Mac OS X 10.6 Called 'Snow Leopard', All Cocoa?

[Jon the Heretic]

Yes, it was a terrible, terrible move

Wouldn't it be just as bad a move as 10.5 dropping Classic? Wasn't Carbon always designed to simply be a stepping stone, from Classic to Cocoa?

Dropping Classic was a horrible choice. On that day, 20,000 Mac apps died for no good reason. Millions of long time Mac users were sneered at by Apple and by newcomers.

Saying it wouldn't run under Rosetta was a cynical excuse, as if that was the only way Classic could run on Intel. Shades of "Star Trek", the first Classic Mac environment, which ran on Intel inside of Apple's labs. And clearly, Sheepshaver doesn't require Rosetta...they could have done something similar, without using Rosetta, but keeping the integration more transparent like they were able to achieve with the Classic hooks in the OS.

And virtual environments don't impact overall system stability. But keeping capable with the last supported generation of APIs does impact stability, since they run natively. Virtual = safe & stable; Native = trouble as APIs evolve.

Dropping Carbon now is adding insult to injury, though doing this would improve stability more than dropping the Classic virtual environment, since Carbon needs to be natively supported on the OS X kernel.

 

[Earendil]

But does it make sense to do a speed and stability upgrade only? That sounds like a 10.5.X, not a 10.6! Has a new version of Mac OS (or Windows or a Linux distribution for that matter) ever been released with nothing new to offer? I think both the strange two words cat name and the lack of new features are both very unlikely...

It does If and only If the the stability comes from ripping out all the Carbon code, and making it Intel only.

This makes sense because:
1. Doing such a thing is a major reworking of the OS, and would take a lot of time.
2. Is not adding features BECAUSE it eliminates a lot of potential costumers.
3. Potential PPC costumers won't feel left out because there would be nothing to gain even if they could run it.
4. Intel users will see a gain as the OS slims down, and all new Intel macs can ship with the new slipped down OS.

What would be silly is to do ALL that work AND add major features, because than you are pissing off the PPC users by alienating them and giving them something they can't have.

Now, I'm also betting that "Snow leopard" will be cheaper, but not free. If they did rip all the cocoa out of it, than this isn't "bug fixes" or "tweaks" to make it faster, this is a major ordeal.

This would also explain the name. It is just a different kind of Leopard, a Snow leopard if you will. It is not the next big cat thing to come along.

 

[derryquinn]

Oh.My.God.FREAKY!!!

LOOK AT THIS!!!
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/5525967/

He says <<1. The timing seems right for 10.6 (Lion? Lynx? Peruvian Snow Leopard? Okay maybe not the third one...) >>

How cool!

 

[macenforcer]

LOOK AT THIS!!!
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/493377/

He says <<1. The timing seems right for 10.6 (Lion? Lynx? Peruvian Snow Leopard? Okay maybe not the third one...) >>

How cool!

Looks like an apple employee just got BUSTED!

 

[easy4lif]

I'm calling it BS.

no one at apple would have come up with the code name snow leopard but i did remember that particular name come up in a poll and I found it.

http://www.tuaw.com/2008/06/03/rumor-mac-os-x-10-6-to-debut-at-wwdc-08/

second, a maintenance and stability update? leopard is pretty dam fast as it is.

third, ditching 32 bit intel chips will piss a lot of early macbook/pro iMac buyers.

and selling it at macworld 09 would just hurt apple in the pocket book. I predict 10.6 release date of either June 09 for the back to school rush, or October 09 for the holidays

 

[yayaba]

Mac OS X 10.6 "Longcat"

longcat is long

 

[Me1000]

I can see this happening. How many keynotes has Steve given where everyone was like what? Apple hardly ever gives us what we WANT. Why should that not continue. If apple gave us what we wanted we would have...

2. 2 button trackpads
7. A freakin real mighty mighty mouse
8. Games for macintosh
11. an OS we can install on regular PCs

I hope to God they never put a 2nd button on trackpads, the 2 finger secondary click is just too convenient! I love the mighty mouse, I dont care about gaming on my Mac (not that there is a whole lot apple can do about this). You can install OS X on a PC, and it sucks! It really does, I have done it.

