patched, there just isn't the NEED for large yearly updates now like there has been for the past couple years. migrating everyone over to an all new OS was a long painful process, but i think we're over the hump. my company is just NOW switching the Mac users over to OSX. (i got an invite for an "OSX overview & training session" for next week. i've been using this for 3 years people!!).

now let's sit back & enjoy this fabulous operating system and see what new stuff Apple breaks out w/ Tiger that we didn't even know we needed...

[Mord]

Microsoft has never tried to release an upgrade every year. One thing that kind of irks me about mac people on this board (not necessarily you, just in general) is complaining that microsoft charges $200 hell even $300 for the pro version every 3 or 4 years because $200-$300 is wayyyyyyyy to much but when you add it up for the same time frame your paying $520 for OS X. I'm not a microsoft fanboy, I use both platforms and I prefer OS X over windows. Fact of the matter is windows is cheaper to own and costs less to upgrade. And sure no one forces you to buy OS X but no one forces you to upgrade your copy of windows either, so thats all relative.

it's been 4 years since osx version 10.0.0 came out and there have been 2 upgrades that cost $ so make I it at $390

the thing is that the mac os comes with your mac at no extra cost and for self builders that $300 is a bit much.

[wrldwzrd89]

I would hope the 64bit os would be NOW, this summer, - really give people the incentive to upgrade the os to 64bit and their computers....

:rolleyes:
No way I'm going to buy a G5 just to run in 64-bits...I bought an iMac G4 in January 2004 (received it February 2004) and intend to keep it as my primary Mac until AT LEAST 2007. :o Oops - I just saw the rolleyes... Besides, Apple wouldn't do this to Mac users now - not until they have G5 or better processors in all products - including the iBook and eMac. Even then, they would have to allow some time for everyone to transition over to the new hardware; I'd expect this transition to be complete by 2010 (2007: the year that the Mac line goes completely G5; 2010: the year everyone who bought a Mac before 2007 would have upgraded).

[iris_failsafe]

The PowerPC architecture supports 32bit and 64bit native simultaneously. So an installation disc can contain both, if it detects a G3/G4 it will install the 32bit, if it is a G5 it will install the 64bit. One is just a compilation away

[wrldwzrd89]

The PowerPC architecture supports 32bit and 64bit native simultaneously. So an installation disc can contain both, if it detects a G3/G4 it will install the 32bit, if it is a G5 it will install the 64bit. One is just a compilation away
Would Apple be willing to compile, test, and maintain TWO "distributions" of Mac OS X plus a hardware detection script that determines which distribution to use? Apple will only do this if they think it would be worth the effort (both for them and their customers - the Mac users).

[johnnyjibbs]

it's been 4 years since osx version 10.0.0 came out and there have been 2 upgrades that cost $ so make I it at $390
.
OS X 10.0 came out in March 2001. That makes it a little over 3 years old.

[qubex]

Would Apple be willing to compile, test, and maintain TWO "distributions" of Mac OS X plus a hardware detection script that determines which distribution to use? Apple will only do this if they think it would be worth the effort (both for them and their customers - the Mac users).
OSX supports fat binaries, as did NeXTStep. This is a way of containing code compiled and optimised for different platforms within the same application container. This was originally intended to allow the same .app packages to run on both x86 and 680x0 hardware supported by NeXT, but the concept is equally valid for G4- and G5-optimised binaries and resources.

The functionality is already there. XCode can actually handle this automatically.

[wrldwzrd89]

OSX supports fat binaries, as did NeXTStep. This is a way of containing code compiled and optimised for different platforms within the same application container. This was originally intended to allow the same .app packages to run on both x86 and 680x0 hardware supported by NeXT, but the concept is equally valid for G4- and G5-optimised binaries and resources.

The functionality is already there. XCode can actually handle this automatically.
I don't think you understood me correctly. I was referring to the Mac OS X installer, not necessarily the applications (which may or may not be made into "fat" binaries). There would need to be two versions of the installer, but they can use common packages.

[jeffy.dee-lux]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

hey buddy, it could be a lot worse... i bought jaguar last year on october 2nd, i believe, panther was officially announced less than a week later, offering a free upgrade or something for anyone who bought jaguar on or after october 8th.
And so began my account at macrumours.

[broken_keyboard]

Frequent OS updates is one of the best things about being a Mac user. I hope they don't slow down too much - they will surely miss the annual payment from all the die-hard fans.

[rweaver]

<snip>
They need to add the ability to control message-box buttons with the keyboard: I really wish being able to to "left-arrow, enter" to go from "OK" to "Cancel" on Windows. Forcing me to take my hands off the keyboard and fiddle with the trackpad is silly, IMHO.
<snip>

I think what you're looking to do is part of Panther. In the Keyboard & Mouse Preferences, select the Keyboard Shortcuts section and select the "Turn on full keyboard access" option. This allows you to tab thru the various options in the message boxes. To select the current selected option, just hit your spacebar. Using Return will still select the default action no matter what button you've selected using tab.

[york2600]

Hopefully this means that some of the core frameworks and APIs in Mac OS X have been bedded down. While it is a common refrain that "Mac hardware remains useful longer" (regardless if that is actually true or not), it is not as true for Mac operating systems. If you want access to the latest software, you really need to be running Jaguar (OS X 10.2) or later. I do understand the reasons for this...OS X 10.0 and 10.1 were really about Apple actually getting OS X to a state where it was truly 'finished', which having something modern and updated to ship to customers and developers in the meantime. But adding new graphical and usability features from here on in to OS X hopefully doesn't have to mean that new applications won't run on older versions of OS X. For example, Internet Explorer 6 still runs on Windows 98...the latest versions of Safari require OS X 10.2 or better.

A little more core OS/API stability would be nice.

Unless MS changed something you can no longer download IE for Win 98. 98 has been end of lifed and support (including downloads) was ended. Also the installer downloaded a different version for Win 98. It wasn't that MS hadn't changed anything between 98 and XP, but instead that they backported IE. Windows Media Player is the same. There's the XP version and the 98/ME/2k version.

[Mord]

OS X 10.0 came out in March 2001. That makes it a little over 3 years old.

sorry i started with the developers beta

[JFreak]

Frequent OS updates is one of the best things about being a Mac user. I hope they don't slow down too much - they will surely miss the annual payment from all the die-hard fans.

yep. no need for yearly updates, but once in 18 months would be nice. think about changing a laptop every 18 months... mmm :) that would effectively cut price for the 129 dollars that the upgrade costs (because the upgrade would have been bought anyway and it would be included with a new hardware puchase).

[fabsgwu]

Slowing down the pace of upgrades may be code for developing the 64 bit OS; especially if Apple plans on maintaining 32 bit backwards compatibility, this will require more time in development for each iteration. Apple needs to have OS X at 64 bits soon to take advantage of the G5's true power.

Slowing the pace of releases in this time of heavy under-the-hood work is a good thing. Plus, Apple is still WAY ahead of Loghorn for what its worth. :)

[SiliconAddict]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

:rolleyes:
Fact 1: Panther hasn't even been out a year. Almost exactly 8 months to the day as of now.

Fact 2: WE DON'T EVEN KNOW A RELEASE DATE FOR TIGER! At minimum we are prob looking at end of year before a release of Tiger. My money is on Spring '05 but that's purely a guess.

[qubex]

I think what you're looking to do is part of Panther. In the Keyboard & Mouse Preferences, select the Keyboard Shortcuts section and select the "Turn on full keyboard access" option. This allows you to tab thru the various options in the message boxes. To select the current selected option, just hit your spacebar. Using Return will still select the default action no matter what button you've selected using tab.
Wow, you've singlehandedly revolutionised my computing experience!

[7on]

They need to add the ability to control message-box buttons with the keyboard: I really wish being able to to "left-arrow, enter" to go from "OK" to "Cancel" on Windows. Forcing me to take my hands off the keyboard and fiddle with the trackpad is silly, IMHO.


You can press tab and that highlights the other option, and then press space to select that option (prolly only if full keyboard use it turned on) and I've seen apps not support this, but I'd say like 80% or more apps out there support this.

