Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) at WWDC

[Hattig]

I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.

http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html

I'd always be choosing real-estate over scaling. So I'd always be using the OS the way we do today. I'm certainly not going to pick up a 24" Widescreen Dell or 23" Apple Cinema Screen and operate it as a more detailed 1024x768 display. Real estate is what I need.

Seems like a gimmick.

Those displays don't have a high DPI though.

As an extreme example, imagine a 2560x2048 19" display. That would have a high DPI, that's when you'd use a resolution independent interface, it keeps the text the same size on screen as a 1280x1024 19" display, but makes it more legible.

This technology isn't really that useful today except on some of the very high DPI laptop displays. However in the future things will change, and it is sensible to be ready today.

 

[icloud]

They Might hopefully even change the way stickies look

the OS 8 & 9 vibe from those is bringing me down

 

[(L)]

OK. As a closet PC 'ricer' as well as Mac user, I can see the appeal. Now, overclocking and other 'enthusiast' options only really make sense if the user has full control over the components (gimme those OCZ DIMMS with crazy activity LEDs on them and insane voltage tolerances!).

Which means one of two options for Apple:

- Massively diversify their product line. Offer dozens of different build-to-order options. This isn't really do-able. You lose some of the integration of a standardised platform. You also incredibly complicate your supply chain.

- Unlock their OS to run on any hardware. I really hope we're all agreed that this quite simply is not an option. It would mean the death of Apple and OS X. Apple is not Microsoft. The reason MS is profitable is not because they sell many copies of Windows. It's the massively expensive licenses for everything else -- SQL Server, IIS, Windows Server 2003, SQL client access licenses, IIS client access licenses, Windows Server client licenses, Office licenses, SharePoint Server and client access licenses. Do not underestimate the absolutely huge amounts of money every single medium to large size business bleeds out to Microsoft. Apple does not have that arrangement, and most likely never will. Why? Because that sort of business model is under attack. Why on earth should every business Windows client need a licence just to access their own files on a Windows fileserver? Seriously: when you enable 'Windows Sharing' in OS X's System Preferences, you're enabling something which every single Windows client in the business world has to pay for. Same goes for the FTP and Web Server features on OS X.

Hardware sales are Apple's lifeblood. They've tried licensing the OS before, and they nearly died. They've tried diversifying the product line (GAAH! *How* many Performas did the world need?), and it simply led to profit dilution and consumer confusion.

Apple's a minority player. But their business is profitable. OS X development is progressing nicely. Their hardware, whilst not suited to all, is nicely built, and attractive enough that they sell enough to make money and re-invest. That's pretty much all I ask.

Yeah, and really I'd be fine if Macs rose to and capped off at like 20% market share or whatever, enough for people not to be able to ignore it. That way, schools, businesses, legal/gvt institutions have to tailor to the Mac too.

 

[(L)]

Those displays don't have a high DPI though.

As an extreme example, imagine a 2560x2048 19" display. That would have a high DPI, that's when you'd use a resolution independent interface, it keeps the text the same size on screen as a 1280x1024 19" display, but makes it more legible.

This technology isn't really that useful today except on some of the very high DPI laptop displays. However in the future things will change, and it is sensible to be ready today.

Higher resolution at the same size would be great. That's obviously more easy on the eyes. Plus, Apple's displays on the portables still lag behind.

 

[Fredo Viola]

the sneech

http://www.firstanimationart.com/SEUSS3.html

 

[(L)]

That's not the case. The license agreement says you can only use it on Apple hardware.Even if you buy a copy, you're in violation if you install it on generic hardware.

Yeah, sorry. I forgot about the whole EULA thing. I never read that one. But then, I don't try to hack OS X because I can afford to pay for the real deal.

 

[(L)]

http://www.firstanimationart.com/SEUSS3.html

Umm, ok , now i know what they look like. What was the point again?

Edit - lol just to let you ppl know, i am educated, I just don't remember any children's stories. I think. Too many years of perversion - Snow White and the Seven Wolves, Three Little Porks, Robin Hood (lol).

 

[Fredo Viola]

Umm, ok , now i know what they look like. What was the point again?

