Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) Due in Q1 2009?

[shigzeo]

how excited am i or you?

i think reasonably. i waited a long time for leopard. i think too long. finally, with it installed, i have the osx i have waited for since it was released. but, to have an updated version so soon on the horizon is too much for my poor nerves.

if it is released in june or january i care not but rather am so excited to hear that it is indeed, coming soon. the changes in snow leopard will make my humble mbp a proper mbp i do hope.

 

[grue]

Why??? 32 bit compatibiity won't slow your mac.

No, but the codebase for it is just more wasted space on my drive. Apple already sucks at writing efficient code, so the less bloat on my drive, the better. Like I said, they can continue releasing the same bloated, buggy crap to the fanboys who will lick their boots. I on the other hand would like something less crappy, and I'm ok with paying extra for it.

 

[morespce54]

Lets only hope they won't rushed it this time (but still be on schedule too... if such thing is possible)

 

[137489]

You may be clueless, but the tens of thousands of people who are now running Windows 7 have a pretty good idea. Microsoft's had two recent large conferences focussed on Win7, and a lot of information has been released.

You should get a copy off the net and try it.

heh maybe, but it is still pre-mature to get a real feel at this time. I'll look at the information though.

In the enterprise solution world, we have a major problem though...

Anything after XP and server 2003 dropped Vistual studio 6 support, and I still support a large amount of clients with old VB code (they are still trying to balance upgrading with running their core business). plus with SQL 2008, MS did not release a key piece for reporting services that is needed, so unfortunately it is still pre-mature (that piece is suppose to be coming Q2 2009). so even with Server 2008 which is released, there are still pieces missing where enterprise solutions cannot adopt.

One thing someone threw at me, was there was talk about needing to upgrade from XP to Vista; before you can upgrade to windows 7. That is going to put a big damper if that is true.

 

[Axemantitan]

Could someone please explain to my why my post in this thread was deleted? It was the one in which I was trying to give helpful grammatical advice to someone who was confused. It was not defamatory, insulting or libelous, but merely an attempt to be helpful.

 

[AidenShaw]

heh maybe, but it is still pre-mature to get a real feel at this time. I'll look at the information though.

Check out:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/2008/pres.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/2008/papers.mspx

https://sessions.microsoftpdc.com/public/timeline.aspx
(click on "Windows 7" in the list)​

and other parts of those sites.

One thing someone threw at me, was there was talk about needing to upgrade from XP to Vista; before you can upgrade to windows 7. That is going to put a big damper if that is true.

It's true that M3 (build 6801) won't do an XP upgrade, but it's not uncommon for early alpha and beta builds to have limited upgrade capabilities. (Note that the Snow Leopard kit won't run on PPC.)

I haven't found a definitive statement about plans for the final release.

 

[chris200x9]

^_^

 

[ccuk]

It was a necessary rant because none of what you said was in the remotest bit valid. Mac OS X has limitations, but to make the claims as as you did is a big stretch.



Again, when are we going to see Linux (or a some other operating system) become a valid alternative? Its either Windows or Mac OS X - Linux isn't even on the radar. To claim you have choice is like the spam skit off Monty python.



Never said it was the be-all and end-all. If you are going to make a statement, back it up with facts. If you said that Mac OS X scales poorly, I'd agree. But when you said that deployment was difficult and yet ignore NetBoot/NetRestore, I really question the validity of your whole argument.

Well Mr Pedantic I never said any of that (RE netboot, and I never said rollout was difficult, I happen to agree with you on that matter), I wasn't the original poster to whom you responded, I merely interjected.

However to say Linux isn't a viable alternative is a generalisation too far in my opinion. It depends what, where and how the company needs their IT needs meeting.

My point still remins that with OSX you are locked into a hardware and software series of solutions. Linux and Windows offer dual forks for upgradability. Try thinking about what I am saying, ignoring what the OP was saying who clearly had some sort of vendetta against OSX in large roll outs, before replying with hot headed replies.