Apple will not drop 32-bit code anytimesoon. Reason being you can optimize an OS for 64-bit and still have it run on 32-bit hardware through the use of alternate extension.

I did have a list of the stuff that needs to be fixed in panther, now let me find it...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=71644
scroll down

[SWC]

it's been 4 years since osx version 10.0.0 came out and there have been 2 upgrades that cost $ so make I it at $390

the thing is that the mac os comes with your mac at no extra cost and for self builders that $300 is a bit much.

Windows comes with store bought PC's at no extra cost. You can build a PC for much less than you can buy it in the store for. It's been cheaper to build a system over buying one for a long time. You can purchase a top end PC in the store for less than a top end mac. $300 is a bit much yeah im not saying I like the pricing my point was in the same timeframe that windows releases come out its more expensive to buy mac os if you get every version. Find me a place to buy components for a dual 2 gig G5 I can build myself for less than $2,700 and that point will be valid.

[~Shard~]

This is good news. Although I'm all for constant updates and improvements to the OS, it does get a bit much at times and I think it's asking a lot of the consumers out there to shell out $100+ every year for a new OS upgrade. I am curious to see what all Apple incorporates into Tiger though - it'll have to be very substantial for me to switch from Panther, and I don't see that happening...

[wrldwzrd89]

Windows comes with store bought PC's at no extra cost. You can build a PC for much less than you can buy it in the store for. It's been cheaper to build a system over buying one for a long time. You can purchase a top end PC in the store for less than a top end mac. $300 is a bit much yeah im not saying I like the pricing my point was in the same timeframe that windows releases come out its more expensive to buy mac os if you get every version. Find me a place to buy components for a dual 2 gig G5 I can build myself for less than $2,700 and that point will be valid.
I'm sorry, but you can't buy parts for a PowerMac G5 :( PowerMac G5 components simply aren't for sale new, and are exteremely hard to find used. There just isn't a way to build your own Mac easily - and that's the way Apple wants it to be.

[SiliconAddict]

Quite frankly I can understand why Apple has been on a breakneck pace for upgrading OS X. From every review I've read 10.0 sucked butt, 10.1 was somewhat improved, 10.2 was a godsend, and 10.3 is godlike. They have scrambled to get to the first peak of the mountain, Apple's setup base camp and they are now looking at climbing further taking their time on the way up to get it right, since Mac users now have a good solid reliable version of OS X. I think that is why they were on an insane release schedule: They risked loosing major traction against MS if they didn't get OS X to the point where Panther is now at.
IMHO this is a good development. I want apple to take their time and really blow our socks off. The major feature of Panther was Expose which while a very nice feature didn't blow the collective computing community's socks, shoes, and pants off. Am I the only one who wants a bonanza from Apple? A release that doesn't just add a few new cool features but changes how we interact with our computer? Love or hate MS they are trying a few new things in Longhorn in regards to 3D interfaces. Whether or not this is going to end up being tacky and craptastic is a debate for another thread but the point is they are trying to push the GUI. What changes has OS X's GUI had in the first 3 revisions? Isn't it time for some honest to god innovations in the department of thinking different?
This is why I'm hoping Apple isn't going to be releasing Tiger for at least another year. Its time to take off the gloves against MS. I want Microsoft to be embarrassed as hell when Longhorn comes out. I want Longhorn to be torn a new one by Tiger, Lion or whatever big cat is unleashed in 2006. http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/images/smiles/new_2gunsfiring_v1.gif

[JGowan]

Wow, you've singlehandedly revolutionised my computing experience!No,... I think it was Apple.

[Mord]

SWC

the pc venders pay microsoft for oem copys of windows and they put that cost on the customer was there anything incorrect in my post? no so what was with the angry tone

yes i am awear that most self builders pirate windows or have linux

[~Shard~]

:rolleyes:

Fact 2: WE DON'T EVEN KNOW A RELEASE DATE FOR TIGER! At minimum we are prob looking at end of year before a release of Tiger. My money is on Spring '05 but that's purely a guess.

Exactly - although Jobs may be showing us a sneak peak of Tiger at WWDC in a month, I don't see a release date for it anytime soon - Panther only started shipping, what, last November? To make Tiger significantly better and more functional than Panther (i.e. to make it worth upgrading to), there's going to have to be a lot of work done on it and a lot of new features added, which will all take time. I don't see Tiger being released until 2005 for sure.

[JGowan]

...From every review I've read 10.0 sucked butt, 10.1 was somewhat improved, 10.2 was a godsend, and 10.3 is godlike.Actually, 10.0 just plain sucked. The $29 BETA (yes, I bought it) was the butt-sucker. :eek:

[AndrewMT]

This is kind of off-topic, but will OSX ever have an automated program folder and add/remove control panel like windows? It's been about a year since I worked on a mac (waiting for PB G5), but I always had to create my own program shortcut folder in the dock and then manually create and drag aliases into it. Does everyone who wants this feature have to do this or am I missing something? Also, while it is easier to delete programs in OSX (sometimes a program is just one file), users shouldn't have to scour their hard drive to manually remove programs.

Now, I can pretty much show my grandma how to install a program (just click next next next) and uninstall it later (just go to add/remove cp) in windows. I do not think I could do the same for OSX.

Another update I would like to see added is additional themes (I want to see a darker, more professional theme similar to the look of Apple's pro application web sites - like motion's site). I would also like it if OSX had more cool animations and transparency effects similar to what longhorn is going to have. Added 3d functionality, similar to Sun's 3d desktop, would also be cool.

[iLilana]

can't figure out if its a good thing or not.

[wrldwzrd89]

This is kind of off-topic, but will OSX ever have an automated program folder and add/remove control panel like windows? It's been about a year since I worked on a mac (waiting for PB G5), but I always had to create my own program shortcut folder in the dock and then manually create and drag aliases into it. Does everyone who wants this feature have to do this or am I missing something? Also, while it is easier to delete programs in OSX (sometimes a program is just one file), users shouldn't have to scour their hard drive to manually remove programs.

Now, I can pretty much show my grandma how to install a program (just click next next next) and uninstall it later (just go to add/remove cp) in windows. I do not think I could do the same for OSX.

Another update I would like to see added is additional themes (I want to see a darker, more professional theme similar to the look of Apple's pro application web sites - like motion's site). I would also like it if OSX had more cool animations and transparency effects similar to what longhorn is going to have. Added 3d functionality, similar to Sun's 3d desktop, would also be cool.
An automated program folder is simply unnecessary with Apple's implementation of applications-as-packages and all apps in the Applications folder. Having uninstall support for programs installed using Apple's Installer would be nice (third-party installers must use the equivalent third-party uninstaller).

[itsa]

CNet reported (http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5215281.html) last week that Apple will be slowing the pace of Mac OS X releases in the future.

Apple has released 3 major updates to Mac OS X since it's initial release in 2001. A preview of the newest version (Tiger; Mac OS X 10.4) is due at the World Wide Developer's Conference in June of this year.

Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer Avie Tevanian is quoted as saying "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit...because that's not a sustainable rate." But does promise that "You'll still see us go really fast".


He did not say they would slow down working on the release. Just the "releases" would slow down.
That just means when they do "release" we get more OS for the same money!
That is a great trade off.

[JFreak]

will OSX ever have an automated program folder and add/remove control panel like windows? I always had to create my own program shortcut folder in the dock and then manually create and drag aliases into it. Does everyone who wants this feature have to do this or am I missing something? Also, while it is easier to delete programs in OSX (sometimes a program is just one file), users shouldn't have to scour their hard drive to manually remove programs.

no, there's no need to. it doesn't matter if the preference file is left behind, it is after all a tiny text file and affects no other software than the one using it. your grandma has to install and uninstall thousands of apps to get even a megabyte of wasted hard disk space because of the prefs, and if for some reason your grandma accidentally deletes some programs you can get her up and running with her own preferences by simply installing the apps again.

to state that users shouldn't have to access the hard drive, that's just wrong. user accesses the hard drive constantly by creating and deleting documents, and an application is nothing more than a file with a specific function. there's nothing wrong in user deleting an application. an app package is only a folder with files inside. it's simple enough to delete an app package that looks like a file. and it is as manual to drag the package to trash than to tell some other app to do the same thing. manual thing is that the user decides to delete the app, and how it's done is secondary.

your point regarding the dock, i don't quite understand. are you telling it's too much to drag the applications folder next to the trash? that way the dock behaves just as the start button in pre-xp windows. or are you complaining that you have to manually drag an alias from newly installed app to the dock? that's preferred behaviour, as the dock is a user object that has a set of aliases the user has wanted to create. not all apps need to be in the dock, you know. i myself just hate it if some app installer decides that the app is so important it deserves to be aliased into the dock. that's just bad behaviour.

