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

[kallur]

Sorry for not reading the thread completely before posting, but don't you think that "snow" might refer to updated user interface, to new theme. Smt like the curret system is Aqua Leopard and forthcoming is Snow Leopard.

 

[Kar98]

Ultimately, Steve Jobs will get whatever he wants and if putting PPC in a coffin at this WWDC is his wish, he'll get it. But he'll also alienate once again some very long-time Mac users like myself.

Well, let's put it this way: you haven't bought a new Mac since...when? So why would he care about hurting your feelings now?

 

[Kar98]

Here's the real scoop: Remember the invite with the split Golden Gate? It means Mac OS X will be split into 2 distinct lines.

Actually...it means Steve Jobs needs some bridgework done, so there'll be an extra hitherto unplanned for version of OSX to pay for that.

 

[SPUY767]

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...

::cough::Vista::cough::

 

[milo]

The G3 lacked a VMX/Altivec unit. It made sense to drop support for it because vectorized code simply could not run on it at all. The line between the G4/G5 is a lot thinner.

Of course. I was just saying that apple could easily drop support for G4 but keep G5 if they want, the notion that they couldn't do that since they're both PPC simply isn't true.

When the major version number changes, it usually means there's a major change in the product. If Apple were to go 64-bit Intel only with a completely new file system (say, ZFS), got rid of Carbon and went solely Cocoa, that's a major revision which would likely get the 11. version number.

Nah. They've already released an intel version, which is arguably just as big a change. The first digit of 10.x.x is more a branding thing at this point. We won't see 11 until they run out of numbers or do an absolutely radical rewrite of the OS, and this isn't either.

If all 10.6 brings to the table is better stability and more speed for 64 bit systems, then there is little incentive for Intel 32 bit systems and PPC systems to be upgraded.

I'd agree with that. What I worry is that we'll see apps that are 10.6 only - if apple dumps PPC and 32 bit for the OS, it will encourage app developers to do the same.

 

[dgdosen]

I agree Apple has a history of defining new platforms, then abandoning them over time at the drop of a hat. While this is/should be concerning to third party developers, I think the general focus on cocoa and objective c is a pretty good move for the long run. I think it will enable Apple to do a better job of componentizing the OS.

Interestingly, isn't Microsoft doing the same thing with Windows 7? Trying to do a better job at componentizing the OS for potential new hardware platforms? Kind of like what they did with Windows Server 2008.

If I owned a third party dev shop, I'd feel much better about investing in Apple's OS for consumer apps as their market share will grow pretty quickly. From an enterprise perspective, they just can't knock off MS yet.

 

[milo]

No not really. I work on a few decently large applications that are mostly C++ based with a native Cocoa UI on the Mac and Win32/etc on Windows. It is IMHO easy to integrate C++ and Objective-C thanks to Objective-C++ even more so when using the 64b Objective-C runtime on Mac OS X 10.5 and later.

Well, you might consider it easy, but many devs don't. As I said, it was an oversimplification, but even with Objective C++, developers have to deal with new things where they simply had C++ before.

Apple machines aren't "extremely overpriced", by any means. A hand-built equivalent to the current Mac Pro would have cost about the same in parts, at the time of the Mac Pro's release. When I bought my Mac Pro I priced out the alternative of building a PC, since I was already running a hackintosh while waiting for the release of the Penryns. The only machines that are probably overpriced are the Macbook Pro and Macbook Air. The Macbook, and iMac (for which there isn't really a vanilla PC alternative) are very reasonably priced, and as I pointed out above, the Mac Pro is about on par. Now, obviously, the PC equivalents will drop in price quickly, as the parts become more widely available. But still...

The mini is overpriced as well, and I'd argue that you can get decent alternatives to the macbook and imac for cheaper. The MB and iMac aren't bad, but I'd say the only model that is really competitive right now is the Mac Pro.

Of course, some of the comments about macs being overpriced stem from Apple not having good budget and BTO options - you have to compare cheap PCs to pricier macs because apple just doesn't offer more frugal options.

Why do you consider more OSX users a nightmare?