 

[nimbusthegreat]

You meant Hundred dollar bills right?

no, just dollars...i wouldn't want to ask for too much.

 

[macenforcer]

I hope to God they never put a 2nd button on trackpads, the 2 finger secondary click is just too convenient! I love the mighty mouse, I dont care about gaming on my Mac (not that there is a whole lot apple can do about this). You can install OS X on a PC, and it sucks! It really does, I have done it.

Well... good for you friend.

 

[LaDirection]

Speed and stability are really what's needed. I applaud Apple for focusing on the bread and butter of the OS instead of trying to tack on more flashy features to sell the sizzle.

Amen, that and security. 10.5 was a colossal failure on that count.

 

[Jon the Heretic]

Planned obsolescence, baby

2. Is not adding features BECAUSE it eliminates a lot of potential costumers.
3. Potential PPC costumers won't feel left out because there would be nothing to gain even if they could run it.

You seem to place a value on PPC systems being supported with the latest OS. That is how End Users think; it is not how Apple thinks.

Apple has aggressively pursued a process of planned obsolescence over the past 15 years. It began with the original 68K-based code, but really kicked into high gear with the Second Coming of Jobs, who once complained at MacWorld that a lady who thanked him for having a well supported 10-year old Mac hadn't given Apple a penny in 10 years. Damn that lady!

For those OTHER OSes you may have heard of, generally you can install them if you choose to, and then decide, boy this is damn slow, I'm going to buy a new machine. Apple likes to goose that buying decision by ensuring older Macs are pruned every few years, to create an artificial upgrade cycle.

Continued support of PPC Macs is ANTI-sales, if pro User. By dropping PPC, Apple drives sales of new Intel-based Macs. They make far more money off of new Macs than off of MacOS X upgrades. And the fact is some of the higher end G5s are really powerful machines STILL, especially on Altivec functions. Every little thing they can do to nudge those guys to a new machine, like dropping Classic to get your hands off of legacy software that still runs great, helps bolster the NeXT SALE.

Get used to it. Jobs needs a new summer vacation home. Or two.

 

[The Killer Fuzz]

i think apple is running out of big cats.....

 

[Tosser]

Mac OS X 10.6 "Longcat"

longcat is long

 

[Saladinos]

This makes a lot of sense. The main problem with Vista is speed and reliability. Apple wants to make the most of this.

Besides, there are only so many features that belong in an operating system. And Apple have stretched it as much as anybody.

Eliminating Carbon will make a lot of people angry, but it means that Apple only have one API to maintain, and that Mac apps can be as consistent underneath as they are on the surface (which is pretty good, if you take a look at windows or linux). Since all application will use the same API, changes to the system can be easily impact tested, and performance and reliability improvements on the Cocoa level can be seen instantly throughout the entire system and all applications (except the Kernel and Darwin).

It also eliminates some attack vectors from times when viruses weren't as big a problem and code security was less relevant.

 

[asopublic]

clang and llvm

There is also a suggestion that Apple may move Mac OS X 10.6 to "Cocoa-only", but the full meaning of this remains vague

Apple is working very hard on clang in llvm. Maybe the 'Cocoa only' refers to the compiler will compile Cocoa only, and not Carbon apps. I don't know enough about compilers, or Carbon, to tell if they are implementing Carbon in clang. The source code is public. One Apple engineer mentioned no problems with a bug when compiling with 10.6 (as opposed to 10.5.3) in a May 2008 post in the clang archives. llvm is platform independent, so that might very well mean PPC would NOT be dropped, just coding in Carbon. Apple has been pushing developers to move away from Carbon.

 

[DMann]

Mac OS X 10.6 "Longcat"

longcat is long

Longhorn hardly worked for MS..... how 'bout Topcat?

 

[LondonMacs]

Snow Lepoard....