[wdlove]

I don't think you understood me correctly. I was referring to the Mac OS X installer, not necessarily the applications (which may or may not be made into "fat" binaries). There would need to be two versions of the installer, but they can use common packages.

I think that as has been mentioned before, couldn't there be a DVD version for the G5 and the CD for all other Mac's. We are just along for the ride in all the decisions!

[~Shard~]

Frequent OS updates is one of the best things about being a Mac user. I hope they don't slow down too much - they will surely miss the annual payment from all the die-hard fans.

Yah, but those die-hard fans have their limits as well. I was lucky enough to buy my new Mac when Panther was released, so I haven't had to worry, but I can imagine that there are many Mac users, even the "die-hards" that would start becoming less understanding with yearly OS upgrades costing $100+ - even they have their limits! If Apple can keep introducing revolutionary new features each go-around, that's great, and I'm all for it, but I think there needs to be a better balance, and it sounds as though this news about less frequent updates might do the trick.

[Quarkie]

He did not say they would slow down working on the release. Just the "releases" would slow down.

Yes! Now they can actually test them! What a shocker.

"Tastes safe. Less frequent!" :D That's a little better than, but analogous to, "Tastes Safe. More features!"

Or, even better, in a Rocky and Bullwinkle-esque sequel moment...

"Will Tiger Earn Its Stripes...or will we all get 'Royed'?"

[mdesbiens]

Did no one else read this story everywhere else last week? What's going on here? One old story a day on the main page, one a week on Page 2. That lame transparency poll has been there for almost a week.
Just a little constructive criticism, I love this site.

Anyway, it seems that Apple is giving us Tiger as a "here, take that and shut up. Leave us alone for a few years." It will probably have every feature everyone ever thought OS X would have. Both Tiger's preview announcement and this story appeared in the same week.... on the rest of the internet, anyway.
Meanwhile, mad scientists at Apple have their 'people want this' and 'Steve wants that' plates empty, and are now free to implement some insane features that you wouldn't know that you needed until you had them. Yeah, more stuff like expose... like, even, OS X itself.
Yeah, they are going to try to kill Longhorn's press release. They are going to crash MS's little party.
Maybe it'll be XI, or 11, or maybe X 2.0. Maybe even 10.6 (just 'cause 7.6 and 8.6 were so cool). I'll be in line to buy it that day, whatever they call it. Because MS has already drawn Longhorn. They know everything about it except for what they can't feasibly do. It is based on predictions, and features will continue to drop as time goes by. Suppose computers really don't have terabyte hard drives in two years. Hell, how long have 250GB drives hung around for now?
But those mad scientists at Apple... they'll be throwing in a few things that weren't possible until the day before, that they just thought of that day, into a release that's coming out the next week.

[BWhaler]

I like this web site a lot, but there has been a dirth of rumors this year, and today's headline is kinda sad.

This is old, old news. Even CNET picked this story up last week.

Are we watching the slow end to MacRumors?

[wordmunger]

I like this web site a lot, but there has been a dirth of rumors this year, and today's headline is kinda sad.

This is old, old news. Even CNET picked this story up last week.

Are we watching the slow end to MacRumors?
MacBytes had it on May 18. I think Arn was just trying to keep up discussion up on the main page during an incredibly slow news period. No, MR is not slipping, the rumors are drying up. Expect things to heat up as WWDC approaches.

[AmigoMac]

Expect things to heat up as Longhorn release approaches. :rolleyes: :cool: :) :D


:o I like rumors...

[wrldwzrd89]

I think that as has been mentioned before, couldn't there be a DVD version for the G5 and the CD for all other Mac's. We are just along for the ride in all the decisions!
Again, I must stress - is Apple willing to do this? If they aren't (which I suspect is the case), we won't see a pure 64-bit Mac OS until all current Macs are G5 or better at the earliest (more likely all G6 or better).

[JFreak]

or maybe X 2.0

that was the jaguar. osx 2.0 i mean, and panther is osx 3.0 if you follow ;)

[~Shard~]

Expect things to heat up as Longhorn release approaches. :rolleyes: :cool: :) :D


:o I like rumors...

Wow - you're emoticon-to-word ratio is quite scary... I think you missed a few, better try harder next time...

[oingoboingo]

Unless MS changed something you can no longer download IE for Win 98. 98 has been end of lifed and support (including downloads) was ended. Also the installer downloaded a different version for Win 98. It wasn't that MS hadn't changed anything between 98 and XP, but instead that they backported IE. Windows Media Player is the same. There's the XP version and the 98/ME/2k version.

I checked the link before I posted my comment. There seems to be a link at Microsoft's IE site to download IE 6 for Win98, and it is in the list of supported operating systems for IE 6.

I do realise that Win98 has been EOL'ed, but that has only been recently (this year I think?). Try getting support or patches for OS X 10.0 or 10.1, which are much more recent than Win98. Hopefully the extra maturity of OS X post Jaguar, and the slower OS X release cycle will mean that each version of OS X will remain supported and able to run recent software for much longer.

[Trowaman]

okay, my thoughts:

Tiger this June
Lion (10.5) in . . . some time later. I expect this will be the last version of 10.
After Lion, OS 11: 64 bits of fun.

I figure the Lion will be made to work as a transitioning OS to the 64 bit fun, but hey, this is just me and my thoughts, feel free to point out all my flaws.

[Low]

i guess they are losing their creativity..would be awesome if they could keep updating and retain the currently yearly releases..always thought that was cool, but i guess not....looking forward to longhorn.

[rotorblade]

Find me a place to buy components for a dual 2 gig G5 I can build myself for less than $2,700 and that point will be valid.

[JOD8FY]

I don't see this slow in releases as a bad thing. Just think: instead of just a few really cool updates and some tweaks here and there every year, maybe we'll see something really major every 18 months or so. Like some other people have mentioned, I hope that with the iPod in it's own division and the operating system updates slowing down, Apple we'll be able to focus a lot more on hardware updates. Instead of about 3 updates per line per year, maybe now we'll see five...

JOD8FY

[Spazmodius]

I'm really quite happy with Panther, and I doubt I would upgrade to Tiger, given my current hardware.

I'd be pleased as punch if Apple simply kept up a steady stream of bug-fixes and speed enhancements, with a major OS revision once every two years. Wanna make me happy, Apple? Make Panther as fast as you possibly can; optimize the hell out of the code so that this is the least-bloated, most efficient, most elegant, most usable OS we can possibly imagine. Make what you've already got positively scream on the current hardware. THAT would be insanely great.

[itsa]

Wanna make me happy, Apple? Make Panther as fast as you possibly can; optimize the hell out of the code so that this is the least-bloated, most efficient, most elegant, most usable OS we can possibly imagine. Make what you've already got positively scream on the current hardware. THAT would be insanely great.

Compared to every other OS, that's where Apple is at now. The only reason Mac users put up with apple NOT keeping up with the rest of the world in hardware is because, you can not run their KICK BUTT OS on anything else.

If we still had to use OS9, I could see this "slow down" as a problem, but we are running in the Land of X!... and there is none better.

