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

Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), iLife '07, and iWork '07 in March?

EagerDragon said:
I'm I out of contact with what 64 bits means?
Yes it does means that it is able to address 64 bit addresses, but it was also my understanding that 64 bit chips also have registers that are 64 bit wide, and instructions that can work on 64 bits at a time. For example intead of performing mutliple 8 bit operations or 4 16 operations or 2 32 bits operations, it instead executes 1 single intruction able to operate on all 64 bits in that clock cycle.

Has this change and now all they do is perform on large address spaces?

If that is the case, it's not worth as much.
Click to expand...

Yes, the x86_64 architecture also increases all general-purpose registers to 64 bits, and adds the ability to perform atomic 64-bit register-to-register (and register-to-RAM?) operations. It also adds a greater number of general-purpose registers than can be accessed by the IA32 architecture (or 32-bit mode processes running on the x86_64).

This is tied in to the common principle that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void*).

Of course, the 64-bit virtual address space and 64-bit atomic integer size are both inextricably tied to the presence of a 64-bit processor (but as has been very thoroughly pointed out, it has nothing to do with the width of the address bus which physically interfaces with the outside world), so all of us early adopters and un-modded Mac Mini users will still be working in a purely 32-bit world.
 
phillipjfry said:
I still stand by my theory that Apple gives public developers (NDA or not) the chunks of Leopard they want them to see, and not the whole Leopard code.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Apple gives the developers what they need so that they can start developing their programs (makes sense). It doesn't need to give the devs all the new features if they don't directly impact the developers' work. Why give them a BMW when an ford escort will get them to work (for now).
 
Plumbstone said:
I am in two minds about Leopard.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't time machine need its own partition to run? Kind of greedy don't you think?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am reasonably together, I back up pretty regulaly and keep pretty good track of what goes on on my computer. When I delete something I want it gone, not copied onto some space hungry partition with everycopy of every document I've ever created...

Spaces however, that's a different story....

Oh and I have 100% confirmation that 10.6 is simply ging to be called "*****"
Click to expand...

You may do those things but the average person does not. Time Machine is a huge plus for the average person.
 
chmorley said:
Nope. A popular myth, but a myth, nonetheless. Gates tries to make it sound this way because it benefits him, but it's just not so.

Here's a good reference:

http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui_history.html

Tell all your friends. This is one of those "say it enough and it might as well be true" pieces of the mythology I'd just as soon see go away.

Chris
Click to expand...

Ahhhh! Excelent! I was trying to remember that website to clear some facts to the guy you quoted too! I'm glad someone remembered to clear Apple's name in that myth :)

Anyway, Leopard in June, that would be my bet. And it's all good, I love Tiger, it's not like we're anxiously waiting for the OSX release that will change our lives, 10.4 is a very very good OS.
Though I agree, it's much more stable on the PPC platform.
 
flyinmac said:
I bailed as soon as they started charging for it.

What disappointment.
(... shortened/removed for sake of brevity...)

.Mac to me is basically just an overpriced version of Hotmail, or Gmail, or any other free service.

My having a .Mac e-mail address did more for Apple in terms of advertising the Mac than it ever did for me. I already had free e-mail available from my ISP, and could get any number of them for free from anyone else.

Otherwise, it's only useful feature might be synchronization or iDisk. But, like many, I have little desire to place my files on a remote server (where I have to wait to download them as I need them). And, synchronizing is not really that hard to do without .Mac. I keep 3 systems synced without paying a dime for any utility.

So, really, what they need more than an update is a price reduction. $99 is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, George Castanza's of the web come forward...

Maybe all of us who DO like the "miserable", "pathetic", "ridiculous", "rip-off" (pick one) service called .mac would happily pay an additional $9 per year to compensate disappointed users if it kept them from whining in forums.

