Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac OS X 10.4 Info?

So are these 10.x changes upgrades or updates? I really never complain about priceing for I think they are worth the $120, but one a year just doesn't seem like it leaves enought time to soak in the new cool stuff. ya know?
 
Well, I know that I, for one, would applaud better handling of meta-data. That's something (one of the few things IMO) that OS 9 actually did better than OS X, but we don't really need to get into. Let's hope that 10.4 continues to evolve into the best OS in the world!! :D
 
Sounds like Apple is doing the Mac equivalent of WinFS which would be perfectly logical. Its about time that the OS supplied all developers with a good database. However I just hope that Apple can include a database as good as M$ SQLServer which is what WinFS uses. FileMaker Pro is simply not up to this standard. Maybe the new DBMS used by FileMaker 7 will be that basis?
 
This sounds a lot like educated guessing - based on previous speculation and Microsoft's WinFS plans. While I agree that the SQL Server foundation for WinFS is excellent, there are numerous Open Source databases that would easily integrate with OS X and continue Apple's strategy of embracing the best free software available.
 
edit: ^^^ that's what I get for not refreshing the page for an hour before I reply

maybe in continuing with their open-source trend they'd use a DB like MySQL or Postgre?
 
lol early rumors are the best! yea, they will have expose 2 and like a new GUI so you won't know its OS X anymore... lol come on! :)
 
In the Book - Apple Confidential 2.0 - There's a chapter on *code names*.

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

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

.mCr.
 
The timing sounds correct. I was expecting Steve to announce 10.4 at WWDC and then released by the end of the year. Essentially keeping with the same timing. That was a very interesting comment that they might just skip to 10.5, because it's scheduled to be a radical change. Maybe that would explain the code name change from Ocelot.
 
Hope it's not called OS 10.5, that would be illogical. I'm sure it will be referred to mainly by a big cat name - which of the remaining felines has the most radical nature?
 
It's kind of funny how they say not only a database-driven new Finder ... but also a wide support for file metadata.. I mean, what good would a database-driven Finder be without data (ie. metadata) to put in the database? The two kind of go together.

And this particular rumor may be met with skepticism it does make sense. If Microsoft starts previewing versions of Longhorn later this year with similar technology wouldn't it be great if Apple releases their version in an actual product around the same time? What a coup that would be!!
 
Originally posted by Interiority
This sounds a lot like educated guessing - based on previous speculation and Microsoft's WinFS plans. While I agree that the SQL Server foundation for WinFS is excellent, there are numerous Open Source databases that would easily integrate with OS X and continue Apple's strategy of embracing the best free software available.
Click to expand...

Once again we are adopting an idea that was before its time. OS X brought us Yellow Box from next and visual PS (sorta...) Now it sounds like we are scamming BeFS.
 
10.4 this year? Look at the pattern

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

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

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

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

...6 months...

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

...6 months...

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

...11 months...

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

...14 months...

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

...more than 14 months?...

10.4 ?

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

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

And remember that earliest reports of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4.
 
Re: 10.4 this year? Look at the pattern

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

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

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

In any case, an improved Finder is the most needed improvement.
 
Anybody mind explaining what's the big deal about these database driven filesystems?

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

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

It's a database on top of the regular file system that uses metadata as additional search fields for the underlying files. The files are probably still accessed through the standard filesystem "database"
 
Windows 2009?

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

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

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

Even 2006 sounds like a long shot--so any OS X in early 2005 has a VERY safe lead.
 
Doesn't HFS+ already have extensive database/mettadata support ? Its just that Apple hasn't been using it...at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back