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

No OSX 10.4 in 2004???

BWhaler

BWhaler

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jan 8, 2003
3,789
6,250
Just an unfounded, speculative thought...

Some reasons why this may be smart:

1. Don't give M$ too much time to copy the true, next generation functionality of OSX. Let them focus on copying OSX as is, while Apple works on the next huge leapfrog release.

2. OSX is a robust and solid operating system at this point. It is a great foundation.

3. Have more time to port and debug a true 64 bit operating system. Maybe that is the big announcement January 05. 2004 will be about moving the hardware over to 64 bit G5's, with 2005 kicking off with a new 64 bit Operating system.

4. Put more resources now to a broader selection of Apple applications.

(And if they do not release 10.4, all those people who b*itch about the $129 "annual fee" will be crying that they don't get a new OSX this year. Mark my words.)
 
I don't think Apple should lay off the updates. The more Apple does, the farther it puts them ahead of M$.
 
Re: No OSX 10.4 in 2004???

Originally posted by BWhaler
Just an unfounded, speculative thought...

Some reasons why this may be smart:

1. Don't give M$ too much time to copy the true, next generation functionality of OSX. Let them focus on copying OSX as is, while Apple works on the next huge leapfrog release.

2. OSX is a robust and solid operating system at this point. It is a great foundation.

3. Have more time to port and debug a true 64 bit operating system. Maybe that is the big announcement January 05. 2004 will be about moving the hardware over to 64 bit G5's, with 2005 kicking off with a new 64 bit Operating system.

4. Put more resources now to a broader selection of Apple applications.

(And if they do not release 10.4, all those people who b*itch about the $129 "annual fee" will be crying that they don't get a new OSX this year. Mark my words.)
Click to expand...

1. You know, MS does copy some stuff. Apple copies stuff from them too, as well as other operating systems. holding off an OS update for this reason doesn't make much sense to me. MS's next major release isn't scheduled for a couple years, at least, maybe longer. How long do you hold off. How do you keep people from going back to MS. you better have an Os thats constantly evolving. Also, the longer apple holds off, the less distance there is between microsoft and apple. Better to make it as good as possible while you have a window where MS isn't going to release anything for a while. show people how much better it is now, not in the future. Grow the installed user base.

2) so what. The basis of OS X would not change with a major update. its robust now, it will be robust then, maybe more so. Just because something is good enough now doesn't mean it can't be better, and doesn't mean it will be good enough tomorrow, and the more you evolve, the more capabilities you never thought off can be integrated.

3) chances of 10.4 being true 64 bit is pretty much nil. So long as apple still has products using a 32 bit chip (which will be for the next couple of years at least), apple needs to keep the OS 32 bit. I've heard people say they could have both 32 and 64 bit systems, but I don't see why apple should have both, which means additional testing, more staff, and the same situation would apply to all the programs they make too. I just don't see this happening. When you consider apple tends to support older systems pretty well as well, I just don't see this happening for a number of years. The Os may remain 32 bit even after the entire product line goes 64 bit.

4) you think that if they don't release an OS it means more resources will be available for other things. Thats not how it works. The OS has its own team with people constantly working on it for minor, major and future updates. They don't justs top working on it and work on something else.

Apple also gets a fair amount of revenue from an OS update like 10.4 would be. So if apple feels it has a release that can be fairly called a full update, they will release it.
 
i say copy copy copy.. all i want is a super cool OS.. doesnt bother me if its half mac, half windows.. as long as its kickass0r!!

:)
 
i think they shouldn't rush it, but if it's out in 04, the better! longhorn is supposed to be out when? it will have been how many years between OS upgrades for ms? apple should keep consistency, but hopefully they don't rush it.
 
I think it's pretty simple. Apple has some target features they want to have in the OS. If those features could be available this year then that would mean 10.4 hits this year however if they need more time I don't see them having any problems waiting until 2005.

10.3 seemed to be mainly cosmetic with some tweaking of the plumbing. This, to me, portends 10.4 having sweeping changes in functionality. I'm looking for file system changes. Quartz Extreme improvement and other things. 10.4 is going to be a must have. I don't care how good we think Panther is right now.
 
More features...

How bout some real features that people actually notice... like moving large amounts of files without the damn beachball... or a dock with more robust features that has springloaded folders... reimplementation of tabbed finder windows a la OS9... Piles... anyone else have some wishes? I'd like to know what they are.
 
Re: More features...

Originally posted by movabi
How bout some real features that people actually notice... like [...] reimplementation of tabbed finder windows a la OS9...
Click to expand...