The scary part isn't more OSX users, it's the huge drop in hardware sales that isn't offset by the increase in software sales. Especially when such a release would mean that not only could people buy a PC, they could easily pirate the OS, meaning apple makes nothing in those cases. I don't like it as a customer or a stockholder. And with market share rising every quarter, I don't think it's necessary - apple would be better served by a cautious expansion of their product line instead.

 

[petvas]

I think that this time the rumour sites have overdone it. Today we are reading that 10.5.4 will be ready by June 12th...
It's getting ridiculous...
I dont believe that Mac OS X 10.6 will be ready by January 2009. It will be by the end of the year. Leopard is still new, let's not forget that...
Power PC support won't go away so simple...
I don't know which idiots bring such rumours but they are definitely fake.

 

[Merriadok]

leopard seem like about being fast. but still, better to see..

 

[Canuckistan]

Wondering

Hello,

I know next to nothing about operating systems, but I'm wondering if the talk of a version to stabilze the current version means that the current OS is unstable / unreliable??

Also,is installation of a new OS on an exisitng OS an easy porocedure... does it demand a lot of drive space and set up conflicts>

Thanks

 

[milo]

Interesting, nobody thought it would be named Snow Leopard.

For the record, some of us STILL don't think it will be called that.

Hahahahahahahahahahahfhahahahahahahhaa

Apple's Market Cap as of June 5th 2008 163 Billion

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahhahah

Folks we have a new definition of small

It is small in terms of the 5-7 percent market share.

My thoughts exactly. I could see Apple saying something like: Any G5, or Intel based Mac with Firewire. I couldn't see them doing away with the G5's just yet, they at least have a 64 bit architecture which could handle a more advanced OS X.

Except that wouldn't include the macbook air.

Well, let's put it this way: you haven't bought a new Mac since...when? So why would he care about hurting your feelings now?

The intel transition was announced about three years ago. He should care about keeping people who bought before that happy since they're likely to keep buying a new mac every 4-6 years. You piss off customers, you lose them, and apple's not in a position to tell everyone who waits more than 3 years to upgrade to get lost.

 

[bluefido]

I think this is a fake rumour, do you think Apple would really drop Carbon and PowerPC support? Also I don't want to shell out another $130 for a new operating system.

I can see Apple dropping PowerPC support. It's bound to happen sooner or later. My gut says Carbon will continue to be supported for a bit longer, but I'm usually wrong about this kind of stuff. So we are all doomed.

 

[72930]

My thoughts exactly. I could see Apple saying something like: Any G5, or Intel based Mac with Firewire. I couldn't see them doing away with the G5's just yet, they at least have a 64 bit architecture which could handle a more advanced OS X.

The problem with that is that it involves all the extra effort of making the OS UB, and only owners of iMac G5s and PM G5s will benefit.

 

[soLoredd]

I think that this time the rumour sites have overdone it. Today we are reading that 10.5.4 will be ready by June 12th...
It's getting ridiculous...
I dont believe that Mac OS X 10.6 will be ready by January 2009. It will be by the end of the year. Leopard is still new, let's not forget that...
Power PC support won't go away so simple...
I don't know which idiots bring such rumours but they are definitely fake.

I've been feeling that way for the past couple of weeks. Granted, I understand this is a Mac rumors site but, personally, I think a few people take these rumors as gospel.

 

[knightlie]

Hello,

I know next to nothing about operating systems, but I'm wondering if the talk of a version to stabilze the current version means that the current OS is unstable / unreliable??

Not really, no.

Also,is installation of a new OS on an exisitng OS an easy porocedure... does it demand a lot of drive space and set up conflicts

The OSX install is very straightforward.



Assuming any part of this rumour is true, I suspect Snow Leopard - if it exists - might be a codename for a future 10.5.x release. I can't see them trying to sell a new version with no new notable features - even Microsoft had to put some bells and whistles into Vista to make it look as if the consumer - rather than just the developer or media producers - was getting something new.

 

[commander.data]

The problem with that is that it involves all the extra effort of making the OS UB, and only owners of iMac G5s and PM G5s will benefit.