This should be pretty legit. The name is a bit silly though. It is should be about time to retire PowerPCs by next year. Bye bye Powermac G5

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Wouldn't it be just as bad a move as 10.5 dropping Classic? Wasn't Carbon always designed to simply be a stepping stone, from Classic to Cocoa?

...

If they dropped carbon then I wouldn't be able to run StarCraft at all! Geez, first they make it hard as hell to install the game (by removing classic,) and now they're going to make it impossible to run it at all!

I wonder if Blizzard will be changing the game to Cocoa or if they're just going to say "Screw you! The game's already a decade old anyways!"

 

[Mal]

All Cocoa would mean to me that all OS X components are Cocoa instead of Carbon (isn't the Finder still Carbon, or I am forgetting and they rewrote that in Leopard?), but not a guaranteed end of Carbon for now. However, since Adobe has announced Cocoa rewrites of their apps for CS5 (essentially), Office is the last major holdout, and I don't think Apple would mind sticking it to Microsoft over their poor coding practices by pulling the rug out from under them. Besides, between iWork and OpenOffice, they've got compatibility covered.

jW

 

[macenforcer]

Ok so the real question is HOW are they going to make it faster and why haven't they done so already?

 

[boer]

Unix = RISC
Linux = x86

I hope you are not suggesting that is a relevant distinction here? Here's a spoiler: The are Linux versions to RISC processors such as the PowerPC. Here's another spoiler: Every Intel x86 chip since the Pentium Pro is a RISC processor in its core. Even the Core 2 chip.

 

[Kar98]

I wonder what car he drives... haha off topic

This:

 

[/dev/toaster]

Dropping Classic was a horrible choice. On that day, 20,000 Mac apps died for no good reason. Millions of long time Mac users were sneered at by Apple and by newcomers.

Saying it wouldn't run under Rosetta was a cynical excuse, as if that was the only way Classic could run on Intel. Shades of "Star Trek", the first Classic Mac environment, which ran on Intel inside of Apple's labs. And clearly, Sheepshaver doesn't require Rosetta...they could have done something similar, without using Rosetta, but keeping the integration more transparent like they were able to achieve with the Classic hooks in the OS.

And virtual environments don't impact overall system stability. But keeping capable with the last supported generation of APIs does impact stability, since they run natively. Virtual = safe & stable; Native = trouble as APIs evolve.

Dropping Carbon now is adding insult to injury, though doing this would improve stability more than dropping the Classic virtual environment, since Carbon needs to be natively supported on the OS X kernel.

Totally disagree here. Keeping around legacy crap is what got Microsoft into trouble. They still have very bad legacy APIs laying around. Developers are lazy, I am a developer so I know how it is trust me.

Once a developer gets used to doing things one way, they tend to stick with it until something or someone forces them to do it another way. Hell, looking back at the code I wrote for PHP3 it was rather comical compared to the code I write now. I was forced to give up some bad habits in PHP4. In the long run, it made PHP more stable and those features had to go.

Lets not forget, why would Apple want to support and maintain grossly outdated code. What worked 8 years ago, doesn't hold true with newer technology. Lets face it, things like thread safe code are rather important for stability I am pretty sure very very ancient code won't have it.

I see a lot of people flipping out saying the sky is falling and that Apple is making a big mistake. I don't think they would take these changes lightly, they aren't fools. Yes, its going to require a lot of work from people to convert their applications. No, Microsoft and Adobe aren't going to stop providing their applications on Mac because of it. Thats just silly.

Classic is long dead, get over it. 20k applications died because it was their time. Keeping them in life support doesn't accomplish any forward momentum.

Dropping PPC support will trim down their code base quite a bit. Removing and not maintaining Rosetta in a new OS will not only trim down the code, but reduce the chance of fek ups related to changes in other areas ... creating increased stability.

 

[bug67]

If the rumour is indeed true then why the hell would you want to buy, buy a G5??

Shouldn't it be "bye, bye G5"??

Indeed, you are correct, sir! D'oh!

 

[Mattjeff]

Osx 10.6 thunder Cat!