Will Apple release Leopard before or after Longhorn is released?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Gary King, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. Gary King macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    #1
    What do you guys think? I've only been around Mac OS X long enough to use Tiger, so I am not too familiar with how Apple thinks.

    Do you think Apple will release Leopard before or after Longhorn is released? I know, I know, don't tell me that they just happen to be released, coincidentally, at about the same time. But if they, for instance, landed in the same month or something? Would Apple release Leopard before Longhorn is out, or would they hold off until Longhorn is out?
     
  2. WildCowboy Administrator/Editor

    WildCowboy

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #2
    Well, they're both shooting for the same time frame...my money's on Leopard making it out of the gate first, with Longhorn being pushed back another few months.
     
  3. Duff-Man macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #3
    Duff-Man says....this really is not very different from the other thread you started about 10.5/Longhorn....are we into summer rerun season? ....oh yeah!
     
  4. GodBless macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #4
    I have two different answers because you have two different questions. These are very good questions because I've wondered the same thing and haven't come up with a concrete conclusion yet.

    Answer to question 1 "Do you think Apple will release Leopard before or after Longhorn is released?":I think Apple will release Leopard after Long and Horny (yes pun intended) is released. This is because Apple said that it will release its OS some time between late '06 and early '07 and Longhorn is due in late '06. Chances are that Apple will release it late especially to really enhance the features and leave Longshot (yes pun intended again) in the dust.

    Answer to question 2 "But if they, for instance, landed in the same month or something... Would Apple release Leopard before Longhorn is out, or would they hold off until Longhorn is out?":
    Apple would probably do it first because people would see it first and it would cover up Windows release and people would go for it and forget about Windows. If it were the other way around Apple would be ignored in all the Longhorn news releases since Apple isn't the standard OS. So if Apple comes out on top and it is released before Longhorn then Apple will get a big chunk of market share if they play it just right. Also if it is announced early it will prove that Apple's team can get the job done on the time schedule that was promised and still have awesome OS features. This will win the press coverage.

    Conclusion: I bet Apple knows exactly when to release it and is waiting for Microsoft to announce when Longhorn will be out so it can tell when Leopard is out. I'd say now that I listed this out this has made me think for sure that Apple will release Tiger before Longhorn is out. The following is why. Who will buy a second OS if they just spent $300 on Longhorn? If OS X is only $129 then people will go for that because it is better than Longhorn for less. If they don't have that option ahead of time then they won't wait for Tiger. If they have the option ahead of time then how can they resist such a good offer?
     
  5. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #5
    It depends on how long Microsoft want to keep copying Apple. Longhorn is supposed to be what Tiger is today, so what Leopard is tomorrow is going to be beyond Longhorn. Longhorn could be pushed back to copy Leopard, but something needs to be done by M$. I figure that when Longhorn is released, it will be almost Tiger, with some unimportant flashy bits.
     
  6. GodBless macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #6
    It is a lot better than his last thread ....oh yeah!
     
  7. YS2003 macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #7
    I hope MS will go first with Longhorn. They are copying Apple for this new OS. I hope Apple can do the last minute change/udpate to their OS to make its Leopard surpase Longhorn as its Tiger/Panther is doing with XP.
     
  8. ClarkeB macrumors 6502

    ClarkeB

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    #8
    Well, we'll have OS X Leopard and OS X Leopard server

    and then a month later have about 14 different versions of Longhorn.
     
  9. Gary King thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    #9
    Is the last minute really the best time to make new changes? Wouldn't they be rushed then? Even only a month to implement a previous idea is still a short period of time.

    Also, both Panther and Tiger were both released several years after XP was released.
     
  10. theappleguy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    #10
    It's kind of hard to predict considering MS keeps pushing back the release of Longhorn, but if LH is out at the end of 2006, then I think we will see Mac OS X 10.5 in Jan or Feb 2007. :)
     
  11. BGil macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #11
    That makes no sense. Apple isn't going to gain any marketshare by touting their OS over a Microsoft OS, period. Apple fans seems to think this is going to happen with every Mac OS release but it never does. Apple simply doesn't have the product line to steal marketshare from Microsoft and PC companies. In the last decade or so the only thing that has significantly increased Apple marketshare has been two hardware changes, the original iMac and the Mac Mini. The Mini looks like it may be short-lived if Apple keeps refusing to update it.