[CTerry]

There appears to be a major misinterpretation here. People seem to be assuming that Apple is slowing down production. That isnt what this article says. Just updates will be less frequent. Logically this means that if you get one years worth of features with every update, and they slow down to every 2 years wouldnt you get 2 years worth of updates in one package? More bang for your buck in other words. I think we can all agree that would be a good thing in its way. The fact is the money Apple are charging once a year is way too much for the average joe. Its not a necessary update, but it is keeping current and some programs demand 10.3 APIs. Some Adium features for instance run only on 10.3. Now if you're running 10.2, which you will be if you've got a year old Mac and decided against upgrading, you cant use those features. Thats a tad bit unfair isnt it? Not all of us are wallowing in money, despite the constant myth from Windows Advocates that we must be in order to afford Macs.

Frankly to me this seems like an excellent idea, kudos to Apple.

[AidenShaw]

and for self builders that $300 [for XP] is a bit much.

But PC self-builders know that buying a hardware component such as a disk or motherboard qualifies them to buy the OEM version of WinXP!

Full XP Home OEM = $95
Full XP Pro OEM = $145

http://www.centralcomputer.com/emerchant/products.asp?pline=SOPEM

Changes the argument a bit, eh?

[sethypoo]

I just got 10.3 a few weeks ago, now I find out that in a few weeks time they're releasing a new version. That kinda sucks!

Someone's probably already pointed this out, but there is no "new version" coming out in a few weeks. They will be previewing OS 10.4 at the WWDC.

[mdriftmeyer]

Avie also stated a much greater push into the Enterprise space.

Having time to slow down in the Consumer space will allow Engineering to gear up for an Enterprise push and make Apple a serious force in Corporate America, as well as within the Federal Dollars.

Currently, Apple isn't even in the Top 100 on the Federal List. That will change and expect them to push hard this Fall.

[titaniumducky]

okay, my thoughts:

Tiger this June
Lion (10.5) in . . . some time later. I expect this will be the last version of 10.
After Lion, OS 11: 64 bits of fun.

I figure the Lion will be made to work as a transitioning OS to the 64 bit fun, but hey, this is just me and my thoughts, feel free to point out all my flaws.

G4s are selling right now. G3s still work on Panther.

Do you really think Apple will completely outdate all G4s in 2-4 years?

[mdriftmeyer]

Tiger previewed late June, released in late September to mid October.

Lion I expect will be OS XI and released January 2006.

okay, my thoughts:

Tiger this June
Lion (10.5) in . . . some time later. I expect this will be the last version of 10.
After Lion, OS 11: 64 bits of fun.

I figure the Lion will be made to work as a transitioning OS to the 64 bit fun, but hey, this is just me and my thoughts, feel free to point out all my flaws.

[~Shard~]

Tiger previewed late June, released in late September to mid October.

I don't see Tiger being released before 2005 myself - I think this fall is pushing it....

[edenwaith]

When Netscape updated their browser from 4 to 6, I was horrified to see how much Netscape 6 seemed to have gone down hill. I even asked a Netscape representative why N6 sucked so much. His explanation was that since Netscape 6 was essentially a 1.0 product, they were still trying to get everything added and get the kinks worked out.

This is probably similar to Mac OS X. It had been explained to me that 10.0 and 10.1 were just trying to get Mac OS X out and running. With later and future versions, they are trying to add more to the OS. Not really so much as bug fixes, but additions.

However, for software developers, with a new version of the OS coming out close to every year can become frustrating after awhile. It takes more time and effort to have to test for each of the levels, and yet even MORE time if someone is still supporting Mac OS 8.6-9.2. So, for myself, I wouldn't mind if the OS updates slowed down somewhat, but just don't stagnate to the level of OS 7 which was around for what....7 years or so?

[SiliconAddict]

Tiger previewed late June, released in late September to mid October.

Lion I expect will be OS XI and released January 2006.


As has been stated before Jobs himself has stated that OS X has legs and that it won't be replaced for what? I thought it was in double digit figures. Which makes absolute sense since the core of OS X is robust enough to last Apple at least that long if not longer. However what goes on top of that core, a.k.a. Darwin, is another matter altogether. Apple in the not to distant future will obviously optimize OS X for both the G5 and 64-bitness, but only after it starts selling G5 based systems across the board and has a majority of the system on the market based off the G5 and that isn't going to happen for a while. Right now we have one single product line based on a G5. By Fall of 2005 they most likely will have their Pro line across the board based on the G5 and possibly the iMac line. Im' doubting that that eMacs and ibooks will be going G5 ANYTIME soon.

My guess, Note the word: guess, they may shoot for a 2006-2007 timeframe for IBM\64-bitness optimizations but most likely no sooner. Its possible they may try and steal some of MS's thunder by claiming we were the first company to released the first 64-bit home computer (yes folks I now the debate over that.) and now introducing the next generation of personal computing OS. OS X: Lion - 64Bit edition. If anything would be a killbuzz for Longhorn it would be that. But again *shrugs* Wild guess. Probably wrong. Who knows.

Beyond that I don't see Apple releasing another OS X this year. I really don't. They have some serious work to do against Longhorn and frankly releasing minor updates each year costs time and money on their part. What? Do you think picking up after a release of an OS is easy? How many patches has Apple put out since Panther. Lets see 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, working on 3.4 along with a smattering of security patches. Along with serious fixes after Panther was released. (Or was that 3.1? I forget.) This once per year thing has to stop. Then need to sit down this summer if they haven't already, take a look at what MS is doing, see how and where they can do it better, select the features they are going to enhance and add, and move like they have a purpose.

Longhorn could be either a colossal blunder**** or a major hit. It's WAY too soon to tell but I'm getting the vibe that it's going to be the latter. (And so help me god I'm going to go off if someone pulls out the floating, as in toilet, specs for longhorn as a rebuttal.)
Apple needs to beat MS to the punch and yearly releases won't allow that. Again I hold fast to the notion of Winter\Spring 2005 for Tiger anything sooner, IMHO, says they haven't taken the time or effort to put anything substantial into the OS and is only looking for a cash cow to make some bank at which point I hope most Mac users flip Apple the bird. But I'm playing devils advocate here. Of course Apple is going to give us something major. ;) :cool:

[edenwaith]

Yah, but those die-hard fans have their limits as well. I was lucky enough to buy my new Mac when Panther was released, so I haven't had to worry, but I can imagine that there are many Mac users, even the "die-hards" that would start becoming less understanding with yearly OS upgrades costing $100+ - even they have their limits!

I would be one of those type of people. I would love to have Panther, but I do not have the extra systems or money to afford it at this time. By the time I hope to have a new machine with Panther, Tiger may come out not too long after.

[MikeTheC]

I think what you're looking to do is part of Panther. In the Keyboard & Mouse Preferences, select the Keyboard Shortcuts section and select the "Turn on full keyboard access" option. This allows you to tab thru the various options in the message boxes. To select the current selected option, just hit your spacebar. Using Return will still select the default action no matter what button you've selected using tab.

You're too cool, dude. I just did this. Wow!!! Always glad to learn a new trick!

[MikeTheC]

This is kind of off-topic, but will OSX ever have an automated program folder and add/remove control panel like windows?

All that the Add/Remove Programs Control Panel does is launch InstallShield, which is what largely the Setup app on install discs does. What you primarilly need Add/Remove for is to undo the registry entries made when the app was installed. Of course, for the dull, uneducated and unsavvy masses who use Windows who after years of computer use still don't know how to drag a file from their HD to a CD or floppy, it also handles deleting the files and folders associated with the app.

It should be noted that this is not an entirely "clean" process, BTW.

In any event, Mac OS does not have a registry, and I would hope most Mac users are savvy enough to know how to drag icons around, etc., so the functionality would be superfluous for most Mac users.

I will, however, go along with your notion of having a program launch menu and a means of auto-updating it. However, if Apple or anyone else were to do this, I would emplore them not to use the same strategy that Microsoft uses, as the Start Menu -> All Programs listing gets needlessly long, does not even auto-alphabetize, and even when it is sorted manually, the sorting is still in eccentric sequence as some listings are for the app and others are for the author of the app. This is a helluva kludge.

[~Shard~]

I would be one of those type of people. I would love to have Panther, but I do not have the extra systems or money to afford it at this time. By the time I hope to have a new machine with Panther, Tiger may come out not too long after.

