OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' Seeded to WWDC Developers

[Chwisch87]

Well Windows 7 beta1 has just released (hell it was leaked 3 months ago on purpose, probably anyway).

OS 10.6 and Win7 are going to release within at least 3 months of each other and there is going to be a major mindshare battle. Much like there was when OS 10.1 and XP came out ... only this time Microsoft seems to actually have an OS that might work out of the gate (unlike XP, Vista or any other release of windows). The beta works nearly perfectly and its only beta1. I have it on my computer right now via boot camp and its the best version of windows yet.

Win7 is feature complete and has nice additions to Aero. I am wondering if there is going to be an Aqua update to counteract some of these new Win7 features (and not all of it was copied from mac this time lol) or i guess Apple may feel that Aqua doesn't need it right now.

 

[benthewraith]

Well Windows 7 beta1 has just released (hell it was leaked 3 months ago on purpose, probably anyway).

OS 10.6 and Win7 are going to release within at least 3 months of each other and there is going to be a major mindshare battle. Much like there was when OS 10.1 and XP came out ... only this time Microsoft seems to actually have an OS that might work out of the gate (unlike XP, Vista or any other release of windows). The beta works nearly perfectly and its only beta1. I have it on my computer right now via boot camp and its the best version of windows yet.

Win7 is feature complete and has nice additions to Aero. I am wondering if there is going to be an Aqua update to counteract some of these new Win7 features (and not all of it was copied from mac this time lol) or i guess Apple may feel that Aqua doesn't need it right now.

I'm expecting Win7 to be on par with Snow Leopard, maybe not necessarily in terms of GUI, but in terms of operation. OS X isn't going to be hurt by Win7. I'm expecting some serious UI upgrades in the works for 10.7. After all, the jump from 10.4 to 10.5, whilst noticeable, wasn't all that great, and OS X still lacks a uniform GUI, though they got a lot closer to it.

Unfortunately for some, I'm expecting more transparency down the road in OS X.

 

[hacksaw-C87]

I think SL might get hurt by Windows 7. Whichever way you look at it, Windows still holds the dominant share in the OS market and they are releasing a system to heal the gunshot wound in their own foot. I think it may grab the attention of unsure consumers, more perhaps than SL will with 'under the hood' changes. Even if those changes are positive for the consumer, they are less marketable for your everyday user.

 

[Dias]

SL needs consumer features to be competitive, Finder for example needs total re-thinking.

If you are on W7, new cool feature is Search Federation which allows you to search across the Web using just file manager/Explorer (it's an open platform so anyone can build extensions). Download this Flickr extension, basically you can search Flickr like it's a local folder on your hd!

 

[MacBoobsPro]

I think SL might get hurt by Windows 7. Whichever way you look at it, Windows still holds the dominant share in the OS market and they are releasing a system to heal the gunshot wound in their own foot. I think it may grab the attention of unsure consumers, more perhaps than SL will with 'under the hood' changes. Even if those changes are positive for the consumer, they are less marketable for your everyday user.

I think you are forgetting that Steve Jobs et al can sell milk to cows!

 

[Quillz]

I think SL might get hurt by Windows 7. Whichever way you look at it, Windows still holds the dominant share in the OS market and they are releasing a system to heal the gunshot wound in their own foot. I think it may grab the attention of unsure consumers, more perhaps than SL will with 'under the hood' changes. Even if those changes are positive for the consumer, they are less marketable for your everyday user.

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Also, Vista was the "under-the-hood" changes for Windows. Now that the underlying work is complete, Windows 7 is now able to focus on end-user features, like the user interface. With Apple, it's the opposite. Leopard brought the end-user changes first, and now Snow Leopard will improve performance.

 

[Quillz]

Well Windows 7 beta1 has just released (hell it was leaked 3 months ago on purpose, probably anyway).

OS 10.6 and Win7 are going to release within at least 3 months of each other and there is going to be a major mindshare battle. Much like there was when OS 10.1 and XP came out ... only this time Microsoft seems to actually have an OS that might work out of the gate (unlike XP, Vista or any other release of windows). The beta works nearly perfectly and its only beta1. I have it on my computer right now via boot camp and its the best version of windows yet.

Win7 is feature complete and has nice additions to Aero. I am wondering if there is going to be an Aqua update to counteract some of these new Win7 features (and not all of it was copied from mac this time lol) or i guess Apple may feel that Aqua doesn't need it right now.

How convenient that you accuse Microsoft of not having an OS that doesn't work out of the gate when you forgot to mention the absolute piece of crap that Mac OS X 10.0 was. Hell, Mac OS X was barely even usable until the third or so point release of Jaguar.