I am aware of the fact that I can get all of this for less if I sign up to 5 different providers and spent hours on testing it all out. It now so happens that my time is worth more than that. If your situation is different, that's your life. Perhaps consider spending your time on Linux too, some buck to be saved there as well (as long as your "time" is "free"). For myself, I'll stick to Apple OS X and .mac because it works great for me.. And yes, I am aware of del.icio.us and Amazon S3 (which is great too, no doubt!), and do use them for specific things. :apple:

It never ceases to amaze me how people whine about things ("online storage" for example) just because THEY don't like it and automatically feel the need to tell the world how it is crap for everyone. :)

Security guy: "You have come to a sad realization... Allow or Deny?" :D
 
sexyfoolxx said:
i can't believe this hasn't been mentioned yet, but looprumors brought it to my attention a month (or two?) ago...that on march 24th (officially spring) will mark the 6th year anniversary of OS X, and also resides on a saturday (like when 10.0 was released) makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...

I've posted this before. I think there were also other versions of OS X (maybe 10.1?) that were released on 3/24.
 
psingh01 said:
I've posted this before. I think there were also other versions of OS X (maybe 10.1?) that were released on 3/24.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure that Apple cares much about anniversaries. After-all, they let their 30th come and go without even acknowledging it.

I can't imagine any other company ignoring such an event. Many companies have annual anniversary parties / sales. Apple let the 30th go by without a word. I guess Steve isn't married :p Or, at least not to Apple. If he was, he'd have known not to let that milestone go unacknowledged. If Apple were a woman, she'd have smacked him good for that one :D
 
flyinmac said:
I'm not really sure that Apple cares much about anniversaries. After-all, they let their 30th come and go without even acknowledging it.

I can't imagine any other company ignoring such an event. Many companies have annual anniversary parties / sales. Apple let the 30th go by without a word. I guess Steve isn't married :p Or, at least not to Apple. If he was, he'd have known not to let that milestone go unacknowledged. If Apple were a woman, she'd have smacked him good for that one :D
Click to expand...

The 20th anniversary Mac wasn't released until almost a year after the 20th anniversary of the Mac.

http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=anniversary&performa=off&sort=date&order=ASC

"Although officially produced in celebration of the Twentieth Anniversary of Apple, the 20th Anniversary Mac was released close to a year after the fact, in late Spring, 1997."

The 30th could very well be on it's way ;)
 
flyinmac said:
I'm not really sure that Apple cares much about anniversaries. After-all, they let their 30th come and go without even acknowledging it.

I can't imagine any other company ignoring such an event. Many companies have annual anniversary parties / sales. Apple let the 30th go by without a word. I guess Steve isn't married :p Or, at least not to Apple. If he was, he'd have known not to let that milestone go unacknowledged. If Apple were a woman, she'd have smacked him good for that one :D
Click to expand...

it was acknowledged at the beginning of the year with macworld and the banners, also who says you can't celebrate all year, and steve did mention that 07 was gonna be the most exciting year for apple...to me the new products seem to be the celebration
 
sexyfoolxx said:
it was acknowledged at the beginning of the year with macworld and the banners, also who says you can't celebrate all year, and steve did mention that 07 was gonna be the most exciting year for apple...to me the new products seem to be the celebration
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I could see that as an acknowledgment from a certain perspective.

But, the way it was presented simply said to me that we've been building computers for 30 years and we're going to really blow your mind with our new phone.

So, yes they acknowledged 30 years. But, not in a way that really indicated that it was an anniversary.

I guess I look at it this way:

If I tell someone in-front of my wife that we've been married for say 15 years, that doesn't carry the same weight as if I said today is our 15th anniversary.

I guarantee you that my wife would see a distinction there.
 
flyinmac said:
Well, I guess I could see that as an acknowledgment from a certain perspective.

But, the way it was presented simply said to me that we've been building computers for 30 years and we're going to really blow your mind with our new phone.

So, yes they acknowledged 30 years. But, not in a way that really indicated that it was an anniversary.

