Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
10.6 Referenced in iPhone SDK Installer
- Thread starter crees!
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My complete speculation is that 10.5 is the last release that will support PPC. I think Apple is moving quickly to orphan these legacy platforms. Dropping all support for Classic mode and artificially limiting Leopard to a certain class of G4 systems and above are big indicators that future releases will not include PPC.
I say "artificially" because there was no technical reason to restrict Leopard installs to 867 MHz CPUs and above. Multiple ways were found to work around the installer limitation and all reports were that Leopard worked just fine on systems with slower CPUs once installed. The abandonment of Classic mode also seems to have had no technical justification, other than I suppose eliminating some complexity from the OS. The main impetus for these decisions appears to be marketing, i.e., encouraging customers along the path of upgrading to Intel-based systems.
It will be very easy for Apple to distribute 10.6 as an Intel-only release, forcing anyone who wants the latest OS goodies onto new hardware.
I think it's interesting that no one, no one has seriously pondered the possibility of OS X 10.6 (code named Fritz or whatever) being announced at WWDC. Thing is, that's where it SHOULD be announced. Looking at the schedule I think it's unlikely, but still possible. Only a few "to be announced" sessions, and mostly in the latter part of the week, so my expectations are low.
OS X is on an 18-24 month revision cycle. 10.5 was announced August 2006. It was supposed to ship May/June 2007 but slipped to October 2007 (26 months). So in theory 10.6 should be released anywhere in the December 2008-October 2009 range depending on how you look at it. Since we've heard nothing thus far, I'll bet it would be towards the latter side.
Developers need a WWDC during the development phase of an OS to learn the innards. We will never (or should never) have an OS release otherwise.
I think it's conceivable we'll start to hear official word of 10.6 at WWDC, but again I don't think we'll hear much. Certainly no seed distribution, etc.
Good timing might be for a formal announcement at MacWorld 2009, with shipping in September-November 2009. I think WWDC should be earlier in the cycle (assuming a semi-traditional June WWDC) but that could work.
I was really hoping for a 10.6 show at WWDC this year, but again it doesn't look promising. Maybe we'll get some vague mentions of new API's we'll see "in a future release" without any demo.
But Apple better already be working on it (should have started a year ago, with work in earnest starting last fall).
Another possibility, I suppose, is that the iPhone 2.0 codebase is closely related to the upcoming 10.6 codebase. Maybe that's how the 10.6 item got thrown in there.
Fritz, yeah, Fritz.
I think we'll have one more release for PPC, although I suspect there will be Intel-only features. I also think we'll have lots of Intel-only software in the meantime (including the Pro apps from Apple, and more from Adobe) to push people to Intel.
Microsoft got lots of negative feedback for requiring upgrades for Vista. I don't think Apple will risk the same. Intel MacPro is 22 months old now, same with XServe. I can't see Apple requiring someone with a three-year-old high-end Mac to upgrade their hardware. I could see them requiring a G5, but not Intel-only.
OS X is on an 18-24 month revision cycle. 10.5 was announced August 2006. It was supposed to ship May/June 2007 but slipped to October 2007 (26 months). So in theory 10.6 should be released anywhere in the December 2008-October 2009 range depending on how you look at it. Since we've heard nothing thus far, I'll bet it would be towards the latter side.
Developers need a WWDC during the development phase of an OS to learn the innards. We will never (or should never) have an OS release otherwise.
I think it's conceivable we'll start to hear official word of 10.6 at WWDC, but again I don't think we'll hear much. Certainly no seed distribution, etc.
Good timing might be for a formal announcement at MacWorld 2009, with shipping in September-November 2009. I think WWDC should be earlier in the cycle (assuming a semi-traditional June WWDC) but that could work.
I was really hoping for a 10.6 show at WWDC this year, but again it doesn't look promising. Maybe we'll get some vague mentions of new API's we'll see "in a future release" without any demo.
But Apple better already be working on it (should have started a year ago, with work in earnest starting last fall).
Another possibility, I suppose, is that the iPhone 2.0 codebase is closely related to the upcoming 10.6 codebase. Maybe that's how the 10.6 item got thrown in there.
Fritz, yeah, Fritz.