Edit - lol just to let you ppl know, i am educated, I just don't remember any children's stories. I think. Too many years of perversion - Snow White and the Seven Wolves, Three Little Porks, Robin Hood (lol).

I think you asked what a sneech was. I'm not sure what his point was. Super ambiguous and terrifyingly mysterious, no doubt!

 

[(L)]

I think you asked what a sneech was. I'm not sure what his point was. Super ambiguous and terrifyingly mysterious, no doubt!

Well, thanks, though. Of course, I won't remember what a Sneetch is in a couple of days. Or, I'll get it confused with something else.

Oh yeah, you know Windows Vista is going to get a whooping from OS 10.5 "Sneetch"? It'll be just like the leopards from Doctor Zeus.

 

[dr_lha]

Of course, to apply that patch, you must have a full copy of OS X DVD, wich you can obtain at any Apple Retail Store.

No, you can't buy it from a retail store (only PPC OS X can be bought from a retail store right now). You're wrong there, and you prove it with the following....

For example, I'm testing OS X from the DVD that came with an aunt's Mac Mini.

Which is of course breaking the license agreement that that OS X only be installed on the one machine that it came with.

 

[rog]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

 

[(L)]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Hmm...are WWDC's planned ahead of the release though? Seems like an August WWDC doesn't pin Apple on a release date, just some time in the near future? Plus aren't they scheduled for convenience?

 

[milo]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Most speculation puts it about the same time as Vista, either late 06 or early 07. I'll bet it ships before vista, although it would be funny if it shipped a few days after vista and stole the press away.

 

[dr_lha]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

To be fair though, Tiger probably already blows away Vista.

 

[Eric5h5]

I can't think of any reason why I'd want Resolution Independent UI.

You want it because you can scale everything to whatever size is most comfortable for you and works best on your display. No more being held hostage to bitmaps. Not only is it not a gimmick, but we probably should have had it by now, and it will only get more and more important in the future as displays get higher dpi.

--Eric

 

[carfac]

I think I might rather see LESS than MORE new things in Leopard. I would rather see all the things in Tiger finished before I see any new things. Obviously, Boot Camp is a given, and inside the code rather than as an add on would be good. But let's face it, as good as Tiger is, it is not finished yet.

I would hate to see the day that OS X is the bloatware that Win is. Keep adding the newest and latest ideas, and let last years new and good ideas remain, unfinished- not where I want things. Stop adding new things, and get the WHOLE GUI consistent. Fix Finder and Spotlight. Tune kernel.

That said, my prediction for Leopard is a brand-new look. I think it will be funny when Vista-Aqua clone is the "newest and best" from Redmond, and Cupertino ditches that for something new entirely.

So here is one vote for nothing new in Leopard, other than a Tiger that works.

dk

 

[boncellis]

How about Fast User Switching to XP? <ducks>

I think Tiger is fabulous as it is, the "breakthrough" I heard about from the beginning in Longhorn is the SQL-esque file system and searching capabilities. That was, let me check, about 4 years ago. I suppose enhanced Spotlight functionality will be included, along with the usual streamlining of the code itself. Leopard might also include virtualization capability, which would be welcome--but other than a new iCal (to answer the latest Google release), I really don't know what new features could be in store.

One thing I keep anticipating is for Apple to shrink OS X down into a "mobile" version. I think Apple could really do well in that area, but it would have to be introduced alongside a mobile device.

 

[rockthecasbah]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

but did Apple start writing Leopard stuff at the same time years previous that they did with Tiger? They could have started later, or had delays. I mean there isn't really a big enough timeline of patterns (that you are stating anyway) to truly back up that claim. For all we know Apple could have this ready earlier or later, we just don't know.

 

[MarkCollette]

It would be nice if they had it out for the holiday season, seeing as Vista isn't going to make it before then. And besides, maybe someone will buy it for me.

After the bugs in early versions of 10.3 and 10.4, I really hope that Apple takes whatever time is necessary to make 10.5 work properly, right out of the gate.

 

[treblah]

Given how long it was from the June 04 WWDC to the April release of Tiger, we're probably looking at a May 07 release, too late to blow away Vista before it even comes out. Oh well, another lost opportunity for Apple. Oddly, macs may be running Vista before Leopard.

