Leopard Screenshots?

[Cooknn]

I just read the 1st one... having a visual representation of what this might look like (real or fake) makes it all the more powerful

So... Mac OS X becomes a unified desktop interface

Embodiments of the present invention provide a method, apparatus and system for transparently unifying multiple VMs on a host. More specifically, according to an embodiment of the present invention, users may interact with Guest Software on a VM host via a unified graphical user interface (the user interface hereafter referred to as “Unified Desktop Interface 200”).

Or you could just refer to it as Mac OS X Leopard This will be HUGE. I have no doubt now, that Apple and Intel are working together on this. From what I understand, guest software gets access to the hardware. No more emulation. Sweet. Agreed regarding the screenshot. Fake as it may be, it's cool to see what is most likely in the cards regarding virtualization for OS X.

 

[Stella]

The photoshop 'experts' have been wrong more times than they've been right.

I believe this shots are real.

 

[mulletman13]

Some things that people in this thread think will prove these screenshots fake don't prove them fake at all:
1) 10.5 without a build number in the "About This Mac" window. (On Tiger you click on the 10.4 to see the build number on 10.5 I would expect the same, even in the beta version.)

At least one of Tiger's betas had the build number right in the window. I ran a couple of them and I distinctly remember a build being listed without the need of a click.

I'll try to fish out a screenshot...

 

[Mainyehc]

Would any Linux users mind explaining the benefit of multiple desktops? While it sounds interesting, I don't see what value it adds.

I'm a Mac user and I can explain that too...

http://virtuedesktops.info

It's great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, especially when they are of vastly different kinds. I know Exposé is just great, but OS X has got me spoiled (then again, Exposé doesn't reduce clutter, it just helps you sort through it): once, besides the fact I was working on Photoshop and Illustrator, I had more than 60 websites open at the same time, on two different desktops, as I was doing research on two different subjects, apart from my regular surfing. I also had three or four chat windows open at the same time (I don't really like tabbed chat windows). Try minimizing all that and the dock icons get too tiny and/or indistinguishable.

I have 4 desktops: Two for work, and two for everything else. Since VirtueDesktops allows me to permanently bind apps to specific desktops, I can force IM apps to open up new windows on one of them - I find that helps me concentrate on the task at hand. I can also make apps "sticky", i.e. they show up on all desktops, which is handy for iTunes, even though I already use the excellent ByteController (http://www.bytetastic.com/?page=products).

For switching desktops, I can either use active edges (akin to exposé's active corners, except I configured them to require a mouse click) or the keyboard shortcut option+tab (which, predictably, presents a translucent pager much like the application switcher triggered by cmd+tab). If you have an Apple laptop equipped with a sudden-motion sensor you could even try the "screen-tapping" method, it seems to be preety nifty.

[edit: Scottyk9 and longofest beat me to it ]

 

[LoonyPandora]

I have a bad track record with rumours - but I say fake.

On the second image, the windows still have a shadow mid-animation. On current versions of OS X, doing any sort of CoreImage type effects, the shadows disappear for the duration of the animation.

Hold down shift to slow down the animations of minimising to the dock, and "show all windows" in exposé - you should be able to see this effect

 

[4God]

It's the IE7 for Windows.

But in the first screenshot it's running on the Mac OS.
Fake to me.

 

[Monkaaay]

I wish, I wish, I wish.

 

[Sky Blue]

But in the first screenshot it's running on the Mac OS.
Fake to me.

Windows files running on OS X. Is it that hard to understand????

 

[tom_s]

Another possible indication that these are faked: both screenshots show the exact same time in the menubar. It's possible that both of these screenshots were taken within 60 seconds of each other, but I find it unlikely.

In the first screenshot he/she is about to switch desktops (with this 1-2 selector thing), in the 2nd screenshot the switching is in progress. I think that it is very likely that these shots were taken only a few seconds apart.

I Think It's A Fake Because In The Screenshot With The Transition, It Looks Like The Mounted Hard Drives On The Desktop Are Deformed. If I Was Apple I Would Leave The Mounted Hardrive Icons The Same As They Would Appear On The 2nd Desktop Anyway.

There could be other HDs mounted or they could be arranged in a different way on the 2nd desktop.

 

[Core Trio]

So in a few days do you think we'll get a video surfacing online with exactly how this was done in photoshop, much like we saw with the "touch-screen ipod" last spring?

 

[mcic1984]

It's definitely FAKE

I hate to say it as it looks awfully cool, but it's definitely FAKE...

Look carefully at the title of Internet Explorer:
The screenshot shows "Internet Explorer: Apple - MacBook Gallery".

However, using Internet Explorer7 in Windows XP Professional SP2,, the title bar should be:
"Apple - MacBook Family - Windows Internet Explorer"

See this:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=173314772&size=l

Not only is the text the wrong way round, but it is missing the word "Windows" too. And don't say it's hidden - if it is hidden behind the other window, it clearly isn't centred.

I guess the counter-argument is that Apple hide the word "Windows" =P But that seems too far fetched!

=editx2= (a) okay it IS centred and (b) ok Windows does appear to be there -- but why would the words just mysteriously switch order? It would have to be a conscious decision to switch things around... And all the more an odd decision because neither Safari nor Firefox displays the application name...