    Apple releasing Leopard in the same month as Longhorn would be a disaster... for Apple. There's no way they're going to outshine a platform with a userbase of over 700 million users, period. In the month of Novemeber, Longhorn will sell more copies (pre-loaded, boxed, and free upgrades from manufacturers) than Apple has sold in their entire history of OS X.

    Apple needs to release Leopard well after Longhorn. If they release in Feb. of 2007 then they'll be okay. Longhorn is going to RTM next summer andstart showing up pre-loaded on machines next October. By Thanksgiving it'll be everywhere.

    You're joking, right? Please don't let Steve's RDF encapsulate you completely. Jobs put up those Longhorn posters at 2004 WWDC because Spotlight was delivering fast search well before he figured Microsoft could. When Microsoft (and Google) released desktop search products in 2004 he looked stupid and that's why he did all that backtracking at MWSF 2005 in Jan. That's why he had to address "other desktop search" products and compare them to Spotlight. That's why they ditched those "Introducing Longhorn" posters.
    If you play around with the Longhorn Document Explorer for two minutes you'll see that it's light-years ahead of any document managing (yes that means the Finder and Spotlight) in any other OS. The work they're doing with GPU acceleration is also far and away superior to what's in Tiger. Their notion of "resolution independence" is likewise greatly superior to Tiger.

    Here are the slides from WinHec 2005 That's a hardware engineering conference where they basically laid out all the major features of the Fundamentals branch and Longhorn Server. Lots of things in those slides are kick-ass features. Longhorn Server Beta 1 will be publically (free) downloadable from Microsoft this month. It'll have most of those features implemented already. Apple has basically nothing to compete with the new fundamentals branch in Longhorn. QT7 and CoreXXX aren't going to cut it (they aren't even cutting it now).

    Longhorn Beta 1 (client and server) is reported to be the most stable beta 1 product in the history of Microsoft. Beta 2 will be publically released before the end of this year so all the enthusiasts will probably be running Longhorn then. With Leopard probably not even being shown at all until WWDC 2006 (so they can counter and copy Lognhorn) then I'm willing to bet that
    1. Longhorn RTM's well before Leopard. Probably about six to 10 months before.
    2. Leopard won't have nearly the maturity that Longhorn will have at their respective releases (to be expected since Longhorn is 5 years in the making). Apple simply won't have the time to beta test and do QA if developers don't get their copy until Mid-2006. Tiger had almost a year of limited beta testing and it's still buggy as all hell. At best Leopard will only have 8 months (assumiing a Feb 2007 release). Longhorn will have been in Public (as in anyone can donwload it for free with no NDA) QA/Beta testing for 15 months by the time it's RTMed next May-June.
    3. Some kind of Longhorn-inspired Finder shows up at WWDC 2006, in addition to other Longhorn-inspired features.
    4. That Apple loses marketshare due to the painful Mactel tranistion.
    5. That Apple isn't going to show anything in Leopard unitl after they've seen Longhorn Beta 2.
     
  12. CubaTBird macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    #12
    hrm... i think apple will tie in their release of leopard with longhorn perhaps.. give or take.. i do think though that when leopard comes out... the marketing between leopard + intel procs that will be found in the current macs at the time will be huge.. look for good things in the future ;)
     
  13. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #13
    I agree the Apple marketshare won't change much with OS releases or even lack of OS releases from Microsoft. I don't even know why Microsoft is bothering with making Longhorn. People like XP/2000/98/95/3.1 and don't want to learn something new. Just the other day I over heard a PC user asking if he should upgrade to Windows 98 from Windows 95 at home.
     
  14. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #14

    Who knows? It really depends on Apple's development team. Who would have thought when Tiger was announced at WWDC 2004 that it really was going to take them almost to the end of the first half of 2005 to do it?
     
