Mac OS X 10.6 to Debut at WWDC 2008?

[Peace]

Why?

Because it's PPC and Apple has really BIG plans for future video/audio in their O/S that don't fit into that picture.

Engineers really want to stop doing both PPC and Intel and concentrate on SSE4/5/6


And by doing Universal apps it's becoming bloated. Just look at the last point release 10.5.3. For some it was 500Mb.

If Apple is going to start "pushing" things they'd rather have it half the size.

 

[pbkiller]

I don't see it. Leopard is too new and needs some work, why rush out 10.6?

and no new features? Apple runs on it's Marketing dept most of the time.

Hmm, could be that 10.6 is a Fix up for Leopard? I mean smoothing out the details? More like the update from Panther to Tiger? Panther was an awesome OS, but then they released Tiger and it made it even better, the most stable Mac OS ever... At least for me it was. I bought my first iBook with Panther, and when i upgraded to Tiger, didn't notice any super major changes (not like in Leopard, for example, the finder, new dock, time machine, spaces, etc)

 

[chadder007]

If they were to do such a thing, it would be a horrible statement about Leopard ... okay, sorry folks, we didn't get it right the first time. Please pay us another $120 to get the secure, stable version ... and oh by the way, you PPC owners can go to hell.

Agreed, that will piss me off to no end if they do that.

 

[vohdoun]

I'm glad I have an Intel Mac

/me will keep that noted for the future

 

[Eraserhead]

Because it's PPC and Apple has really BIG plans for future video/audio in their O/S that don't fit into that picture.

Engineers really want to stop doing both PPC and Intel and concentrate on SSE4/5/6

They can just optimise for Intel (i.e. SSE) if they want and still provide a product for PPC users, and other software manufacturers can decide to drop PPC support like Adobe Soundbooth if they want.

Anyway by 10.7 it'll be November 2010, so that would be over 4 years since the first Intel Mac shipped so dropping it then wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes.

Personally I think the Universal applications are good as they add flexibility.

 

[pbkiller]

That site about PPC chips going to almost 5 Ghz its impressive, but in think Apple left the "Muscle Car Chips" for the new "Hybrid with most miles per gallon chips". They want Longer battery times, performance per watt, energy saver, smaller setups. They cant do that with PPC, at least not for the past couple of years.

 

[Peace]

They can just optimise for Intel (i.e. SSE) if they want and still provide a product for PPC users.

Anyway by 10.7 it'll be November 2010, so that would be over 4 years since the first Intel Mac shipped so dropping it then wouldn't be stepping on anyone's toes.

Personally I think the Universal applications are good as they add flexibility.

"just optimizing for Intel" isn't as easy as it sounds. Engineers don't just flip a switch. During the transition from PPC to Intel that was a sticky widget that did indeed delay the Intel platform internally. From where I stood it was a last minute fix that got us to the Intel platform on time.

Literally.

 

[agentsmithone]

I think its likely OS X 10.6 could be named at WWDC but not much more. In the past this has been the case, such as with Leopard being named and it was left to another day to say more. Then eventually there was the 10 feature rundown quickly. It would be secure to say that it would be too soon to say another Apple OS is in the cards inside the next 6 months.

Maybe we'll see those Piles patented so long ago in 10.6.

 

[Eraserhead]

"just optimizing for Intel" isn't as easy as it sounds. Engineers don't just flip a switch.

Sure, but you don't write SSE code from day one. You write normal code from day one, and then you optimise the bits that need it. I'd have thought you can mostly leave the original code in place for PPC users (and not add Altivec) and just add SSE for Intel users.

 

[sunfast]

Mac OSX LOLcat all the way

That's be awesome!

I can has input now?

 

[SpinThis!]

Since when has TUAW ever been a half reliable source? I call BS.

That said, there's some merit in dropping PPC support, though 10.6 is way too early. Maybe their tipster meant 10.6 will be the last OS to support PowerPC (not drop it)? I wouldn't put it past TUAW to screw up/embellish a detail like that...

 

[morespce54]

I really don't think they will release seeds yet.
To much people are still on Tiger, and a lot are still on PPC. So if 10.6 really drop the PPC and go Intel only, it *is* way too early to release seeds. Plus, 10.5.3 is still buggy for me (what's up with the blinking windows?)

10.6 will be really interesting 'tho... whenever it comes out... Which should be way before Win 7 anyways...

 

[Peace]

Folks really need to start letting go of PPC. It's been 3 years now and besides PPC Macs can still run Leopard just like newer PeeCees can still run XP but M$ wants their major partners to start testing Windows 7.

Apple wants their developers to start testing OS X 10.6 which imho will include multi-touch and maybe ZFS if Apple can ever figure out how to keep it from running wild on it's own.

 

[Eraserhead]

Folks really need to start letting go of PPC.

It'll go in its own sweet time, I see no need to make a big deal about it, that's all.

He'd be an idiot to drop it as the performance will slip if the target is a 1.6Ghz Intel Core Duo, which means it'll need a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo to run efficiently.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Me personally I have a 32-bit Mac system.

I have no fears about Apple moving to 64-bit nor do I have fears about them jettisoning PPC support.

Why?

Because Leopard is a good OS and getting better everyday. But Apple's gotta cut bait. They have to get developers on Cocoa and x64.