 

[Beric]

Macs are not overpriced this has been discussed too many times now. If you didn't get it...

Mac has features and a quality you rarely find elsewhere. Some features of new macbooks aren't comparable in small notebeook pc maket like multitouch pad, Nvidia, 9400M, unibody. So get the fact and stop whining.

For 2/3 the price of the new Macbook, you can get dedicated Nvidia graphics. And what if I couldn't care less about a multitouch pad or a unibody? Do you happen to have a much cheaper Mac for someone like me who couldn't care less about those specific minor features?

I want specs and performance running OS X at baseline PC prices. These small and relatively worthless Mac hardware features mean nothing. If you can find me a true performance-cost oriented Mac, then I'll ignore the rest of the current lineup. But when Macs cost 50%+ more for identical hardware specifications, something is wrong. And that's when I decide no OS is worth $1000.

there we go again... if you compare pc hardware to mac hardware than ull come to the end, that there is not a real big difference in price but an enormous difference in design!

Have you actually tried it for yourself?

I've spent hundreds of hours speccing machines, PC's versus Mac. Macs are always at least 50% more, spec per spec, unless you're going somewhere like Sony. Apple simply does not offer true performance-oriented machines that are at competitive prices.
EDIT: And if you'd like some examples, give me any Mac, and I'll show you it's cheaper, performance-oriented, reliable counterpart.

 

[macbookairapple]

Have you actually tried it for yourself?

I've spent hundreds of hours speccing machines, PC's versus Mac. Macs are always at least 50% more, spec per spec, unless you're going somewhere like Sony. Apple simply does not offer true performance-oriented machines that are at competitive prices.
EDIT: And if you'd like some examples, give me any Mac, and I'll show you it's cheaper, performance-oriented, reliable counterpart.

Find me an ultraportable like the macbook air something like the sony tt, which is 50 percent cheaper? What about the Mac Pro? Macbook Pro? I want 50 percent cheaper for all them.

 

[stewy]

I haven't seen a load of crap this big since Biff got covered in Back To The Future

I wonder how many kids just thought... "What's Back to the Future"?

 

[richard.mac]

^ dude dont underestimate BTTF its one the best trilogies ever! im 21 and i loved it… although im probably at the lower end of the scale espesh for part 1.

 

[seashellz]

uh...shouldnt it be released when its READY?
the last 2 seeds have NO ISSUES- I would say we ought to be tripping over it as we leave for work tommorrow

 

[grue]

I've spent hundreds of hours speccing machines, PC's versus Mac. Macs are always at least 50% more, spec per spec, unless you're going somewhere like Sony. Apple simply does not offer true performance-oriented machines that are at competitive prices.
EDIT: And if you'd like some examples, give me any Mac, and I'll show you it's cheaper, performance-oriented, reliable counterpart.

Mac Pro

 

[RoboCop1]

I really hope there is more info coming soon.

 

[Beric]

Find me an ultraportable like the macbook air something like the sony tt, which is 50 percent cheaper? What about the Mac Pro? Macbook Pro? I want 50 percent cheaper for all them.

MBA ($1800): Lenovo Thinkpad X200 ($1100)

Mac Pro ($2800) -- A tough one. The Mac Pro is probably actually worth its price, if you care about its heavy CPU emphasis. If you want a gaming-oriented desktop (pure graphics power), there's plenty of cheaper PC choices. But with the Mac Pro's emphasis on CPU performance, one might say it's actually worth it.

Macbook Pro 15" ($2000) : BTO HP dv5t series: $1300 -- with better specs all around

Macbook Pro 17" ($2800) : BTO HP dv7t series: $1650

Mac Pro

Yep. I stand corrected. Of course, it's hard to say the Mac Pro is consumer-oriented, and thus cost really isn't the main thing here.