  15. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    Billy Gates, is that you? :p
     
  16. BWhaler macrumors 68020

    BWhaler

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    #16
    I agree.

    Luckily it won't be necessary.

    Because Microsoft needs to support thousands of vendors and millions of configurations, they don't--and can't--keep as many secrets as Apple.

    The beta builds of Longhorn will be very wide spread and the functionality will freeze many months before launch so Apple will know what is in Longhorn.

    Therefore, it will be possible for Apple to know what is in Longhorn and launch before Microsoft does.

    With that said, I hope Apple launches after Longhorn. I think Apple will be better served by taking the time while MS is basically coping Tiger to leap frog the game all together and make MS look like the followers they are.

    10.5 needs to be a quantum leap the way 10.0 was. It really is game time.
     
  17. BWhaler macrumors 68020

    BWhaler

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    #17
    Respectfully, you are incorrect since you understand anything how to do an OS release which serves 100's of millions of computers.

    Microsoft will spend about a year banging out bugs and making small functionality changes. Microsoft literally has millions of configurations to test for and debug. Beta 1 of Longhorn is in a few weeks. It will launch over 18 months from now. It takes that long to test and fix Windows. This is the cross MS has to bear.

    They do not have the luxury of quickly slapping-in some features just because Apple put it in Leopard. Luckily, this is not true for Apple. The environments they have to test for is much smaller...

    If MS wanted to copy something, unless it was highly contained and cosmetic, it would have to be in the code by year's end. It's why Jobs didn't preview Leopard at this year's WWDC. By next June, when the world sees Leopard, it'll be too late for MS to copy. Jobs is no fool.
     
  18. JFreak macrumors 68040

    JFreak

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Location:
    Tampere, Finland
    #18
    if apple allows osx to install on every generic pc out there, then the price will not be $129 but rather something closer to $300. why? because currently everyone that buys osx already has purchased a full license bundled with the apple hardware purchase, and the $129 is actually an upgrade. in the future apple will have to sell full licenses and upgrades, and perhaps OEM's too - and, apple needs to take osx license price off their hardware prices to make themselves more transparent. that is, open competition with microsoft.

    or...

    what if apple sells full license for $129 and forces microsoft to lower its prices? :)
     
  19. SiliconAddict macrumors 603

    SiliconAddict

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #19
    Well that depends..... :D When is Longshot going to ship? MS says 3rd-4th quarter of 2006. If they stick to that timeframe then yes. Here's the cool thing. Tiger has 90% of the features Longshot will have. Apple can take their time with Leopard. (Pounds fists on the ground in a temper tantrum. I want Ocelot dang it!) If it comes out 6 months after LH and shows them up even more so much the better. MS isn't going to have another OS out for another 5-7 years. This is basically IT with refinements and tweaks over the next few years but that's it. Actually I hope that Apple DOESN’T push Leopard out too soon. Sorry guys but everything I’ve read both here on MR and other Mac sites screams that Apple put out Tiger well before it was ready. For once I would like Apple to take there time and get something that isn't bug ridden.
     
  20. GodBless macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #20
    Either him or any other PC user. I'd say over 90% of PC users are ignorant of what OS X really has to offer.
     
  21. BGil macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #21
    I'm not sure where this bs come from but even a slightly informed person can see that it isn't true. Tiger isn't even fully 64-bit yet, doesn't have Media Center or Tablet PC functionality, complete virtual file heirarchy, RSS notification between applications and computers(this has nothing to do with blogs and podcasts), any significant metadata editing, 3D views and window/task managing, automatic storage of file versions and history, FTP and network consistiency with local storage, a decent file viewer, h.264/WMVHD/MPEG-2 HD acceleration, FULL GUI acceleration, any of the features in DX 10/WGF2, natural language interface, network and domain indexing, much of the stuff in IIS7, virtualization, hot add/remove/replace ram/cpu/gpu/pci-express/sata, metro (PDF isn't even close), true virtual folders, true resolution/pixel independence, auxiliary display support, true work collaboration, application sharing, remote desktop, remote assistience, volume shadow copy, nor WinFS (due around the time leopard is supposed to come out) and on and on.
     