Yah, it can definitely be frustrating. Not only are some people waiting for new updates to come out before they buy a new system (i.e. waiting for PowerMac revisions, waiting for G5 iMacs, etc. before they buy), but now another variable to add into the waiting equation seems to be OS - some people would be hesitant to buy a new system if they knew a new OS was around the corner. Wait a couple months, get it pre-installed for free - buy now, be prepared to shell out another $150 or whatever in 2 months. And this is assuming you want the new OS, but whether you do or don't, the principle is that if you're buying a brand new system (in this example at least) you would ideally like to get everything new, up-to-date and top of the line, so to speak, which includes the latest and greatest OS. I know it was a conscious decision on my part when I bought my system last December. I was essentially ready to buy in October, but knew Panther was coming, so I waited a couple more months to ensure it was out and shipping with new systems. If OS updates were less frequent, this would definitely alleviate this issue.

[~Shard~]

As an addition to my above post, for the record, I'm all for continuing OS updates but let's spread them out a little more and make them truly worth shelling out the cash for. I'm sure there are many advancements Apple can make as constant improvements in the form of version upgrades (a la 10.3.1, 10.3.2, etc.) without having to "overhaul" and release a completely new OS to take advantage of certain features, functionality and abilities.

So bring on Tiger, Lion, Puma, Ocelot, Cheetah and Norwegian Forest Cat, but perhaps not at quite the pace we've seen this past little while with 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 :cool:

[Highland]

AFAIK it's Apple policy to provide free OS updates to all machines purchased after a new OS is announced.

[MikeTheC]

It's hard to gauge the movement toward 64 bit computing in the PC world. If past trends are to be used as a model for the future, it will probably be years after Longhorn that any significant number of PC users will have it. It took forever for DOS users to switch to ANY version of Windows, and years (though not quite as many, perhaps) for Windows 3.1 users to switch to Windows 95, et al.

Given that most people buy brand name computers and none of them are selling consumer 64 bit systems, it is going to take a helluva lot of catch-up in the PC world to get where Apple will be with the next generation Mac OS (making the assumption that it is intrinsically 64 bit). This is NOT a call for Apple to sit on it's laurels, and I think it foolish to assume anyone at Apple would do that this day and age.

At the computer call center for which I work supporting users who foolishly use that "other OS", I can say with a high degree of confidence that most people, especially in the PC world, are too ignorant to do anything to take advantage of 64 bit technology until Microsoft puts a gun to their head over it. Given that we and everyone else have no reason to sell 64 bit systems until there is a version of Windows and apps, et al, to support them, it is also hard to say the blame lies at the feet of consumers exclusively. But, like many things, the real truth remains a mystery.

I have advocated on other forums on MacRumors and elsewhere and in person to people and to Apple employees that Apple is in a perfect position to benefit from 64 bit computing and all the accolades that go with it, and needs to make sure, like many of you have said, that they desperately need to BOTH beat Microsoft to the punch AND put out a product which shines in it's own light. One or the other but not both is just not an option.

Mike

[virividox]

i say they can ease up a little bit on the os since its running great
maybe a few tweaks here and there

but someone get on the horn to update the hard ware!!!

[Palador]

And again Apple User dont look on the side of windows ?!

What does a Windows XP cost ?
more than 300 $ !

So 129 $ are more than fair !

But I am also would like to see updates every 1 1/2 year or at latest 2 years cycle.

Newegg.com Windows XP Home $87 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=37-102-141&depa=0)

Newegg.com Windows XP Pro $138 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=37-102-143&depa=0)

Granted you have to purchase these with hardware, so tack on a $5 mouse, modem, keyboard, etc. and you're good to go. I'd rather spend ~$145 for Microsoft's pro level operating system ever few years than ~$100 every year from Apple.... that's why I buy a new Mac and sell my old one every 2 releases! I dont pay for software.

[JFreak]

I dont pay for software.

you have a bad attitude :D

[areyouwishing]

They really should have an upgrade pricing structure, this $130 for 130 features is stupid. I think they would end up securing more money in the long haul, because people wouldn't hold off a release to update.

I feel bad for the people that don't have Panther because of updates like the newer version of Safari that can't be run on Jag, etc. Its going to increasingly become more and more like this where you need the latest OS to run the newest programs.... which is understandable to an extent... but not for basic browser and iLife type stuff.

[SLAPSHOTW]

Anyone else think it would be a good idea to rename 10.4 to Thundercat?

Come on-- OS 10.4:THUNDERCAT!!!!!

I shiver thinking about it.

-Matt

[rinseout]

If the pace is slowing down after the 10.4 release, I hope like heck that Tiger has meta-data support built into the fs. I'm dying for that.

[nmk]

I just hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for the Mac. Apple annoncing this in the same week as the new iPod devision makes me a little uneasy. Assigning your top hardware guy to the iPod shows where the emphasis on hardware design is. This could be the first step in reducing investment on the Mac. I guess the next year will show what direction Apple is headed in.

[wordmunger]

They really should have an upgrade pricing structure, this $130 for 130 features is stupid. I think they would end up securing more money in the long haul, because people wouldn't hold off a release to update.

I feel bad for the people that don't have Panther because of updates like the newer version of Safari that can't be run on Jag, etc. Its going to increasingly become more and more like this where you need the latest OS to run the newest programs.... which is understandable to an extent... but not for basic browser and iLife type stuff.

Well, Microsoft charges more for "upgrades" than they do for "new" software. Is this the sort of "upgrade" pricing you're interested in?

[AidenShaw]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/images/hro_64bit.jpg

It's hard to gauge the movement toward 64 bit computing in the PC world. If past trends are to be used as a model for the future, it will probably be years after Longhorn that any significant number of PC users will have it.

Windows XP 64-bit Edition for Itanium desktops has been selling for over a year (as well as Windows 64-bit server editions).

The 64-bit edition for AMD 64-bit chips (and the soon to arrive Xeon 64-bit systems) is available for free trial download from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/downloads/upgrade.asp .


Given that most people buy brand name computers and none of them are selling consumer 64 bit systems

Compaq Presario 8000Z Athlon 64 desktop(http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)

HP Pavilion a550e Athlon 64 desktop ($634.99) (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto/computer_customize_start.do)

HP ZX series Itanium workstations (http://www.hp.com/workstations/itanium/index.html)

HP DL145 (1U dual) and DL585 (4U quad) Opteron servers (http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/servers/platforms/index-dl.html)

IBM IntelliStation A Pro workstation - Operton, 16 GiB RAM ( http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/IntelliStation_workstations.html )

IBM eServer 325 Opteron 1U dual (http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/eserver/opteron/325/index.html)

Don't say none, there are name brand consumer desktops and entry servers with x86-64 systems.


Given that we and everyone else have no reason to sell 64 bit systems until there is a version of Windows and apps, et al, to support them...

Well, the version of Windows is already here - but the 64-bit desktop apps aren't available for either platform.

Obviously not for the Mac, since OSX doesn't support 64-bit memory.

Even though Windows supports 64-bit memory, and lets individual programs use more than 4 GiB - there is little demand for that capability from desktop apps. There are many 64-bit server apps, for example, but the strongest reason to get a 64-bit desktop today is for software development of 64-bit server apps - not for running 64-bit desktop apps.


...that they [Apple] desperately need to BOTH beat Microsoft to the punch AND put out a product which shines in it's own light.

Too late for the first one.

[AidenShaw]

Well, Microsoft charges more for "upgrades" than they do for "new" software.

I assume that you are referring to the situation where list price for the software to upgrade an existing system is more than the discount price for the OEM version of the software for a new system.


And how does this differ from Apple? What's the price for OSX for a new Mac? Is it less or more than $129 needed to upgrade an existing Mac?

[JFreak]

And how does this differ from Apple? What's the price for OSX for a new Mac? Is it less or more than $129 needed to upgrade an existing Mac?

it's a buyer's decision, really. if one values a powerbook as much as any dell laptop, then that buyer would be paying a thousand dollar for the operating system, thus not buying one - and if one values a powerbook as much as top-of-the-line ibm laptop, then that buyer would be getting the operating system for free.

i tend to think that osx is a free gift for someone who buys apple hardware. i don't mind paying for the upgrade, which i haven't ever done by the way. i have os9 license that i had as a gift with a G3 imac purchase, a jaguar license that i had with a tibook purchase, and a panther license that i had with an albook purchase. i might have to pay for the tiger, though; maybe a family license to put it into all of the three ;)

[AidenShaw]

it's a buyer's decision, really.