However, you are correct on everything else. Beta 1 is extremely solid, and you can thank Windows Vista for this. It provided the necessary framework and platform for Windows 7. Vista was, like it or not, a very important milestone for Microsoft. It introduced a new security model and a new kernel structure. UAC was the result of the new security model, and it's been greatly refined in Windows 7. It's still there, but you get fewer prompts, and it's much better at "learning" what you are constantly doing on your system so that you only get prompts when something unusual suddenly wants system-level control.

As for updates to Aqua... I doubt it. Apple is in love with it too much, despite its flaws. I really don't think Apple will do a total user interface overhaul until OS 11.

And finally, yes, Microsoft may have been "inspired" from Apple, but the opposite is true, as well. Apple has taken many ideas from Microsoft in the past. No corporation is 100% innovative. The software industry is made great by ideas being copied and improved. Frankly, if Microsoft and Apple didn't copy one another on a constant basis, we'd never be were we are today.

In the words of Picasso, "Good artists create. Great artists steal."

 

[Catfish_Man]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system..

Heh. Your opinion of Apple's influence on the world is surprisingly (and unrealistically) high. I've heard more anti-Vista stuff from my Windows-using friends than my Mac-using ones.

<edit>
Not that most of it was accurate in either case. Just talking quantity here.
</edit>

 

[Bakey]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Also, Vista was the "under-the-hood" changes for Windows. Now that the underlying work is complete, Windows 7 is now able to focus on end-user features, like the user interface. With Apple, it's the opposite. Leopard brought the end-user changes first, and now Snow Leopard will improve performance.

Do you actually know what you're talking about? Sheesh!

Vista was so much more than a "gunshot wound in their own foot" - rather they took their own leg off just below the knee!

Apple didn't have to make any claims to the inefficiencies of the OS (although they did capitalise on this further down the line), and as one poster has already stated Vista users themselves made the decision to experience the other side.

You've opened yourself up to a lot of flak here... Enjoy!

 

[Eric S.]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

It was Apple who convinced people that their third-party drivers broke when they switched to Vista? That UAC was so brain dead that its default setting prevented users from doing a lot of normal actions? That Vista was dog slow on systems that ran XP quite well? That's some propaganda machine Apple has.

 

[gonenutsbrb]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Also, Vista was the "under-the-hood" changes for Windows. Now that the underlying work is complete, Windows 7 is now able to focus on end-user features, like the user interface. With Apple, it's the opposite. Leopard brought the end-user changes first, and now Snow Leopard will improve performance.

Your brilliance and knowledge of operating systems is amazing...wait, scratch that, your blindness, ignorance, and lack of knowledge about operating systems is amazing.

Leopard most definitely had it's problems (firewall and security issues to name a few), but in computing, that's basically come to be expected with new OS's. What sets Leopard apart from Vista is that within about a month or so, almost all of it's errors were fixed. Also within a few months, Apple had released a great update that actually added new features that users had requested; that's close to unheard of in any operating system update.

As a computer technician, I refused to recommend anything but XP for those who wanted to use a Windows OS until just recently. It was about a year and a half before Vista started becoming realistically acceptable to use for the average user. XP is a great operating system (it took MS 5 years to get it right, but it is good). Vista is turning out to be decent (I run it myself on my MBPro and enjoy it), and I'm looking forward to seeing what Windows 7 has to offer. But just because Apple pointed out the obvious doesn't make them the bad guy, and I would hardly consider Leopard broken, just as I would hardly consider Vista broken. You want a broken OS? Look at Windows ME. Quite possibly one of the worst OS's ever made; a marketing stunt more than an OS (point and case).

Let's summarize your position: you walk into a Mac forum, start talking (false) trash on Apple, blindly defending an OS that had massive issues over a year after it's release, and expect people to go "Oh hey, this guy's got a point." Yeah...and we're the fan boys.

 

[Quillz]

Let's summarize your position: you walk into a Mac forum, start talking (false) trash on Apple, blindly defending an OS that had massive issues over a year after it's release, and expect people to go "Oh hey, this guy's got a point." Yeah...and we're the fan boys.

I'm not "blindly defending" an OS. I've used Vista since the day it came out and have not experienced any of the problems that Apple has so successfully pointed out. For example, they claimed in numerous print and television ads that to run Vista, you need a new computer. Not true at all. My computer from 2004 runs Vista fine.

Exactly what were the "massive issues" that plagued Vista over a year after its release? There were issues, to be sure, but they were the same issues that also faced Windows XP when it was new: primarily issues related to outdated and buggy third-party drivers. You know, the same outdated and buggy third-party drivers that caused the "BSOD" on new Leopard installations when it was new.

If Leopard is so wonderful and all of its issues were fixed within a month, then why has Apple continued to release point releases? Why are there threads on this board about "When the hell is Apple going to fix the wireless problem in Leopard?" or about how "10.5.6 is the worst update yet?" It seems to be that both Vista and Leopard have had issues, a few major ones, but mostly minor ones.