I think we'll have one more release for PPC, although I suspect there will be Intel-only features. I also think we'll have lots of Intel-only software in the meantime (including the Pro apps from Apple, and more from Adobe) to push people to Intel.
Microsoft got lots of negative feedback for requiring upgrades for Vista. I don't think Apple will risk the same. Intel MacPro is 22 months old now, same with XServe. I can't see Apple requiring someone with a three-year-old high-end Mac to upgrade their hardware. I could see them requiring a G5, but not Intel-only.
Sure, why not. I believe 10.5 was delayed due to some sort of panic in the iPhone software department, right? So they had to transfer some resources to getting the iPhone software ready and put 10.5 on hold?
That's not happening again (not for iPhone 2.0 anyway) so I guess they're back on their normal revision cycle.
The thing I don't know is whether the rather big Leopard announcement they made ages before the actual release (lots of QuickTime movies showing various Leopard features in action, etc) was a one-off to keep interest warm during the prolonged development cycle, or if it was the beginning of a trend...
I think the PPC funeral will be an easier sell if they sync it with 'going to 11' (or XI, or whatever), so perhaps there will be one last PPC supporting version (10.6) and then they close that chapter, along with the "X" era, and move on to 11.
This is going to seem horribly nerdy, but my friend and I used to program for the calculator like no-one's business! Constantly!
Anyway, my point is that the most prized program I ever made was called Planner. It went through incremental versions (Planner, Planner 2, Planner 3, etc) until version seven, when it switched to X. At the time, I thought it was perfect.
When I finally found something to improve, I was faced with a problem with the name similar to that which Apple will have after OS X. So what did I do? Planner X^2 (read 'Planner x squared'. The 2 should really be superscript)
Just throwing out an idea for a possibility for OS X's successor.
Anyway, my point is that the most prized program I ever made was called Planner. It went through incremental versions (Planner, Planner 2, Planner 3, etc) until version seven, when it switched to X. At the time, I thought it was perfect.
When I finally found something to improve, I was faced with a problem with the name similar to that which Apple will have after OS X. So what did I do? Planner X^2 (read 'Planner x squared'. The 2 should really be superscript)
Just throwing out an idea for a possibility for OS X's successor.
I've got it...
10.6 Laser Cat
"There are two things that everyone loves, cats and lasers!"
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=2925
Or of course Steve could just switch it up and start naming them after Lost characters:
10.6 Jack
10.7 Locke
10.8 Sayid
10.9 Kate
10.10 Hurley
10.6 Laser Cat
"There are two things that everyone loves, cats and lasers!"
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=2925
Or of course Steve could just switch it up and start naming them after Lost characters:
10.6 Jack
10.7 Locke
10.8 Sayid
10.9 Kate
10.10 Hurley
I should have been clearer, it was speculation based on observation and things I have read. As we all know, Apple rarely talks about future products or plans.
I think they will do one more PPC release (10.6) then go intel only. Universal Binaries are a bind, the testing of legacy systems is a bind. Supporting EFI and open firmware is a bind. They'd rather not do it.
Apple has show with the iPhone SDK (intel only) and Java 6 (64bit intel only) that they are well on their way to eliminating PPC from the equation.
I think they will do one more PPC release (10.6) then go intel only. Universal Binaries are a bind, the testing of legacy systems is a bind. Supporting EFI and open firmware is a bind. They'd rather not do it.
Apple has show with the iPhone SDK (intel only) and Java 6 (64bit intel only) that they are well on their way to eliminating PPC from the equation.
I think that the code you quoted was simply to make sure that the OS wasn't any higher than leopard... I'm not sure why they would be checking for that at this point, but I think it will be at least 6 - 8 months before they even think about 10.6 lol, Microsoft was working on 7 before Vista was even out much less stable. Apple seems to have the better approach.
And towards the post above... I definetly think Leopard is the last PPC OS we will ever see come out of cupertino.
And towards the post above... I definetly think Leopard is the last PPC OS we will ever see come out of cupertino.
Actually, the development time for each version has steadily increased.
10 -> 10.1: 6 mos.
10.1 -> 10.2: 11 mos.
10.2 -> 10.3: 14 mos.
10.3 -> 10.4: 17 mos.
10.4 -> 10.5: 30 mos.
Even taking into account the iPhone-induced delay, the time to the next version has steadily gotten longer every time.