 

[gikku]

I would sooo just click OPEN on this.
I know I downloaded a pic, what time it was, where i got it.
I know I want to open it, why is the dumbass OS asking me to confirm my last request? as bad as Vista !!
I wouldn't even see that it says application rather than pic, too much other gumf in the dialog box.

well, that was until I read that presentation, now I know.

 

[Beric]

I would sooo just click OPEN on this.
I know I downloaded a pic, what time it was, where i got it.
I know I want to open it, why is the dumbass OS asking me to confirm my last request? as bad as Vista !!
I wouldn't even see that it says application rather than pic, too much other gumf in the dialog box.

well, that was until I read that presentation, now I know.

I wouldn't open it, because one, I know you only get that on a downloaded application, and two, I would be surprised to see any message upon opening a supposed "picture", and thus take the time to look over the message carefully.

 

[grue]

Yep. I stand corrected. Of course, it's hard to say the Mac Pro is consumer-oriented, and thus cost really isn't the main thing here.

Yeah, I have to admit it's also the only worthwhile machine in the product range at this point. I've been a Mac user for coming up on two and a half decades, and it's the only machine I'd buy from Apple.

 

[vansouza]

MBA ($1800): Lenovo Thinkpad X200 ($1100)

Mac Pro ($2800) -- A tough one. The Mac Pro is probably actually worth its price, if you care about its heavy CPU emphasis. If you want a gaming-oriented desktop (pure graphics power), there's plenty of cheaper PC choices. But with the Mac Pro's emphasis on CPU performance, one might say it's actually worth it.

Macbook Pro 15" ($2000) : BTO HP dv5t series: $1300 -- with better specs all around

Macbook Pro 17" ($2800) : BTO HP dv7t series: $1650



Yep. I stand corrected. Of course, it's hard to say the Mac Pro is consumer-oriented, and thus cost really isn't the main thing here.

How do you factor in OS X into the price or actually the value?

 

[macbookairapple]

MBA ($1800): Lenovo Thinkpad X200 ($1100)

Mac Pro ($2800) -- A tough one. The Mac Pro is probably actually worth its price, if you care about its heavy CPU emphasis. If you want a gaming-oriented desktop (pure graphics power), there's plenty of cheaper PC choices. But with the Mac Pro's emphasis on CPU performance, one might say it's actually worth it.

Macbook Pro 15" ($2000) : BTO HP dv5t series: $1300 -- with better specs all around

Macbook Pro 17" ($2800) : BTO HP dv7t series: $1650



Yep. I stand corrected. Of course, it's hard to say the Mac Pro is consumer-oriented, and thus cost really isn't the main thing here.

But none of those are 50 percent cheaper dude.

 

[137489]

Check out:

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/2008/pres.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/2008/papers.mspx

https://sessions.microsoftpdc.com/public/timeline.aspx
(click on "Windows 7" in the list)​

and other parts of those sites.




It's true that M3 (build 6801) won't do an XP upgrade, but it's not uncommon for early alpha and beta builds to have limited upgrade capabilities. (Note that the Snow Leopard kit won't run on PPC.)

I haven't found a definitive statement about plans for the final release.

Thanks, I'll look at it. All my macs are intel, so PPC does not concern me (only if Apple should ever decide to go back to PPC and therefore can't run Windows - which is doubtful will happen; but you never know).

 

[137489]

I would sooo just click OPEN on this.
I know I downloaded a pic, what time it was, where i got it.
I know I want to open it, why is the dumbass OS asking me to confirm my last request? as bad as Vista !!
I wouldn't even see that it says application rather than pic, too much other gumf in the dialog box.

well, that was until I read that presentation, now I know.

Pictures are just normally opened automatically by preview. this is a warning that the pic is not a pic, but has code to run as an application. Virus writers are being very saavy to get around security holes.