If you have a Mac that's 3+ years old you have every right to ask for support from the latest OS but Apple's not obligated to support these demands.

When I buy my next Mac I want it optimized from hardware to software. Apple has got to deprecate PPC, 32-bit and Carbon now. If they don't do it now they have to try to make developers and consumers do this for 10.7 which appears likely to go head to head with Windows 7.

Look at the potential timeline people.

If Apple drops a 10.6 without PPC support native 32-bit support in Spring of 09 they can shoot for a late release of 10.7 in 2010 or early 2011.

Microsoft depended on developers to be ready for Vista and MANY dropped the ball which made Microsoft look bad. Apple better drop the hammer now and deal with the aftermath.

10.6 doesn't have to have a bunch of new features. Polish what's there and add more support for iPhone and whatever other devices Apple has planned. Those that don't want to go up to 10.6 can stay on Leopard and Apple can focus on making 10.7 a phenominal leap forward and the OS that everyone migrates to quickly (new hardware purchases )

Legacy =Baggage and baggage slows the platform down.

 

[Luap]

Its such a ridiculous 'news' story, that for all the difference it makes, it may as well be an april fools joke. I can't believe so many people take this seriously.

 

[Amdahl]

The clock speed of a cpu does not tell you how much "work" a processor can do in a given amount of time. I went from a p4 2.4ghz to a core 2.0ghz and got an increase in performance. Manufactures have shifted away from simply ramping up the clock speed to increase performance.

How nice. Welcome to Apple 1994.

 

[Eraserhead]

They have to get developers on Cocoa and x64.

The thing is that 64 bit only brings benifits to a very small number of applications. Apple have already got a 64 bit OS on the hardware that can support it so within 3-4 years they can quietly drop 32 bit machines with no fuss, and they will still be years ahead of Microsoft (as Windows 7 will be 32 and 64 bit). Additionally 64 bit clean code will still compile/work on 32 bit systems.

They've already set the ship sailing towards Intel/64 bit and its not going back but there is no point it throwing those people overboard until they want to move on.

If developers want to move ahead of Apple they can, and no-one will stop them.

EDIT: The difference between the OS 9/OS X transition was that OS X wasn't clearly superior at the beginning, but they had to get people to move over.

EDIT 2: In fact if Apple trumpets 64 bit only they'll be doing Microsoft a favour as they are having real problems getting people to use 64 bit versions of their OS rather than 32 bit versions they are going to be either in real trouble if they try and push or that transition will be very very slow.

 

[MacsRgr8]

the a lot larger gap between Tiger and Leopard is because there were actually two versions of Tiger, PPC and Intel. so there was a lot more work to be done on Tiger than there was for Leopard and future OSs.

I don't think so.
As Steve has said, and as it really was clear all along ("Marklar", free Darwin for Intel, OPENSTEP..) Mac OS X has always had an Intel version. Nothing new about Leopard's or Tiger's x86-ness.
Also, Leopard wasn't the first UB OS. Mac OS X Server 10.4.7 had a Universal release.

And TBH... I am SURE Steve did say a few years back (maybe at one of the Tiger-related WWDCs) that Apple would slow down the release cycle of Mac OS X.... and now he says that Apple would "keep" it to 12-18 months...
In the case of Apple counting Tiger for Intel as a new release.... well, that's debatable IMHO.

 

[Eraserhead]

In the case of Apple counting Tiger for Intel as a new release.... well, that's debatable IMHO.

They certainly spent a lot of time getting Tiger for Intel up to scratch, now it may have compiled before on Intel, but it wasn't releasable.

 

[SpinThis!]

Folks really need to start letting go of PPC. It's been 3 years now

3 years? Please get your facts straight before you post dates. Among those, the XServe G5 was released in late 2006 and many iMac models were still selling.

It's not just about dropping support or running the latest OS... a new Mac OS X version is a cashcow for Apple. A lot of people who can't afford a new Mac can afford a new OS. Especially for the XServe, Apple would love to sell you a version of 10.6 server.

In my experience, Apple usually supports 3 OS versions on a machine before they drop support. Especially with the XServe and iMac G5s, that would be a little premature to drop support for the latest OS.

I do think 10.6 will be the last version to support PPC though... with some PPC models not making the cut anyway.

 

[i.mac]

Agreed, that will piss me off to no end if they do that.

why? You always have the choice of not updating! get over it.

cannot understand folks that get upset about new updates on software and/or hardware. statements like this always remind me to ask: why not build bridges (visit Salamanca) and aqueducts (visit Segovia) the way Romans did thousands of years ago?

 

[Peace]

Please get your facts straight before you post dates. Among those, the XServe G5 was released in late 2006 and many iMac models were still selling.

Sorry I was referring to the switch from PPC OS to the Intel version not the hardware.

Just to clarify.

 

[Amdahl]

I hope you know freq. has nothing to do with work done in a clock cycle... thus making your answer senseless.

IBM G5 cpus still fast, but they are a dead technology as they are incapable to cope with sets of instructions that latest software needs

It's funny watching people try to use the same argument that was used in favor of PPC, against it.

 

[ckurowic]

Snap. I skipped 10.3 because there wasn't enough to justify the upgrade. Now I'm on 10.4 and feel the same about 10.5. Quick view would be nice but not essential, so I think I'll wait.

Theres more to 10.5 than just quicklook. I can't stand using 10.4 now that I'm on 10.5