No argument - I was commenting on the other poster's attempt to compare upgrade vs. new prices for Microsoft.

That implied that Apple is better than MS as far as upgrade vs. new - when in fact we have no idea what Apple "charges" for a new OSX license. It could be $5, it could be $500, it could be 5% of the cost of the computer, it could even be free.

As far as the "family pack" goes, that's a great idea - something that Microsoft should offer as well....

[SiliconAddict]

Well, the version of Windows is already here - but the 64-bit desktop apps aren't available for either platform.

Obviously not for the Mac, since OSX doesn't support 64-bit memory.

Even though Windows supports 64-bit memory, and lets individual programs use more than 4 GiB - there is little demand for that capability from desktop apps. There are many 64-bit server apps, for example, but the strongest reason to get a 64-bit desktop today is for software development of 64-bit server apps - not for running 64-bit desktop apps.

Too late for the first one.

yah and like Apple came out with the first 64-bit CPU. NOT. They skirted the issue by proclaiming its the first 64-bit home computer. :rolleyes: Which for all intents and purposes IS true. 64-bit OS's have been around well before Windows decided to dip their toe in the pool.

As for 64-bit Windows, which I was well aware of since we have a test platform here in my office with it installed, first off its not widespread. Secondly they are currently giving the OS away for free. Want to guess why? Third from what I understand you need 64bit drivers across the board. Every component needs to have 64-bit drivers from your DVD drive to your soundcard to your video card to your USB controller. This makes existing hardware hard as hell to run WinXP 64. Last any app that is run on this can't really benefit from it.
Apple, however, is in the position of being ready with all their iApps, Final Cut Pro/Express (Which is already somewhat tweaked for the G5) and all the other various apps they have ready to go out of the box when they go 64-bit. Its a potentially major advantage over MS since they also, for the most part, have a closed architecture. A Mac, again for the most part, is a Mac is a Mac is a Mac.

PS- Longhorn is NOT going to be 64-bit. There are rumors that there is parellel development but supposedly they are looking at going 64-bit post Longhorn. Possibly in the 2007-2008 timeframe with a Longhorn Second Edition or whatever they will call it.

[mcdawson]

CNet reported (http://news.com.com/2100-1045_3-5215281.html) last week that Apple will be slowing the pace of Mac OS X releases in the future.

Apple's Chief Software Technology Officer Avie Tevanian is quoted as saying "We're slowing that (pace) down a little bit...because that's not a sustainable rate." But does promise that "You'll still see us go really fast".
Slowing down the rate probably allows them to add/improve the core (low level) features. Currently, the pace probably hasn't allowed for any big changes--there just hasn't been enough development time. The OS needs to be "working" in time to seed developers (maybe highly buggy, but still basicly working). The OS teams probably haven't had a breather to take a step back and just think/design--because the next release is so soon. They've been able to incorporate new technologies and make improvements on speed, but now's probably a good time for design work to improve pieces that effect the whole system (kernal, file systems, etc). Those kinds of changes take time to design AND "shake out"--time usually not available with a 1 year development cycle. You can make modest changes, but nothing large. Something like 64 bit computuing could take a while to do right--probably along the lines of it being on a per-app basis (allowing 64 and 32 bit apps running side-by-side).

[wdlove]

Yah, it can definitely be frustrating. Not only are some people waiting for new updates to come out before they buy a new system (i.e. waiting for PowerMac revisions, waiting for G5 iMacs, etc. before they buy), but now another variable to add into the waiting equation seems to be OS - some people would be hesitant to buy a new system if they knew a new OS was around the corner. Wait a couple months, get it pre-installed for free - buy now, be prepared to shell out another $150 or whatever in 2 months. And this is assuming you want the new OS, but whether you do or don't, the principle is that if you're buying a brand new system (in this example at least) you would ideally like to get everything new, up-to-date and top of the line, so to speak, which includes the latest and greatest OS. I know it was a conscious decision on my part when I bought my system last December. I was essentially ready to buy in October, but knew Panther was coming, so I waited a couple more months to ensure it was out and shipping with new systems. If OS updates were less frequent, this would definitely alleviate this issue.

This won't be too much of an issue for me. When "Tiger" is sold, will need to purchase the family pack. Will need it for my wife's PowerBook and a backup iBook. I would like to get my G5 with "Tiger" already installed, but not a must because of the "Apple Pro Card."

[AidenShaw]

Apple, however, is in the position of being ready with all their iApps, Final Cut Pro/Express (Which is already somewhat tweaked for the G5) and all the other various apps they have ready to go out of the box when they go 64-bit.

Completely ludicrous.

Those are all 32-bit apps - they run in 32-bit mode on 32-bit OSX today, and they'll run in 32-bit mode on 64-bit OSX unless they're re-written to use 64-bit addressing.

Those "G5 tweaks" are performance-oriented - the compiler generates code that runs faster on the G5. It does not generate code that uses 64-bit memory addressing.

Apple will be in the same state as Windows XP 64-Bit Extended - you'll be able to run 32-bit apps at full speed on your 64-bit system. You won't get true 64-bit (that is, the ability for a single process to use more than 2 or 4 GiB of RAM) until the application is re-written to use 64-bit memory pointers.

As far as Longhorn goes, you're wrong.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;829967

Unless stated otherwise, all information included here applies to Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn," Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn" for Itanium-based systems, and Microsoft Windows Code-Named "Longhorn" for 64-bit extended systems.

Longhorn is a single codebase that's compiled for 3 target systems - x86 32-bit, x86 64-bit, and IA64.

[Rower_CPU]

AS-

I think what SiliconAddict is saying is that Apple will most likely have their 32-bit apps rewritten for 64-bit when they release 64-bit OS X - it's a logical expectation. That's what "ready to go" means.

[mklos]

I just hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for the Mac. Apple annoncing this in the same week as the new iPod devision makes me a little uneasy. Assigning your top hardware guy to the iPod shows where the emphasis on hardware design is. This could be the first step in reducing investment on the Mac. I guess the next year will show what direction Apple is headed in.

I seriously don't think this is the end of Apple Computers. After all they have spent over $1 Billion on the beta version of Mac OS X and they have spent hundreds of millions to further develop OS X to what it is today. Also, they are spends hundreds of millions of dollars for Apple Retail Stores around the world. I don't think Apple is building retail stores for the iPod! The end of Apple as a company will be the day they stop selling computers. Even though they sell more iPods than computers, they still made about 75% of their profit off computer sales. Apple cannot survive off the iPod, or anything of its other hardware/software things besides it computers.

Keep in mind that they did this a few years ago when they shifted their main software personel to a seperate Applications team and because of that we've seen some awesome OS X apps come out. Keynote, iLife '04, FCE, Motion, etc. are all examples of cool new apps that havce come out of this split.

I think this is great for Apple. It splits specific things into specific groups so that team can focus on one specific thing. Putting John Rubenstein in charge of the iPod operations could of been a bad move, but I'm sure his replacement is fully qualified and if he isn't then I'd like to think that Steve Jobs will take care of that.

Apple is running strong, has 4.5 Billion in cash, and is STILL consistantly making a profit. They aren't going away for quite sometime unless they screw up big time like Gateway did.

[Sped]

For that to happen they need everything to move to G5 first :p :D

That's my point. Slow the OS cycle down so the hardware has time to go all 64 bit thus allowing the OS to go strictly 64 bit. This instead of several dual 32/64 bit OS releases. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that it is difficult or at least storage intensive to develop/deploy a dual 32/64 bit OS.

[SiliconAddict]

AS-

I think what SiliconAddict is saying is that Apple will most likely have their 32-bit apps rewritten for 64-bit when they release 64-bit OS X - it's a logical expectation. That's what "ready to go" means.