Most of Vista's issues were fixed with SP1, and you're right about Leopard. Most of its problems were fixed with the first point release. I'm not denying that. But I also find it ironic that Apple can be so good at successfully convincing the masses about how supposedly bad Vista is, when they ignore their own problems that face Leopard.

I guess the bottom line is no OS is perfect. But you're already a computer technician, so you already knew that.

 

[gonenutsbrb]

I'm not "blindly defending" an OS. I've used Vista since the day it came out and have not experienced any of the problems that Apple has so successfully pointed out. For example, they claimed in numerous print and television ads that to run Vista, you need a new computer. Not true at all. My computer from 2004 runs Vista fine.

Exactly what were the "massive issues" that plagued Vista over a year after its release? There were issues, to be sure, but they were the same issues that also faced Windows XP when it was new: primarily issues related to outdated and buggy third-party drivers. You know, the same outdated and buggy third-party drivers that caused the "BSOD" on new Leopard installations when it was new.

If Leopard is so wonderful and all of its issues were fixed within a month, then why has Apple continued to release point releases? Why are there threads on this board about "When the hell is Apple going to fix the wireless problem in Leopard?" or about how "10.5.6 is the worst update yet?" It seems to be that both Vista and Leopard have had issues, a few major ones, but mostly minor ones.

Most of Vista's issues were fixed with SP1, and you're right about Leopard. Most of its problems were fixed with the first point release. I'm not denying that. But I also find it ironic that Apple can be so good at successfully convincing the masses about how supposedly bad Vista is, when they ignore their own problems that face Leopard.

I guess the bottom line is no OS is perfect. But you're already a computer technician, so you already knew that.

No question, both mainstream OS's today have their issues. I use both, but I do prefer Apple's unix based and registry free OS to Windows. However, trying to justify Vista's issues via personal experience is a great example of the flaws of inductive reasoning. As it would be flawed for me justify Leopard's flaws with my error free personal experience. And referencing threads about problems with the OS? This is Vista we're talking about, do you really want to go there?

I think you overestimate Apple's power over the "masses." I hardly consider a few points in market share convincing everybody.

To prevent this little debate from degrading further, let's just say that both OS's have their ups and downs, and usage is based more on personal preference than much else. SL and Windows 7 will both interesting to see in action.

 

[Bakey]

I'm not "blindly defending" an OS. I've used Vista since the day it came out and have not experienced any of the problems that Apple has so successfully pointed out. For example, they claimed in numerous print and television ads that to run Vista, you need a new computer. Not true at all. My computer from 2004 runs Vista fine.

Hell yes OS X has its problems - but you don't see Apple offering users the option to downgrade to the previous version at the point of purchase do you?

Why have the IT departments been so reluctant to adopt Vista?

It sucks! It's the biggest single business mistake Microsoft have ever made... I hope for their sake that Windows 7 is a decent OS - that way it'll make sure Apple don't become complacent!!

 

[Eric S.]

It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

you're right about Leopard. Most of its problems were fixed with the first point release. I'm not denying that.

So Apple ignored Leopard, while they were fixing its problems in the first point release?

 

[Arisian]

I'm not "blindly defending" an OS. I've used Vista since the day it came out and have not experienced any of the problems that Apple has so successfully pointed out. For example, they claimed in numerous print and television ads that to run Vista, you need a new computer. Not true at all. My computer from 2004 runs Vista fine.

Exactly what were the "massive issues" that plagued Vista over a year after its release? There were issues, to be sure, but they were the same issues that also faced Windows XP when it was new: primarily issues related to outdated and buggy third-party drivers. You know, the same outdated and buggy third-party drivers that caused the "BSOD" on new Leopard installations when it was new.

If Leopard is so wonderful and all of its issues were fixed within a month, then why has Apple continued to release point releases? Why are there threads on this board about "When the hell is Apple going to fix the wireless problem in Leopard?" or about how "10.5.6 is the worst update yet?" It seems to be that both Vista and Leopard have had issues, a few major ones, but mostly minor ones.

Most of Vista's issues were fixed with SP1, and you're right about Leopard. Most of its problems were fixed with the first point release. I'm not denying that. But I also find it ironic that Apple can be so good at successfully convincing the masses about how supposedly bad Vista is, when they ignore their own problems that face Leopard.

I guess the bottom line is no OS is perfect. But you're already a computer technician, so you already knew that.

aahh, bull crap... My entire office (computers from 2006) couldnt run visit even if they tried.

 

[overcast]

aahh, bull crap... My entire office (computers from 2006) couldnt run visit even if they tried.