I thought the OS is already a Universal Binary so most of the hard work is done. It's just a matter if they want to maintain it as such.

Since we are on the matter of controversial ideas, how about them making 10.6 running on 64-bit computers only. So G5s and x64, still UB just no 32-bit. That would certainly put the emphasis on 64-bit Cocoa, while Carbon will still run in 32-bit compatibility mode as it always has on 64-bit processors but won't be further developed. Of course, that would put 32-bit Intel users in a lurch, although there are probably fewer of those than 64-bit Intel and G5 owners.

 

[benpatient]

so wait....are they finally admitting that Leopard needs major optimization and some serious rethinking in critical under-the-hood areas?

I bet they're going to roll the Adobe CS3 critical fixes for Acrobat and InDesign into 10.6 and make me buy it.

Sounds like a service pack to me. One that isn't a free download. Lame.

 

[milo]

so wait....are they finally admitting that Leopard needs major optimization and some serious rethinking in critical under-the-hood areas?

What do you mean finally? Pretty much EVERY OS (and major app) needs major optimization. It's an ongoing thing.

 

[BenRoethig]

They're going to charge people for "speed and stability"?

If and how much is still to be determined. Still, I think this is a very good idea. With all the new advances, Apple never really took the time to work on optimizing everything and work on some inefficiencies they never got around to fixing. Snow Leopard will be able to be able to provide a solid base to the presumably touch screen capable OSX 10.7

 

[DMann]

If and how much is still to be determined. Still, I think this is a very good idea. With all the new advances, Apple never really took the time to work on optimizing everything and work on some inefficiencies they never got around to fixing. Snow Leopard will be able to be able to provide a solid base to the presumably touch screen capable OSX 10.7

Hence the quantum numerical leap to 10.6

 

[TheSpaz]

I already use Leopard as a multi-touch platform all the time. I use my iPod touch to VNC into my computer and then I can move things around, click, type, zoom... do everything with touch... pretty cool! I can't wait for there to be an official VNC App on the iPhone App Store.

 

[Eric S.]

And I'm guessing you have an original graphics card in the Sawtooth that does not attempt Core Image effects? Original hard drive too? Try adding additional hard drives and see how Leopard reacts. You won't be happy, trust me.

I do not have the original graphics card; I got a Radeon 9800 Pro specifically so I could use functionality like Time Machine. As far as disk, I added a SATA drive and controller, primarily to overcome the 128 GB PATA limitation.

And, I'm sorry, but the "Performance is comparable to Tiger" comment on PowerPC Macs, especially G4s is unbelievably laughable and I own lots of Macs, some Leopard supported, some not but nonetheless with Leopard installed. From my experience, I just find that too hard to believe. Sorry.

Sorry to disappoint your lowered expectations, but as I have already stated Leopard runs fine and the performance is comparable to Tiger. As numerous user comments on lowendmac.com attest, this is a common experience even on G4s at CPU speeds as low as 450 MHz. I am not a serious gamer and do not do graphics-intensive stuff, but even under Tiger my system was not set up for that.

 

[Aranince]

If this is true...I like it! Gj Apple. I absolutely love the name!

 

[wrldwzrd89]

I already use Leopard as a multi-touch platform all the time. I use my iPod touch to VNC into my computer and then I can move things around, click, type, zoom... do everything with touch... pretty cool! I can't wait for there to be an official VNC App on the iPhone App Store.

Oh wow... maybe I should get an iPod touch.

I hope 10.6 (or 10.7) makes multi-touch a mainstream Mac feature. That would be REALLY cool, and, for me at least, would make the new OS worth buying (yes, even if my current Mac doesn't support it, at least my new iDevices will).

As for the Intel-only speculation... I say not out of the question, but who knows? I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other - let me put it that way.

The dropping of Carbon? That's blatantly false. The original post has been updated to reflect this, in case everyone hasn't already noticed.

 

[BenRoethig]

As for the Intel-only speculation... I say not out of the question, but who knows? I wouldn't place a bet one way or the other - let me put it that way.

I would say very likely. Not having to worry about the myriad of G4/5 chipsets would be very good for optimizing the OS.