Exactly. Apple is in the fortuitous position of readying everything for one massive launch. I'm well aware that the primary selling point of a 64-bit system is RAM. But in the case of the G5 simply compiling for the G5 has shown a dramatic increase in performance. (Sorry can't remember the exact numbers.) This is what most people should be interested in not the 64-bitness.

Beyond that I stand WAY corrected. I've read previews. Read Paul T's site and in every case there has been ZERO mention of a 64-bit version of longhorn. Which I consider odd. Why isn't this fact being marketed?

[SiliconAddict]

That's my point. Slow the OS cycle down so the hardware has time to go all 64 bit thus allowing the OS to go strictly 64 bit. This instead of several dual 32/64 bit OS releases. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that it is difficult or at least storage intensive to develop/deploy a dual 32/64 bit OS.

Keep in mind that even when they do move to a 64-bit \ G5 version of the OS they many very well have a 32-bit \ G4-G3 version being released as well. There are a lot of people out there still running G3's and god know how many on G4's. They aren't going to go out and buy a new system simply because Apple says do it.
I'm guessing they are going to have a migration period where Apple offers both 32 and 64 bit versions of the OS but its not going to be forever. Maybe....what? 2-3 revisions? :confused:

[AidenShaw]

Exactly.

Ok, then your statement was fine except for saying that Apple "will have" it ready out-of-the-box. I read your wording to say that the current boxes are 64-bit capable.

On the other hand, the majority of applications have no need for more than 4 GiB of RAM. It would be a waste of effort to port those to 64-bit if they'll run full speed in 32-bit mode.


Beyond that I stand WAY corrected. I've read previews. Read Paul T's site and in every case there has been ZERO mention of a 64-bit version of longhorn. Which I consider odd. Why isn't this fact being marketed?

Maybe it hasn't been mentioned because it's so obvious.

Microsoft is making 3 versions of XP (and Server) from the same codebase today. (32-bit x86, 64-bit x86e, and 64-bit IA64)

It would be safe to assume that they'll do the same with the next version of the OS, especially since 64-bit will be more likely to cross over into the mainstream during the lifetime of Longhorn.

(By "mainstream" I mean that a desktop system with more than 4 GiB of RAM will be fairly common, and that at least a few important desktop apps will be needing that much RAM for a single instance of the application.)

[iPC]

i can't really even think of much reasons to upgrade from panther.. this system fits all my needs and more. so i could pretty much say they've made it. now, if i get a major upgrade every 2 years or so i'll be glad.
That is easy... SPEED. More gains can be had in software than in a 200MHz speed bump for a processor.

That, coupled with the shift to 64-bit architecture in the next few years.

[SWC]

SWC

the pc venders pay microsoft for oem copys of windows and they put that cost on the customer was there anything incorrect in my post? no so what was with the angry tone

yes i am awear that most self builders pirate windows or have linux


I don't mean to have an angry tone, but my point was that you say windows costs so much for self builders, when you dont even have that option with apple your stuck paying their inflated prices (which I do and enjoy their products) But you cant really say that building your own pc and paying retail for the OS is a negative for the PC world when on this side of the fence you don't have the option.

Someone mentioned too that they see no mention of a 64 bit OS from microsoft, they currently have xp 64 bit in beta testing right now and should be released by the end of the year and I am aure longhorn will follow with a 64 bit release as well but just isnt being touted much right now as even XP is still in beta for the 64 bit version much like im sure apple has the 64 bit version of OS X in works but isn't mentioning much right now.

[AidenShaw]

...as even XP is still in beta for the 64 bit version.

Windows XP 64-bit was released in March 2003 - over a year ago. It is a shipping product.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/overview.asp


The "beta" is for the AMD64 (Opteron/Athlon 64) version of the IA64 version.

This is a recompilation for most of the 64-bit code, although the support for 32-bit applications within the 64-bit system needs to change (often simpler, but different nonetheless).

[SWC]

Windows XP 64-bit was released in March 2003 - over a year ago. It is a shipping product.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/evaluation/overview.asp


The "beta" is for the AMD64 (Opteron/Athlon 64) version of the IA64 version.

This is a recompilation for most of the 64-bit code, although the support for 32-bit applications within the 64-bit system needs to change (often simpler, but different nonetheless).

I'm not even sure why they bothered to release a version of XP for the itanium. That is a very niche product and at $1400 per processor I would expect that to be used strictly in a server environment considering intel has said the only thing the itanium is good for is database servers and such since it cant run 32 bit apps very well and most not at all.

[AidenShaw]

I'm not even sure why they bothered to release a version of XP for the itanium.


As I said in an earlier post:

Even though Windows supports 64-bit memory, and lets individual programs use more than 4 GiB - there is little demand for that capability from desktop apps. There are many 64-bit server apps, for example, but the strongest reason to get a 64-bit desktop today is for software development of 64-bit server apps - not for running 64-bit desktop apps.


Another factor is that Windows is a common codebase - once you've ported one version/architecture - you've done most of the work for the others. Therefore, once IA64 server was running, it wouldn't be a huge effort to make an IA64 desktop.

[WM.]

That said, OS X in its 10.3 incarnation is far from complete. It still has serious flaws. For example, the Finder is still awful. It is badly in need of being rewritten to stop crashing - it panicked my kernel a few days ago when moving a bunch of .jpg images with preview.
I thought that particular problem was fixed in 10.3.3. Are you all up-to-date, with no weird haxies or anything running?

WM

[Tenniru]

I don't know anything about writing OS code, but it seems that slowing down will coincide nicely with 64 bit computing coming online. It will take some time for Apple's entire lineup to become G5 or better, and of course there will still be G4 and older machines being used for a long time. Like I said, I am not a software designer, but it seems supporting 64 bit and 32 bit hardware has the potential to bloat the code. If this assumption is correct, slowing down will allow the user base to gradually transition to newer hardware.

By the way, remember the tremendous bitching going on about how OS X was crap and that many would never stop using OS 9? I was switcher during that time and have never really used OS 9. I think it's funny now how hardly anyone is griping anymore.

Granted, that was in the time of 10.0 and 10.1, when there was a bigger software library for MacOS 9 and it ran faster. Don't forget, 10.0 itself was rushed as a beta. Believe it or not, my iBook ran OS 9 faster than 10.0 and 10.1! Then 10.2 released and it ran much better.

[Krevnik]

That's my point. Slow the OS cycle down so the hardware has time to go all 64 bit thus allowing the OS to go strictly 64 bit. This instead of several dual 32/64 bit OS releases. Of course, this is all based on the assumption that it is difficult or at least storage intensive to develop/deploy a dual 32/64 bit OS.

Here is the thing, the move to 64-bit on the PPC arch is VERY different from the move to 64-bit on x86. In the case of MacOS X, it simply needs to be made 64-bit clean. Because the PPC spec was always ready for the move to 64 bits, it has the advantage. In this case, a dual 32/64-bit OS would not be difficult, and fat binaries would not be needed (we already have the methods to enable/disable code based on the presense of Altivec, we can do the same for 64-bit in apps at no performance loss if done correctly).

[AidenShaw]

Here is the thing, the move to 64-bit on the PPC arch is VERY different from the move to 64-bit on x86. In the case of MacOS X, it simply needs to be made 64-bit clean. Because the PPC spec was always ready for the move to 64 bits, it has the advantage.

Please explain this.

I would think that my C or C++ or Objective C program would determine the issues with being 64-bit clean - not the target architecture that my compiler is using. There isn't a "PPC C++" distinct from an "x86 C++", is there?

A C++ program that is casting an "int" to a "*" is unclean on both PPC and x86.

"Simply needs to be made 64-bit clean" is not always a simple process - particularly when the best coding practices have not always been followed.

I've ported a lot of 64-bit code, and "simply make it 64-bit clean" makes me smile.

[Krevnik]

Please explain this.

I would think that my C or C++ or Objective C program would determine the issues with being 64-bit clean - not the target architecture that my compiler is using. There isn't a "PPC C++" distinct from an "x86 C++", is there?

A C++ program that is casting an "int" to a "*" is unclean on both PPC and x86.

"Simply needs to be made 64-bit clean" is not always a simple process - particularly when the best coding practices have not always been followed.