I'm addicted to tabbed browsing in everything I run, both PC and Mac. This is about the one most annoying (lack of) feature of Finder, especially when you're moving files around between 15 different folders/drive!
 
Re: More features...

Originally posted by movabi
How bout some real features that people actually notice... like moving large amounts of files without the damn beachball... or a dock with more robust features that has springloaded folders... reimplementation of tabbed finder windows a la OS9... Piles... anyone else have some wishes? I'd like to know what they are.
Click to expand...

i think expose` is the child of piles. just like minimize in place was the parent of the dock badges. they could easily put piles in if it exists, but many people wold just use another folder to organize things. tabbed browsing in the finder would also be good. it would make doing stuff a lot easier. spring loaded folders in the dock are a must.
 
Originally posted by 7on
Didn't Jobs once promised a new OS every year?
Click to expand...

I don't wanna spend $130 every year! I mean, I even spent 2x $130 this year, because I was a little late with the Jaguar update, but I don't think that Apple should release a full-price OS every year.
 
well apple still has to come out with a 64 bit os that uses the 64 bit G5 all the way, can you say 10.4?? iam guessing a 10.4 in 2004 and a flood Of G5 based products.
 
Good points all around, but I see things a little differently. I live near a very nice Apple retailer that accepts trade-ins of used machinery, and then sells them off for fun and profit. (i.e. I never would have been able to afford a G5 without the trade-in value of my previous PBG4) My question is this: Why bother upgrading, when it's better to just buy a new system (with the old one as a trade-in). You get to keep all your data (well, as long as firewire still exists) and you get a new machine and new OS to go with it. It might not be the most economically sound principle, but it saves me the trouble of all upgrading, I just pull a massive one every year.

Granted, not everyone has these options, but this is one of the advantages of Apple, IMO. They trade in and out faster than used cars!
 
Tabbed Browsing in the finder would be cool, I'm so hooked on tabbed browsing I sometimes look for a tab in the finder, but disappointed not to find one. The return of spring loaded tabbed folders which was introduced in 8 would be good.

Other wishes:
Dial-in (like there was in OS 9).
The return of the Launcher (makes accessing LOTS of programs easy).
Multiple Desktops.
More optimised OS, and less buggy.
The return of the Graphing Calculator.
 
Originally posted by awulf
The return of spring loaded tabbed folders which was introduced in 8 would be good.

Other wishes:
Dial-in (like there was in OS 9).
The return of the Launcher (makes accessing LOTS of programs easy).
Multiple Desktops.
More optimised OS, and less buggy.
The return of the Graphing Calculator.
Click to expand...

launcher is like the dock if you think about it.

and spring loaded folders are back. i want them in the dock too though.
 
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
launcher is like the dock if you think about it.

and spring loaded folders are back. i want them in the dock too though.
Click to expand...

The launcher could categorise programs, to reduce clutter and find the program you want fast.
Currently I am using 'DragThing 4.6' instead, which is better than the Launcher but costs money.

With the spring loaded tabbed folders I meant the folders that sit at the bottom of the window as a tab, easy to get to, and easily gets out of your way.
 
oh. ok. now i understand.
i suppose putting spring loaded folders in the docks and making it like when you click and hold on a folder could make that work a bit.
 
Re: Re: No OSX 10.4 in 2004???

Originally posted by strider42
3) chances of 10.4 being true 64 bit is pretty much nil. So long as apple still has products using a 32 bit chip (which will be for the next couple of years at least), apple needs to keep the OS 32 bit. I've heard people say they could have both 32 and 64 bit systems, but I don't see why apple should have both, which means additional testing, more staff, and the same situation would apply to all the programs they make too. I just don't see this happening. When you consider apple tends to support older systems pretty well as well, I just don't see this happening for a number of years. The Os may remain 32 bit even after the entire product line goes 64 bit.
Click to expand...

This seems to be one of the biggest misconceptions of a 64-bit Mac OS X. Most of the kernel already has to run in 64-bit mode because it needs to see the entire memory space, which is often over 4GB in size. It also has to deal inherently with disk addresses which force 64-bit since most drives are over 4GB in size. As such the only thing that will need to be added (at least for compatibility) would be flag to know if the current application is running in a 32-bit or 64-bit address space. This information would also be needed to determine what version of frameworks to load (32- or 64-bit) anyway.

Now there would need to be a lot of additional testing, but only in the system frameworks. Applications themselves can remain 32-bit or become 64-bit as would fit their requirements. Most likely there would be very few applications that Apple would move to 64-bit, and those few are the only ones likely to also have a parallel 32-bit version.

So while moving to 64-bit certainly wouldn't be free or simple, it also is quite straightforward to do given Mac OS X's architecture.
 
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