You mean Lynx.
I love how people skipped over the 3 important bits of news in the this thread and diverge to the usual naming convention arguments.
These points were pretty obvious however the combination of them adds up to be more important than OMG 10.6 Ocelot is a stupid name I want it to be 10.6 Geoffroy's Cat
- 10.6 is reference in the iPhone SDK
- Work has begun on the next OS
- Multitouch is coming to OSX
There is copyright law and issue relating to such with X11 open source
I doubt they could call it Vista, XP or anything like that
Its Lynx *sigh*
I was under the impression that the OS X in the iPhone is a subset of the OS X that is in the computers? If so, then there are two flavors of OS X going concurrently now.
With the focus on all the iPhone talk going on right now, I'd be willing to bet that the "One more thing," on June 9th will come right out of left field.
OS X on the iPhone is not a dual OS strategy, it's using the OS on a different platform for a different product. Multiple OS strategy usually infers supporting multiple OS at the same time, much like M$ has done and continues to do by offering 5 differing versions of Vista. Unless you buy the "Ultimate" version, you do not get a full featured OS. They do the same with their software (e.g. 3 different types of M$ Office for the Mac).
This is not strictly true either - just like MacOS, there have been two development lines:
Windows (of various versions up to 3.1.1), 95, 98, ME. ME was the end of the line, just like MacOS 9
Windows NT - which is the current development line. Windows NT 4 is version 4 in the current line, not Windows ME. Windows 2000 = Windows NT 5, Windows XP = Windows NT 5.1, Windows Vista = Windows NT 6, and then Windows 7 which is likely to get some cutesy name at release.
Version numbers are arbitrary - they are at the whim of marketers. Plenty of products have skipped versions.
Also - Whoever mentioned Word 2.0 jumping to Word 6.0 - that may be true on Windows, however I distinctly remember using Word 5 on Mac - it fitted on a floppy, not like the bloatware of Word 6.
Getting back on topic - I wonder why the iPhone MacOS X needs a check for 10.6? There can't be any 10.6 specific features in it yet that need a test such as this.
You have absolutely no idea what the next release of the Mac OS will be named, so stop acting like you do. There is absolutely no way you could possibly know, unless you work at Apple and are breaking NDA. So, like I said, there's no way for you to know. As far as I know, Apple has a few names trademarked - cougar, lynx - and could use those or any other naming scheme for the next version.
*sigh*
I will either say OS X generically, or if I'm being specific, I will just say "Leopard" or "Tiger" or whatever.
OS 9 to OS X was a major change right? They moved from whatever they had to a unix like OS. What if OS 11 moves us away from UNIX? :0
I'm betting the next OS is gonna be called cougar btw.
I'm betting the next OS is gonna be called cougar btw.
Except for 10.1 and 10.0 those are all big cats out of the family Panthera. Puma and Cougar is the same animal afaik?
Well if they start using small cats as well (like Cougar and Lynx) then there are plenty of others from which they can choose.
*sigh*
"Mac OS X" is a product name, not a version number. To distinguish the newer generation OS, they called it "Mac OS X" instead of "Mac OS", and continued the numbering from 10.0 onwards, just as they renamed "System" to "Mac OS" and kept the versions going from 7.6 upwards. It's just that the X is pronounced "ten". That's also why the server product is "Mac OS X Server", not "Mac OS Server X".
Mac OS X 10.5.3 means "v10.5.3" of the "Mac OS X" product. There is no such thing as "Mac OS 10.5.3" or "Mac OS X.5.3", nor does "Mac OS 10.5.3 Server" or "Mac OS X.5.3 Server" make any sense. It's "Mac OS X Server 10.5.3".
It annoys me when people pronounce it "Mac Oh Ess Ex", but as incorrect as that is, it does help distinguish the product name from the version number. If you prefer, mentally insert the word "Client" between the "X" and the version number (just don't actually type it or people will make fun of you).
As far as changing the first number in the version from 10 to 11, the correct labelling based on the current naming system would be Mac OS X 11.0. ie: version 11.0 of the "Mac OS X" product, just as there is "Rainbow Six 3" and "Connect360 3.35" (which doesn't mean that they can't go 10.9.11 or 10.85.43 or anything else if they wanted to).