I can see your point of this being an annoyance. (oh and as bad as Vista - I heard on a talk show that somewhere you can turn off the Deny/Allow, but again you are taking your chances and MS put a disclaimer that they cannot be held liable). again it was on one of those Geek talk shows, and I don't use vista, so I can't point out where. It is buried in the control panel settings somewhere.

so to that I say..... Give me a choice in preferences as to whether to have this dialog appear. If your computer never touches the internet (including any unsecured wireless internet connections in your area), and you were sure of everything - then turn it off. Otherwise, I would say, oh thank you for warning me that this is not really a jpeg.

 

[liam5150]

You forgot something...

MBA ($1800): Lenovo Thinkpad X200 ($1100)

Mac Pro ($2800) -- A tough one. The Mac Pro is probably actually worth its price, if you care about its heavy CPU emphasis. If you want a gaming-oriented desktop (pure graphics power), there's plenty of cheaper PC choices. But with the Mac Pro's emphasis on CPU performance, one might say it's actually worth it.

Macbook Pro 15" ($2000) : BTO HP dv5t series: $1300 -- with better specs all around

Macbook Pro 17" ($2800) : BTO HP dv7t series: $1650



Yep. I stand corrected. Of course, it's hard to say the Mac Pro is consumer-oriented, and thus cost really isn't the main thing here.

Ok. Now let me remind you that with any of those computers you listed (the non Macs) you have to add a bunch of software to get the same functionality that you get with a Mac WITH iLife and OS X... Software is more than worth the difference, specially when you can start to use your Mac right away instead of spending maybe days removing all the crapware that comes with PCs these days...

 

[137489]

<SNIP>

Again, when are we going to see Linux (or a some other operating system) become a valid alternative? Its either Windows or Mac OS X - Linux isn't even on the radar. To claim you have choice is like the spam skit off Monty python.

<SNIP>.

As I pointed out before on many threads - my feeling is this. Linux can be great (and I have used it), but the usage adoption for most people/companies has always been server related and not much for the desktop/laptop consumer implementation (for the most part the x11 desktop has been slow, or the available applications had been lacking). A lot of linux installations come and go, and the whole linux kernal has become fragmented across installations. I will not rehash everything. I think the one of main breaking points has been the fact that early editions required you to be a techno-geek in order to get it running successfullly, and you had to answer a way too many hardware related questions upon install. Most consumers would not have a clue on how to answer some of the questions.

slackware, Caldera, red Hat, Linspire/Lindows, Madrake/Mandrivia, Suse/Novell, etc. are pretty much either gone, off the radar, or were too propriatry on what software could run on it. I know they are still out there, but news about them has pretty much died.

I think Ubuntu (from what I seen so far), has the best shot as being a success. I do not like Dell, but I think Uduntu will see more of a success due to Dell adopting it and releasing Dell add ons to make it more enjoyable to work with (only on Dell computers). also the makers of Ubuntu are the first to make the OS really friendly toward running on desktops and laptops.

This is pretty much why it is MS or Apple only:

1. Marketing

2. More of a closed platform, therefore better hardware support.

3. Larger companies, therefore more people are apt to write applications for them without fear that the platform will be gone in a few months. plus you get better support (tonge-in-cheek) than some linux distributors.


Plus, since MAC OS X is freeBDS, which is more of a solid UNIX than Linux; people trust its stability more. Apple also did a good job with Darwin to put a nice easy to work with desktop GUI on a Unix install. most linux desktops look too much windows like. the other problem I seen with linux, switch between desktops and your installed applications may not always be there to run.


So in short, I think your choices are quickly going to move from two to three.

MS - Windows
Apple - Mac OS X
<not sure of manufacturer off-hand> - Ubuntu (Linux)

I did a quick google search - many other latptop/desktop manufactures are also offering Ubuntu installations (Lenovo, HP, etc).

I would also like to see more apps written that will run on both Unbuntu and OS X, so that I could easily switch back and forth (ie mac desktop, ubuntu netbook [until apple comes out with a netbook]).