They can run vista fine. Chances are more likely , they just won't be able to enable Aero.

 

[Quillz]

aahh, bull crap... My entire office (computers from 2006) couldnt run visit even if they tried.

Then your entire office obviously bought terrible computers in 2006, or has a terrible IT department. Because I have two computers from 2004 and one from 2005 that has no troubles running Vista. Aero Glass really isn't as demanding as people seem to think it is. Even notebooks with Intel GMA are able to run it.

 

[Oneness]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Also, Vista was the "under-the-hood" changes for Windows. Now that the underlying work is complete, Windows 7 is now able to focus on end-user features, like the user interface. With Apple, it's the opposite. Leopard brought the end-user changes first, and now Snow Leopard will improve performance.

As has already been said - Sorry, but Apple is not that powerfull. Vista was/is considered broken because partly it was and partly Microsoft just flat dropped the PR ball.
And, no, by my above statement I am not absolving Apple of their own faults.

 

[Spankey]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Apple never tried to convince people that Vista was broken as in not working. They did reinforce opinions that Vista was not a fun computing experience, from the point of sale, through installation and then use. At the same time, they pointed to the Mac as a better alternative. It convinced people to take a look.

 

[iAthena]

Vista was not a "gunshot wound in their own foot." It was a good operating system that Apple successfully convince people was broken, while they ignored Leopard, their own broken operating system.

Also, Vista was the "under-the-hood" changes for Windows. Now that the underlying work is complete, Windows 7 is now able to focus on end-user features, like the user interface. With Apple, it's the opposite. Leopard brought the end-user changes first, and now Snow Leopard will improve performance.

So, all those system crashes I experienced when testing Vista were all a figment of my imagination?

I better go watch another Mojave commercial and get my head straightened out on the advantages of Vista.

 

[Eric S.]

So, all those system crashes I experienced when testing Vista were all a figment of my imagination?

Your imagination? No, Apple implanted those images in your brain.

 

[Yamcha]

Doesn't appeal to me, it looks the same as OSX, except 64-bit and I think it supports 8GB Memory?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Doesn't appeal to me, it looks the same as OSX, except 64-bit and I think it supports 8GB Memory?

1. It IS OS X.
2. It supports several petabytes of RAM.

 

[Ibjr]

I'm not "blindly defending" an OS. I've used Vista since the day it came out and have not experienced any of the problems that Apple has so successfully pointed out. For example, they claimed in numerous print and television ads that to run Vista, you need a new computer. Not true at all. My computer from 2004 runs Vista fine. .

I have followed Apple's marketing very closely for years and think you are either full of it or functionally illiterate. Please provide a print ad explaining the need to get a new PC to run Vista?

At the time, the major parties behind the push for a new PC to run Vista were Microsoft and the hardware vendors. MS knew the new driver model would be a problem for legacy hardware. They teamed up with hardware manufactures to release drivers for Vista for the contemporary hardware. Much of the old hardware either never received vista drivers or had poorly functioning ones (example: audigy).

Exactly what were the "massive issues" that plagued Vista over a year after its release? There were issues, to be sure, but they were the same issues that also faced Windows XP when it was new: primarily issues related to outdated and buggy third-party drivers. You know, the same outdated and buggy third-party drivers that caused the "BSOD" on new Leopard installations when it was new.

Again. The "massive" issues the faced vista were nothing like the issues withXP. XP had 2000, and the drivers could be easily adapted. Vista had an entirely new driver model. XP and Vista drivers issues are not analogous situations. Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

If Leopard is so wonderful and all of its issues were fixed within a month, then why has Apple continued to release point releases? Why are there threads on this board about "When the hell is Apple going to fix the wireless problem in Leopard?" or about how "10.5.6 is the worst update yet?" It seems to be that both Vista and Leopard have had issues, a few major ones, but mostly minor ones.

The posts you were responding too were pounding Vista, not defending leopard. You can't prove that Vista wasn't an embarrassment by correctly pointing out that Leopard was a substandard release.

Most of Vista's issues were fixed with SP1, and you're right about Leopard. Most of its problems were fixed with the first point release. I'm not denying that. But I also find it ironic that Apple can be so good at successfully convincing the masses about how supposedly bad Vista is, when they ignore their own problems that face Leopard.

Most of Vista's problems were not fixed by SP1. The people who ran it on legacy hardware (you know, the type of 2004 hardware you bragged about running vista on) downgraded and never reinstalled.

I guess the bottom line is no OS is perfect. But you're already a computer technician, so you already knew that.

No. The bottom line is while no OS is perfect, Vista was god awful and Bill Gates has admitted as much in interviews.

That said, Windows 7 does look amazing. Quit defending Vista, you are doing it poorly and no one, not even Microsoft's marketing department, think Vista is worth defending.