 

[peharri]

This could be a relatively 'early' stage of development. I am curious about that date, though, Jan 14. It doesn't appear to be an open app: when iCal is open, it shows the current date, and when closed shows the date it was released (is that right?) So I wonder if the default with this app is to always show the current date, regardless of whether the app is open or not - or, alternatively, there is some other significance to the date.

If it is a current date display, these screenshots are 5 months old - would that be possible or likely?

No, it's not "today's" date. The 14th was a Saturday. The clock shows Wednesday. I don't know where Jan 14th comes from, the only relevent date I can think of would be the supposed 2007 release date (mid January 2007), and I can't think why that would be harded coded into the iCal icon...

 

[4God]

Windows files running on OS X. Is it that hard to understand????

Yes, since Microsoft announced that it no longer supports or builds IE for Mac.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not talking about just running windows files.
I know you can open Word and Excel etc. files with Office for Mac.
I'm talking about running a program no longer supported by Microsoft on Mac.

 

[Diatribe]

Yes, since Microsoft announced that it no longer supports or builds IE for Mac.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not talking about just running windows files. I know you can open Word and Excel etc. files with Office for Mac.
I'm talking about running a program no longer supported by Microsoft
on Mac.

He is talking about WINDOWS files (e.g. .exe)!

 

[Cooknn]

Yes, since Microsoft announced that it no longer supports or builds IE for Mac.

You don't get it. The build is not for OS X. The idea is to run native Windows 'programs' in a virtual machine with OS X as the unified desktop. See post above with links to Intel's patent application.

 

[Shunnabunich]

Yes, since Microsoft announced that it no longer supports or builds IE for Mac.

Um, that's great.

The implication of the screenshot was never that Leopard will be accompanied by a new, OS X native version of Internet Explorer. I don't know what gave you that impression. The implication is that a native Windows application (in this case Internet Explorer) is being run inside OS X, a la WINE. The separate partitions may simply be a requirement — you have to have Windows installed in order for OS X to use its DLLs, APIs, apps and so forth, and the same would go for a guest Linux install.

 

[Diatribe]

I hate to say it as it looks awfully cool, but it's definitely FAKE...

Look carefully at the title of Internet Explorer:
The screenshot shows "Internet Explorer: Apple - MacBook Gallery".

However, using Internet Explorer 7, the title bar should be:
"Apple - MacBook Family - Windows Internet Explorer"

See this:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=173314772&size=l

Not only is the text the wrong way round, but it is missing the word "Windows" too. And don't say it's hidden - if it is hidden behind the other window, it clearly isn't centred.

I guess the counter-argument is that Apple hide the word "Windows" =P But that seems too far fetched!

If you look carefully at the first screenshot you can see the end of the s of windows.
Besides, it being the other way around doesn't really make it fake for me.

 

[4God]

He is talking about WINDOWS files (e.g. .exe)!

So you are saying that I can run .exe files on Mac OSX?

 

[DougBTX]

In the first screenshot he/she is about to switch desktops (with this 1-2 selector thing), in the 2nd screenshot the switching is in progress. I think that it is very likely that these shots were taken only a few seconds apart.

Then you would expect to see the picture icon from the first screenshot on the desktop. If he took the time to move the image file somewhere else, the clock would have (probably) changed.

Dougals

 

[Scottyk9]

I hate to say it as it looks awfully cool, but it's definitely FAKE...

Look carefully at the title of Internet Explorer:
The screenshot shows "Internet Explorer: Apple - MacBook Gallery".

However, using Internet Explorer 7, the title bar should be:
"Apple - MacBook Family - Windows Internet Explorer"

See this:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=173314772&size=l

Not only is the text the wrong way round, but it is missing the word "Windows" too. And don't say it's hidden - if it is hidden behind the other window, it clearly isn't centred.

I guess the counter-argument is that Apple hide the word "Windows" =P But that seems too far fetched!

the counter arguement may be that the bar at the top is part of the "unified desktop" and the contents are from the "virtual machine"

but really, the details of whether this is real or fake pale in comparison to the implications of this - I find it far more fascinating to think about the consequences of Apple and Intel getting virtualization and a unified desktop with multiple VMs done right

 

[Diatribe]

So you are saying that I can run .exe files on Mac OSX?

That's what a true virtualization environment without emulation inside the OS itself would suggest.
A lot of patents, apps and rumors are also suggesting this. You would still need to install a copy of Windows though.

 

[Shunnabunich]

So you are saying that I can run .exe files on Mac OSX?

Not on any current versions of Mac OS X. The next version, 10.5 "Leopard", is rumoured to have this feature, and the screenshot was made to illustrate how it would look.

 

[Scottyk9]

So you are saying that I can run .exe files on Mac OSX?

post #89
read this

Edit: sorry, I mean this:
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.p...virtual_machine_geared_for_consumer_desktops/

 

[Caitlyn]

Well, I don't think someone who didn't add a shadow to the IE 7 window would go out of their way to make that updated Address Book icon. Hmm...I'm really not sure about these. It'd be cool if this was real. I can't wait for Leopard!

 

[4God]

That's what a true virtualization environment without emulation inside the OS itself would suggest.
A lot of patents, apps and rumors are also suggesting this. You would still need to install a copy of Windows though.

Ahhh, I got ya. So, would it seem then that this virtualization environment would use some sort of plug-in or driver to connect to windows in some fashion? - assuming maybe you have windows running in the background?