I've ported a lot of 64-bit code, and "simply make it 64-bit clean" makes me smile.

I was attempting to point out that the OS need not be 'ported' in the sense the vast majority of this board thinks needs to happen. The difference between making Windows 64-bit, and MacOS X 64-bit is that to make MacOS X 64-bit, it only needs to be expanded to be completely aware of the full environment, rather than modified to the point where it is no longer compatible with older hardware.

While I do agree it isn't a simple matter, assuming we need to dump G3/G4 code simply to become 64-bit friendly is complete BS. So is the idea that the OS would become bloated to support 32-bit and 64-bit PPC chips.

[AidenShaw]

The difference between making Windows 64-bit, and MacOS X 64-bit is that to make MacOS X 64-bit, it only needs to be expanded to be completely aware of the full environment, rather than modified to the point where it is no longer compatible with older hardware.


Wow, where to begin.... :eek:


This is a bit confused.

Neither Windows nor OSX are written in assembly language - they are both written primarily in higher level languages. Compatibility with older hardware on a simple level is a compiler option - tell it to generate code for the 32-bit or the 64-bit CPU (or use an IA64 compiler instead of the x86 compiler).

The fact that the PPC 64-bit ISA (code) is mostly a superset of the PPC 32-bit ISA is irrelevant - as soon as the compiler generates a single 64-bit only instruction the OS is incompatible with the older hardware.

In some cases you might decide to intermix 32-bit and 64-bit code, and choose between them at runtime - but that's a very significant complication to the system.

*****

But, the kernel is among the least of your worries when migrating to 64-bit. The real problem is that a huge number of the system APIs as well as higher level libraries take memory pointers (addresses) as parameters.

To support both existing 32-bit programs and new 64-bit programs, you have to have duplicate routines for each of these - one supporting the old 32-bit pointers, and one supporting the new 64-bit pointers. It's a lot of work to redefine the APIs and to create and test a parallel set of 64-bit libraries, to create a version of the 32-bit libraries that can run on the 64-bit system, and to devise the mechanisms so that they can co-exist.

Some of the 32-bit APIs can simply be left as 32-bit routines (for example, a floating point math routine). Other 32-bit routines might need to be rewritten as jackets to translate their arguments and call the native 64-bit routines (for example, a file I/O or memory management API).

The only "superior" feature of PPC in regards to 64-bit is that the 32-bit system is a proper subset of the 64-bit ISA. This makes it much easier for PPC than Itanium to support both 32-bit and 64-bit concurrently - and easier for the hardware to run 32-bit mode at full speed.

Note that x86-64 (AMD64) has exactly the same advantage as PPC - an Opteron or Xeon-64 can run 32-bit code at full steam because all of the 32-bit instructions are part of the 64-bit architecture.

[Krevnik]

In some cases you might decide to intermix 32-bit and 64-bit code, and choose between them at runtime - but that's a very significant complication to the system.

Not always. A properly designed system can intermix the code quite easily, and Apple has already had the problem of intermixing code with Altivec, so 32/64-bit code is nothing special.


But, the kernel is among the least of your worries when migrating to 64-bit. The real problem is that a huge number of the system APIs as well as higher level libraries take memory pointers (addresses) as parameters.

To support both existing 32-bit programs and new 64-bit programs, you have to have duplicate routines for each of these - one supporting the old 32-bit pointers, and one supporting the new 64-bit pointers. It's a lot of work to redefine the APIs and to create and test a parallel set of 64-bit libraries, to create a version of the 32-bit libraries that can run on the 64-bit system, and to devise the mechanisms so that they can co-exist.


Depending on how the system is crafted, converting the 32-bit libs to be compatible with the new back end is simply grunt work. Co-existing is the least of the worries, as you just said that the routines that normally take 32-bit parameters would need to be updated to handle 64-bit parameters. Since this by itself breaks the usual specification, or there is a specification already available for quite a few libs MacOS X uses for 64/32-bit compatibility, this is also simply grunt work.


Some of the 32-bit APIs can simply be left as 32-bit routines (for example, a floating point math routine). Other 32-bit routines might need to be rewritten as jackets to translate their arguments and call the native 64-bit routines (for example, a file I/O or memory management API).

And here is the rub, the work required to do this is actually smaller than you think. While it is work, and it does need to be done, it is grunt work. It will not warrant splitting the OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions that people keep claiming. Show me proof that it is a significant complication to the system to support 32-bit and 64-bit calls within the system (more than the current complication of detecting and adjusting to Altivec at runtime), and I can believe you, otherwise I find it hard to believe that this fairly minor arch change would require such a large split in development.

[AidenShaw]

Not always. A properly designed system can intermix the code quite easily, and Apple has already had the problem of intermixing code with Altivec, so 32/64-bit code is nothing special.



Depending on how the system is crafted, converting the 32-bit libs to be compatible with the new back end is simply grunt work. Co-existing is the least of the worries, as you just said that the routines that normally take 32-bit parameters would need to be updated to handle 64-bit parameters. Since this by itself breaks the usual specification, or there is a specification already available for quite a few libs MacOS X uses for 64/32-bit compatibility, this is also simply grunt work.



And here is the rub, the work required to do this is actually smaller than you think. While it is work, and it does need to be done, it is grunt work. It will not warrant splitting the OS into 32-bit and 64-bit versions that people keep claiming. Show me proof that it is a significant complication to the system to support 32-bit and 64-bit calls within the system (more than the current complication of detecting and adjusting to Altivec at runtime), and I can believe you, otherwise I find it hard to believe that this fairly minor arch change would require such a large split in development.


Your original comment was "it only needs to be expanded to be completely aware of the full environment". I felt that didn't really describe the magnitude of the job.

We're not too far off - you're now saying that it's a lot of work (albeit not rocket science). It's doable (look at SUN's Solaris - that's been shipping both a 32-bit only version and a 64-bit version that supports both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries.

*****

The other part of a "lot of grunt work" is that implies "one hell of a lot of quality assurance work". Even the best of grunts make mistakes - both at the typo level and at the design level.

Definitely doable, but a lot of work.

[MikeTheC]

QUOTE from nmk
I just hope this doesn't mean the beginning of the end for the Mac. Apple annoncing this in the same week as the new iPod devision makes me a little uneasy.

QUOTE from mklos
I seriously don't think this is the end of Apple Computers. After all they have spent over $1 Billion on the beta version of Mac OS X and they have spent hundreds of millions to further develop OS X to what it is today. Also, they are spends hundreds of millions of dollars for Apple Retail Stores around the world. I don't think Apple is building retail stores for the iPod!

Well said. I know it's human nature to be upset when changes happen. Given his track record, I think these moves are more about Steve trying to streamline production efforts than it is about trying to prioritize divisions on an absolute "this-division-is-more-important-than-that-one" basis. That being said, this doesn't mean we might not see shake-ups, but on the whole, I think Steve has this well in hand.

Anyone wanting to argue this point should kindly direct their attention to the pre-Stevian period at Apple, where you had multiple divisions screaming like little spoiled brats, each competing against the other instead of operating as a cohesive whole.

The end of Apple as a company will be the day they stop selling computers. Even though they sell more iPods than computers, they still made about 75% of their profit off computer sales. Apple cannot survive off the iPod, or anything of its other hardware/software things besides it computers.

Again, way to go mklos! Apple is in no position strategically to abandon their PC hardware base.

Keep in mind that they did this a few years ago when they shifted their main software personel to a seperate Applications team and because of that we've seen some awesome OS X apps come out. Keynote, iLife '04, FCE, Motion, etc. are all examples of cool new apps that havce come out of this split.

I think this is great for Apple. It splits specific things into specific groups so that team can focus on one specific thing. Putting John Rubenstein in charge of the iPod operations could of been a bad move, but I'm sure his replacement is fully qualified and if he isn't then I'd like to think that Steve Jobs will take care of that.

Apple is running strong, has 4.5 Billion in cash, and is STILL consistantly making a profit. They aren't going away for quite sometime unless they screw up big time like Gateway did.

As I said, it streamlines things.

Mike