"Mac OS X" is a product name, not a version number. To distinguish the newer generation OS, they called it "Mac OS X" instead of "Mac OS", and continued the numbering from 10.0 onwards, just as they renamed "System" to "Mac OS" and kept the versions going from 7.6 upwards. It's just that the X is pronounced "ten". That's also why the server product is "Mac OS X Server", not "Mac OS Server X".
Mac OS X 10.5.3 means "v10.5.3" of the "Mac OS X" product. There is no such thing as "Mac OS 10.5.3" or "Mac OS X.5.3", nor does "Mac OS 10.5.3 Server" or "Mac OS X.5.3 Server" make any sense. It's "Mac OS X Server 10.5.3".
It annoys me when people pronounce it "Mac Oh Ess Ex", but as incorrect as that is, it does help distinguish the product name from the version number. If you prefer, mentally insert the word "Client" between the "X" and the version number (just don't actually type it or people will make fun of you).
As far as changing the first number in the version from 10 to 11, the correct labelling based on the current naming system would be Mac OS X 11.0. ie: version 11.0 of the "Mac OS X" product, just as there is "Rainbow Six 3" and "Connect360 3.35" (which doesn't mean that they can't go 10.9.11 or 10.85.43 or anything else if they wanted to).
according to Wikipedia " Apple has also registered "Lynx" and "Cougar" as trademarks"
so im thinking 10.6 will be Lynx and 10.7 will be Cougar or vice versa. mac os 11 would have to be very different im thinking multi touch or brain wave reading and hopefully the computer that they run on will have no wires at all (the power would go though a induction loop desk). i really hate cables
Start the rumour mill going here...
I guess once the 3G iPhone is finally out, we'll need a new fix...
I guess once the 3G iPhone is finally out, we'll need a new fix...
No, they didn't. For the nth time, OS X simply means "Generation (uni)X" of Macintosh OS. This means that we now currently have version 5.3 of the unix generation Mac OS.
Forget the ten-eleven-rubbish. Eleven is not going to happen, it's OS X (Generation uniX) for now. Currently at 5.3 but there's no reason why we couldn't have an OS X version 26.11 or something.
They have actually UN-painted themselves OUT of their corner by making X such a huge brand.
Why would there ever be a Mac OS eleven? Last Mac OS was number nine. After that it has been OS X (running at version 5.3 currently). Classic Mac OS is dead, just accept it and move on.
OS X is not a Mac OS 10 even though Steve tried to calm old dinosaurs by statig it as such in the beginning. OS X is a Generation (uni)X and a brand in itself; it has different versions just as Classic Mac OS had; currently we're at 5.3 and for now it looks like they can keep the brand "forever".
Except that it's not unix-like OS but instead a true UNIX (unlike Linux which is a unix-like OS). How hard it is to understand that OS X is a UNIX is a UNIX is a UNIX.
Yep, except that 10.1 was a Mac OS X Version 1 as the 10.0 was a Mac OS X Beta. All real releases (10.1, 10.2, 10.3 and so on) are just what it says: OS X version one, two, three...
ten-dot means OS X and OS X means ten-dot. It's a name, not a version. We're at product OS X version 5.3 currently.
OS X is a product. Not operating system version ten. OS X, a brand. Leopard, a code name for OS X version five. Currently OS X version 5.3. Not that hard...
This thread reminds me of a joke.
Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it ?
Bada bing bada bam bada boom
Does anal retentive have a hyphen in it ?
Bada bing bada bam bada boom
Hmmm, 2006 comes to mind, If i remember rightly:
Apple announced Mac OS X Leopard for June 2006
It was demoed at WWDC
It was delayed until October 26th
Released October 26th
Mac OS X Tiger debuted in 2005
Versions continued up to 10.4.10 before Leopards Release in October of 2006
10.4.11 arrived shortly after.
By that information an announcement of Mac OS X 10.6 *-Insert Name Here-* at WWDC '08 is very likely. It will probably be demoed and then delayed a few months later until much later in 2009.
Cheers!
allbrokeup
P.S. What do you think?
Sounds about right. A late '09 release. Hopefully new features won't be hyped at the expense of stability. I'm just hoping for the ability to run any video cards from ATI and Nvidia instead of the the limited selection that's available today.