I guess I look at it this way:

If I tell someone in-front of my wife that we've been married for say 15 years, that doesn't carry the same weight as if I said today is our 15th anniversary.

I guarantee you that my wife would see a distinction there.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my post?
 
Peace said:
Did you not read my post?
Click to expand...

Yes. I read it.

I guess that would fall into the sorry I missed the date, but I remembered eventually. Please don't leave, I'll get flowers on the next one. I promise :D

But, seriously, it would be possible that they'd still release a 30th anniversary Mac later like they did for the 20th. But, it is strange that they would wait until the year of the anniversary is over to celebrate it.

If I remember correctly, the 30th anniversary was in April or so of 2006.

If my wife didn't slap me for forgetting the date of our anniversary, she'd definitely slap me for suddenly acknowledging it sometime the following year and still on the wrong date :eek:

But, yes, I agree it is possible that they might still acknowledge it with a machine later like you propose.

It would be interesting to see what such a machine might have.
 
flyinmac said:
Yes. I read it.

I guess that would fall into the sorry I missed the date, but I remembered eventually. Please don't leave, I'll get flowers on the next one. I promise :D

But, seriously, it would be possible that they'd still release a 30th anniversary Mac later like they did for the 20th. But, it is strange that they would wait until the year of the anniversary is over to celebrate it.

If I remember correctly, the 30th anniversary was in April or so of 2006.

If my wife didn't slap me for forgetting the date of our anniversary, she'd definitely slap me for suddenly acknowledging it sometime the following year and still on the wrong date :eek:

But, yes, I agree it is possible that they might still acknowledge it with a machine later like you propose.

It would be interesting to see what such a machine might have.
Click to expand...

the reason why this makes sense is because the point isn't to have it released for the 30th year, but for it to be made in the 30th year and released as the 30th ann. mac
 
sexyfoolxx said:
the reason why this makes sense is because the point isn't to have it released for the 30th year, but for it to be made in the 30th year and released as the 30th ann. mac
Click to expand...

Yes. But, wasn't the 30th year last year (2006).

As I understand it, they were founded April 1, 1976

That would make the year between April 1, 1976 and April 1, 1977 their first year.

So, if we follow that through:

April 1, 1976 to April 1, 1977 (1st year)
April 1, 1977 to April 1, 1978 (2nd year)
April 1, 1978 to April 1, 1979 (3rd year)
April 1, 1979 to April 1, 1980 (4th year)
April 1, 1980 to April 1, 1981 (5th year)
April 1, 1981 to April 1, 1982 (6th year)
April 1, 1982 to April 1, 1983 (7th year)
April 1, 1983 to April 1, 1984 (8th year)
April 1, 1984 to April 1, 1985 (9th year)
April 1, 1985 to April 1, 1986 (10th year)
April 1, 1986 to April 1, 1987 (11th year)
April 1, 1987 to April 1, 1988 (12th year)
April 1, 1988 to April 1, 1989 (13th year)
April 1, 1989 to April 1, 1990 (14th year)
April 1, 1990 to April 1, 1991 (15th year)
April 1, 1991 to April 1, 1992 (16th year)
April 1, 1992 to April 1, 1993 (17th year)
April 1, 1993 to April 1, 1994 (18th year)
April 1, 1994 to April 1, 1995 (19th year)
April 1, 1995 to April 1, 1996 (20th year)
April 1, 1996 to April 1, 1997 (21st year)
April 1, 1997 to April 1, 1998 (22nd year)
April 1, 1998 to April 1, 1999 (23rd year)
April 1, 1999 to April 1, 2000 (24th year)
April 1, 2000 to April 1, 2001 (25th year)
April 1, 2001 to April 1, 2002 (26th year)
April 1, 2002 to April 1, 2003 (27th year)
April 1, 2003 to April 1, 2004 (28th year)
April 1, 2004 to April 1, 2005 (29th year)
April 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006 (30th year)

April 1, 2006 to April 1, 2007 (31st year)


So, with that in-mind, it would appear as though they would have had to release it by April 1, 2006 in order to have released it during the 30th year.