  22. BGil macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #22
    That's not true. The 5 year gap between XP's release and Longhorn's is very very unusual for Microsoft. After win98, win98SE, winME, win2k, and windows xp all in about 3 years, 5 years is not normal.

    1. Microsoft released 3 versions of Media Center (with one more on the way in August) and 3 versions of Tablet PC in the last 2.5 years. All of them were fairly major upgrades.
    2. Windows XP Pro x64 (which is free to anyone with a 32-bit license) is a new OS with a new codebase. That's only 4 years between massive code base switching :eek: .
    3. Windows Server 2003 was only 3 years after Windows 2000 and it's a new code base.
    4. The Windows team has realigned and now it's 3 separate teams-- the Windows Core Team, Windows Server team, and the Windows Client team. The Windows Core team has now committed to large updates every 4 years (which is actually slower than what they've been doing recently)
    5. The Windows Server team is committed to large updates every two years (with Windows Server 2003 R2 coming out this year they seem to be on track).
    6. The Windows Client team has committed to large scale releases every two years and smaller (about Mac OS point release size) releases every year. The Windows Client environment is now on a schedule similar to what we have already seen from Media Center, Tablet PC, and Office.
    7. With .Net 1.0/2.0, WinFS, Avalon, Indigo, Fundamentals, Aero, Media Center, Tablet, Monad, WGF, LDDM, and 64-bit all converging in Longhorn, they've basically rewritten Windows since the day XP came out. So if you think of it as taking 5 years to replace every major API, every major UI, and virtually all the internal plumbing then it's easy to see why it's taken so long. With all that work done now, the next version after Longhorn shouldn't take very long (and hence the Windows Client team's committment to 1 year updates).
     
  23. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #23
    It's an upgrade to the same old codebase. Just look at the version numbers if you don't believe me:

    2000 - NT 5.0
    XP - NT 5.1
    2003 - NT 5.2

    And don't get me started on Longhorn - it's looking increasingly like XP Service Pack 3.
     
  24. iAlan macrumors 65816

    iAlan

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #24
    And these were sussrssfu becuse people chose to upgrade to the new systems or because PC manufacturers had no choice but to install on their new boxes?

    There was very little inovation between any of these releases, with new code built on old code. XP was a step up, but not overly user friendly - not to mention you have to learn everything new with each OS update. I have used W2000 since day one at work, that is 4 years ago - and nothing Microsoft has released since is worth the effort, and before W2000 I used NT for a couple of years and again nothing was worth the effort to upgrade to between the two. Not to mention a bulk of stuff didn't work between these OS changes - you needed a lot of new everythings

    For business, which is a bulk of Windows user base win98 was more trouble han it was worth, wunME was a micky mouse OS with little practical need and Tablet PC is just not selling.

    I do not know why we have become complacent with just accepting what MS spits out. We get piossed with banks, public transport, airlines and other industries - but these groups are doing a lot better effort on consumer service and development and we are not complacent with accepting the current status.

    I just love how Microsoft toutes 'advancement in IT' when all they aer doing is fixing the problems they created!

    Sorry for the rant...
     
  25. crenz macrumors 6502a

    crenz

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Location:
    Shanghai, China
    #25
    BGil, I also don't agree that Tiger has 90% of Longhorn's functionality -- mostly because Longhorn isn't out yet, so the comparision is unfair, for both. Nevertheless, some of your points are rather interesting:

    • Fully 64-Bit: Not needed for the average user now. In fact, a full 64-Bit system requires more resources (CPU, memory) than a mixed system. That's why I believe Longhorn won't be fully 64-Bit either.
    • Media Center functionality: So far, the "use your computer as a living-room-stereo" approach is not very successful. It's not a big advantage to have that functionality built-in since not many need it. Also, I find it easier to manage my media on Mac OS X than Windows, but that's just a personal opinion. Lastly, there is free software available that will give you some Media Center functionality on Linux, and it would be easy to create a similar software on Mac OS X -- if there were sufficient demand.
    • Tablet PC: Look at the sales figures of tablet PCs. Besides that, Mac OS X has handwriting recognition built into the system.
    • Virtual File Hierarchy: I'll have to see that in Longhorn to see how useful it is. So far, Windows is not even able to support something as excruciatingly simple as symbolic links.
    • RSS notification between applications: Don't know anything about this. Might be similar to Rendezvous/Bonjour.
    • Metadata editing: Yes, I really miss that. We'll see how good it is on Longhorn.
    • 3D views: Prototypes of 3D user environments have been shown years ago (e.g. by Sun). Their usefulness is vastly overrated. I like Apple's "soft 3D" approach in Exposé -- that is really useful. Apart from that, Aqua is a 3D system, but it doesn't really show it since it wouldn't be very user friendly.
    • Window/task managing: I'm sorry, but I just can't deal with the way Windows XP manages windows. I hope Longhorn will be much better. So far, Exposé is the best solution I've seen.
    • automatic storage of file versions and history: Depends on how portable it is to be useful. Having local versions is one thing, but as a developer, I need to syncronize things to external repositories. Also, some backups of my system are external and on non-Windows (and non-Mac OS X) systems, so unless this version management system interoperates, it is useless to me.
    • FTP and network consistiency with local storage: Not sure what you mean with that. Automatic mirroring of remote network drives/FTP sites? Apart from that, I agree that not being able to mount FTP and SFTP sites directly in the finder (read/writeable) is a major annoyance for me.
    • decent file viewer: Preview shows the formats I need it to, the rest the original app takes care off.
    • h.264/WMVHD/MPEG-2 HD acceleration: I'd guess H.264/HD support is pretty good in Mac OS X. And I don't need WMVHD :)
    • FULL GUI acceleration: Aqua already uses graphics acceleration on systems that support it.
    • any of the features in DX 10/WGF2: Can't comment on that much since I neither play games nor use 3D apps
    • natural language interface: Need to see this to gauge how useful it is. Especially for non-English speaking users.
    • network and domain indexing: Probably something most network admins are going to shut off…
    • IIS7: Probably not supplied for all Windows versions. Apache is part even of the normal Mac OS X and can be switched on with a few clicks. The functionality offered by modules like mod_rewrite, mod_proxy and mod_perl for me beats II7 by far.
    • virtualization: Not sure what that refers to.
    • hot add/remove/replace ram/cpu/gpu/pci-express/sata: That probably depends on the hardware also. Not sure how much Mac OS X supports it; the Xserves have some support for it, but Apple isn't very strong in this area. Doesn't affect me, though, since my servers run neither Mac OS X nor Windows.
    • Metro: Not sure how that is going to be more useful than PDF. Even if Metro has so many more nice features -- there are now so many different non-Adobe PDF toolchains available, it will take years for equivalent non-Microsoft Metro toolchains to appear.
    • virtual folders: see virtual file hierarchy above
    • true resolution/pixel independence: I agree I don't like the way Mac OS X handles this. However, as someone who has developed and deployed Windows software before, it is nowhere near as painful as trying to support the font scaling on Windows. Try setting your fonts to 150% and see how many apps still look nice. MS really has to fix that, and I'm curious to see what it looks like in Longhorn.
    • auxiliary display support: Not quite sure what you're missing here.
    • true work collaboration: Not a OS, but more of an application feature. See Rendezvous/Bonjour.
    • application sharing: not sure what that refers to.
    • Remote desktop: Neither Mac OS X nor Windows XP (and I guess also not Longhorn) have/will have true remote desktop functionality, as in: The remote desktop showing something different than the local windows. So far, the only mainstream system that allows for that is X-Windows on Unix.
    • Remote assistance: Not an OS, but a software feature. Again, the usefulness of specific remote assistance software is overrated. Even many Windows-using companies just use VNC for that, since it's so much cheaper :).
    • volume shadow copy: You mean software RAID?
    • WinFS: See virtual file hierarchy/metadata above. We'll see how useful it really is. And how well it'll cope with being mirrored on non-Windows platforms for backups.
     

Share This Page