Or you could say given how long it took Apple to preview Panther at WWDC to release (~5 months) we could be looking at a Holiday '06 release.

I'm not suggesting that but it is always a possibility.

 

[MarkCollette]

Woah! Slow down there, cowboy.....

Are we talking about...

4D?

Wow.

I think my shoes are talking to me, man.

Apple has collaborated with the finest mathematicians, physicists, and software developers to bring us 4D computing in the upcoming OS X 10.5, right on your typical CRT or LCD screen.

As they explained it to me, the 4 dimensional experience is represented in its 3 dimensional subcomponents in their respective discrete time intervals. Sufficient granularity of the time interval partitioning adequately maps into our mind's cognitive perception of 4D. The 3 dimension subcomponents are then mathematically projected upon a 2 dimensional plane, via a matrox of G forces emmitting electromagnetic radeonosity, which is then displayed on your screen. To the layman, it might appear like voodoo, but I assure you, it's all based in sound science.

 

[blybug]

Migration Assistant

If Lepoard + Boot Camp + iPod Halo = Switchers, I predict Leopard must include a Migration Assistant that includes migrating from Windows. On first bootup, the computer asks if you want to transfer your information from another Mac or a Windows computer. The Mac transfer would proceed as presently, but the Windows transfer would offer to install Windows and (permitted) apps in its own partition if desired (Boot Camp style) and/or transfer all the user's documents, pictures, and music into the analagous areas on the Mac. Imagine their amazement if upon completion of the first bootup all their songs are in iTunes, all their photos in iPhoto, all their Word or Powerpoint docs open in (trial) versions of Mac Office or iWork, and if they need to they can always boot over into Windows. Who wouldn't want a Mac at that point?

This is the last "excuse" for switchers..."How do I get all my stuff over to the Mac?"

 

[whooleytoo]

but did Apple start writing Leopard stuff at the same time years previous that they did with Tiger? They could have started later, or had delays. I mean there isn't really a big enough timeline of patterns (that you are stating anyway) to truly back up that claim. For all we know Apple could have this ready earlier or later, we just don't know.

Supposedly, there have been 2 OS teams beavering away for the last few years. One is the 'new technology team', releasing 10.0, 10.2 and 10.4, and one a 'maintenance' team (don't know how else to describe it), 10.1 and 10.3.

Leopard will be the first OS X version to be released by the combined team, pointing to the fact it's likely to be the most significant upgrade yet.

 

[Sunrunner]

Supposedly, there have been 2 OS teams beavering away for the last few years. One is the 'new technology team', releasing 10.0, 10.2 and 10.4, and one a 'maintenance' team (don't know how else to describe it), 10.1 and 10.3.

Leopard will be the first OS X version to be released by the combined team, pointing to the fact it's likely to be the most significant upgrade yet.

What was the source for that juicy info?

 

[Joe2000]

For the price, I think my upgrade from 10.2 - 10.4 was well worth it.

On another note, I don't want Microsoft to "steal" great ideas from Leopard at WWDC and then just "pop them in" to Vista last minute. Mind you, it's microsoft, they have never "gotten it right" so oh well. My father in law is always amazed with the new Windows OS when my brother in law and I say "yeah, we've been doing... xxx ... for a while on the mac already".

I think if you can stand the headaches involved in using Windows it is a cheaper option - if it comes bundled with a PC. If you buy a full retail version of Tiger (or any previous version of OS X) it costs you (in UK) £89.99, whereas an Upgrade package of XP Pro costs you £189.99 - note to use this you must already have Windows 98, ME or 2000 installed! So if you have Windows NT or Windows 95 or you've just built your own PC You'd have to pay a truly awful price of £279.99 for the full version of Windows XP Pro!

Microsoft should be bombed! Now where did i leave that stick of plutonium...

I am using an HP Pavilion 7919 Desktop PC atm, its a 900MHz Duron with 512MB Ram, 30GB HardDrive and S3 Prosavage4 graphics - sponging 16MB of my precious Ram!

I sold both my Macs so I can buy a MacBook when they arrive and using this pile of loud, ugly **** running XP Pro i'm thinking "i'd give anything to be using a 333MHz iMac running OS 9 rather than this"

oh well...HURRY UP MACBOOKS!

- Joe.