If they release it now, it will be released during their 31st year. And, if they release it after April 1 this year, then it would be released during their 32nd year.

So, in that sense, it would be released for their 30th anniversary celebration and NOT during their 30th year.

Either way, it would be very late at this point.

But, if they wanted to release it for the 30th anniversary of the actual Macintosh, then I guess they'd still have a little while left since the Mac was first announced in 1984.
 
goosnarrggh said:
Yes, the x86_64 architecture also increases all general-purpose registers to 64 bits, and adds the ability to perform atomic 64-bit register-to-register (and register-to-RAM?) operations. It also adds a greater number of general-purpose registers than can be accessed by the IA32 architecture (or 32-bit mode processes running on the x86_64).

This is tied in to the common principle that sizeof(int) == sizeof(void*).

Of course, the 64-bit virtual address space and 64-bit atomic integer size are both inextricably tied to the presence of a 64-bit processor (but as has been very thoroughly pointed out, it has nothing to do with the width of the address bus which physically interfaces with the outside world), so all of us early adopters and un-modded Mac Mini users will still be working in a purely 32-bit world.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation, and yes the chip set ussualy controls the number of address leads and depending on the number of leads you may only be able to address only a max of 4 gigs of memory regardless of what is possible at the x86 chip level.

Well I feel better now as there are 64 bit instructions that if used can speed up some of the operations. Most programs won't take advantage of the 64 bit instructions but some would. 0.0001 faster is better than none, LOL.
 
flyinmac said:
Yes. But, wasn't the 30th year last year (2006).

As I understand it, they were founded April 1, 1976

That would make the year between April 1, 1976 and April 1, 1977 their first year.

So, if we follow that through:

April 1, 1976 to April 1, 1977 (1st year)
April 1, 1977 to April 1, 1978 (2nd year)
April 1, 1978 to April 1, 1979 (3rd year)
April 1, 1979 to April 1, 1980 (4th year)
April 1, 1980 to April 1, 1981 (5th year)
.
.
.
April 1, 2005 to April 1, 2006 (30th year)

April 1, 2006 to April 1, 2007 (31st year)


So, with that in-mind, it would appear as though they would have had to release it by April 1, 2006 in order to have released it during the 30th year.

If they release it now, it will be released during their 31st year. And, if they release it after April 1 this year, then it would be released during their 32nd year.

So, in that sense, it would be released for their 30th anniversary celebration and NOT during their 30th year.

Either way, it would be very late at this point.

But, if they wanted to release it for the 30th anniversary of the actual Macintosh, then I guess they'd still have a little while left since the Mac was first announced in 1984.
Click to expand...

I think I read somewhere that Apples considers the first year as year zero, so year 31 would be year 30th. I guess it comes from all the programming where array subscripts start with 0 and not 1. LOL
 
peharri said:
It's a file system. A file system is essentially the software that stores files on a disk, determining where to put them, and how to find them. Macintoshes normally use HFS+ for their file systems. Mac OS X also supports a file system called UFS, but almost nobody uses it. HFS+'s origins go back to later versions of classic Mac OS, where it was an upgrade to HFS, which in turn was designed back in the late 1980s, when most Macs primarily used 400k-1.4M floppy disks.

ZFS is an extremely advanced file system that supports a lot of things HFS+ doesn't. Many of them fit into the Macintosh "Just works" philosophy. For example, you can add a disk to your computer, and configure your existing "drive" to be spread over both the disk that was already in your computer, and the new one, without reformatting or losing any files. So by adding the disk, you've just added space to your computer, and it was completely transparent. No reorganizing of your disk is necessary.

ZFS is more future proof than HFS+ which means future Macs will be able to interoperate better with current Macs. It uses 128bit values to store things like file positions and sizes. What this boils down to is that you can have more bytes in a file than there are atoms in the universe, and ZFS will handle it gracefully. Of course, you'll need a disk that big, which you'll not be able to get, because, well, you'd need a lot of atoms ;)

Older file systems generally get "upgraded" every years with a batch of hacks to support larger disk sizes than were anticipated when the file system was written. That will not be necessary with ZFS.

ZFS supports the same kinds of things you're used to in Mac OS X, such as long filenames, directories, "meta data" (icons, file type information, default application, etc), and other useful extras.

It's extremely fast, and has little or no legacy issues that would slow it down.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

Bravo. :D
 
For all the conspiracy freaks out there.

A couple of weeks ago I posted info that Apple had a huge presence at this years NAB show in April.I found this out by going to Apple's website and looking at their list of upcoming events.Apple had the link to the NAB show there.It has been removed from the site.

If one goes to the NAB Show website and look at the exhibitors list Apple is no longer listed like it was when I visited that site a couple weeks ago,however if you dig deeper and look at the floorplan Apple is shown now with one VERY LARGE booth.It measures 160'X160'..

It makes me wonder exactly why Apple removed the NAB show listing from their upcoming events page and why the NAB removed Apple from the official list even though Apple is on the floorplan.


Something BIG is on it's way.
It's just one Mac freak's opinion but watch out for late March early April!!
 
EagerDragon said:
I think I read somewhere that Apples considers the first year as year zero, so year 31 would be year 30th. I guess it comes from all the programming where array subscripts start with 0 and not 1. LOL
Click to expand...

Sure... Leave it to Apple to ignore standard math and come up with 1=0, 1+1=1, and 2+1=2, and so on.

Sounds like college math all over again. 1=1 unless x+1=Apple.

I guess they like to think different :rolleyes:

Maybe I'll try that one with my wife. Tell her, I didn't forget. It's just the way I do math. You'll see. I'll get you a gift on the date that I mathematically calculate to be our anniversary. Thinking that 1=1 is so yesterday. Get over it. Slap :mad:
 
Peace said:
For all the conspiracy freaks out there.

A couple of weeks ago I posted info that Apple had a huge presence at this years NAB show in April.I found this out by going to Apple's website and looking at their list of upcoming events.Apple had the link to the NAB show there.It has been removed from the site.

If one goes to the NAB Show website and look at the exhibitors list Apple is no longer listed like it was when I visited that site a couple weeks ago,however if you dig deeper and look at the floorplan Apple is shown now with one VERY LARGE booth.It measures 160'X160'..

It makes me wonder exactly why Apple removed the NAB show listing from their upcoming events page and why the NAB removed Apple from the official list even though Apple is on the floorplan.


Something BIG is on it's way.
It's just one Mac freak's opinion but watch out for late March early April!!
Click to expand...

you're right; it's quite a huge booth...
 
Peace said:
For all the conspiracy freaks out there.

A couple of weeks ago I posted info that Apple had a huge presence at this years NAB show in April.I found this out by going to Apple's website and looking at their list of upcoming events.Apple had the link to the NAB show there.It has been removed from the site.

If one goes to the NAB Show website and look at the exhibitors list Apple is no longer listed like it was when I visited that site a couple weeks ago,however if you dig deeper and look at the floorplan Apple is shown now with one VERY LARGE booth.It measures 160'X160'..

It makes me wonder exactly why Apple removed the NAB show listing from their upcoming events page and why the NAB removed Apple from the official list even though Apple is on the floorplan.


Something BIG is on it's way.
It's just one Mac freak's opinion but watch out for late March early April!!
Click to expand...

What's the NAB show?

MadDoc,
 
Meh,

I doubt the NAB show appearance has squat to do with Leopard in that case!

I want garbage collection in Objective-C darn it!

MadDoc,
 
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