I mean they must have had a pretty good idea of what they were building when they started with 10.5, why didn't they just pretend it was already built and then aim to improve that?.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why don't they skip 10.5 and go straight to 10.6
- Thread starter dogbone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dogbone said:
Don't really understand your point here, unless it is "why do we get a new release so regually"?
Assuming that is what your saying, I believe the gaps between .1's is getting longer and longer (and is planned to continue to do so). Personally I think the 1-2 years is the right mark. I don't like the massive gap MS has had, but also guess that will happen from time to time. Every year feels like too much... so 18 months feels about right, I like getting big new features, and I'm happy to pay for them esp. with the family packs which make me feel like I'm getting excellent value!
bugfaceuk said:
iPhoto skipped a version number (I think it was 3?) and went straight to the next number to match the rest of iLife.
mad jew said:And iTunes, to an extent.
That annoys me so much. iTMS updtate + getting rid of the line in the LCD display /= new release number.
I was kind of expecting this thread to have a punchline in white text or something like that.
Mmmm, well, Apple has been tight-lipped about what Leopard will have, considering that it's getting relatively close. I wonder if they'll try to beat Vista out the door. Anyway, I'm excited. I don't know if I'll upgrade to it, sell one of my Macs and replace it with an Intel Mac that comes pre-configured with it, or what. But I'm excited about it.
Mmmm, well, Apple has been tight-lipped about what Leopard will have, considering that it's getting relatively close. I wonder if they'll try to beat Vista out the door. Anyway, I'm excited. I don't know if I'll upgrade to it, sell one of my Macs and replace it with an Intel Mac that comes pre-configured with it, or what. But I'm excited about it.
In terms of OS XI, OS 11 will be a whole new OS, this is if Steve Jobs is to be believed, he stated that they would replace OSX in ten years (one release of OSX per year) Therefore skipping to OSX.6 would put this out of order.
Ensign
Ensign
Meh...no need. What do you get by changing a number? Most people I know don't even call it OS 10.4 they just call it OS Ex Tiger. Anyways the number means nothing. I'm more concerned about Apple opening up the gap again between OS X and Windows. Vista is going to narrow that gap substantially.
Hmm I thought it was 10 too. As nice as OS X is I don't think it has legs for 20 years. I mean look at what the MOS was 20 years ago as an example. 10 I can believe. 20 not so much.
liketom said:
Hmm I thought it was 10 too. As nice as OS X is I don't think it has legs for 20 years. I mean look at what the MOS was 20 years ago as an example. 10 I can believe. 20 not so much.
SiliconAddict said:
Only by copying OSX. I wouldnt worry too much, Apple will just pull away again because they innovate unlike Microsoft who regurgitate (when they dont procrastinate)
Even if Microsoft do pull a few surprises it will urge Apple to create even better products so either way i cant wait.
SiliconAddict said:
Me too, although I'm assuming that's because I'm not as smart as the Apple folks and they know exactly what they are going to do. Even with next-gen OS (such as OS X 11) I struggle to see what will be new, thin clients? I guess we don't really know how computing demands will change, therefore we don't know what the OS will look liike....
Make no mistake Vista will close gaps. I've just sat through a series of videos to show us things that we might want to use in our tools, and the gap is closing.
What's interesting is it still doesn't look as good, and MS seem to have missed many of the subtlties, but I'm not sure the average Windows user will see anything other than a "big improvement", if they haven't used a mac for an extended period.
Hey I love my Mac, and I want to keep sn1ggering at the Windows users... I have faith in Apple, sure hope they deliver.
Except that there was no release in 2004. Panther was released 24/10/2003, and Tiger came out 29/04/2005. So they're already out of sync. And the release dates are getting further apart.Ensign Paris said:
Interestingly (if you can call it that) there are an increasing number of upgrades to each OS.
See a list here.
stuartluff said:Only by copying OSX. I wouldnt worry too much, Apple will just pull away again because they innovate unlike Microsoft who regurgitate (when they dont procrastinate)
Even if Microsoft do pull a few surprises it will urge Apple to create even better products so either way i cant wait.
Not really. The difference between 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4 aren't really all that drastic, on the surface that is. Apple has made some substantial changes in how OS works "under the hood"
Then you look at what Microsoft is doing with Windows. Many of the same "under the hood" refinements are being implemented, accounts are going to be run in a limited state, the graphics subsystem is being updated to bring it inline with Apple's Quartz, extreme, etc. If 10.5 is anything like its predecessors many potential switchers will shrug and go "so what". What Apple needs is something more then an update that includes smalltime stuff like spotlight, dashboard, expose, changing the color scheme, etc. These are all nice additions to be sure, but if this trend continues Apple isn't going to have a whole heck of a lot to differentiate itself from Windows. To put it more simply.
Windows XP vs. OS 10.4 Tiger . . . . Winner TIGER!!
Windows Vista vs. OS 10.4 Tiger . . . Winner umm er tiger?
Apple really needs to implement some new, and really fresh ideas that take OS X to the next level. Something in-between a major version number release and the halfway mark we will be at with 10.5 What could that be? Who knows. I'm still waiting for the mythical 3D interface to become a reality or more accurately a practical reality. (3D has been done before with very unimpressive results.) What about an OS that uses eye tracking to replace the mouse? Or a sphere to replace finder. I’ve been thinking about how you could turn finder into a 3D interface without it looking hokey. I’ve actually been thinking along the lines of an atomic structure methodology. (Ideas born of nature and natural structures generally are the more simplistic yet functional. See below. Note that it’s a PITA to represent 3D in a 2D drawing program like Paint Shop pro.
My point, other then I suck at drawing, is that this a 20 minute design concept. Apple has enough, or should have enough talent, to be able to lay waste to Microsoft with some seriously revolutionary concepts and frankly that is what Apple is going to have to do to compete with Vista.
PS- Movement would be done via the Mighty Mouse scroll ball. move your mouse over the node you want to go two and scroll forward. Back takes out out of it. Right spins the structure to the right and left to the left. Still don't know how you would preview though. Hmm Possibly the content sphere goes translucent and you can see what is inside?
Attachments
didn't netscape skip version 5 and go straight to 6? Seems like a pretty weak marketing ploy IMO
This is all very interesting. I do think OSX is a major draw for new Applebees (excuse my term for new apple clients) There are improvements to be made to the system, but really, I'm not sure what revolutionary thing they can come up with that everyday folks will really want over a $500 cheaper vista machine. I'm Mac crazy and would buy an OSX with updated screensavers, but not everyone will.
As for the numbering, 10.5 is logical and sensical. Apple needs that consistancy of thought to not confuse people. They've made a business by wowing people with their simplicity.
I do think iTunes 6 came out to compete with WMP because that's in its 11th edition. I think in some people's minds, the higher the number, the better it is. So other than that, I don't see a reason to make 10.6
I like the idea for the 3D interface. One thing to remember is that all the Mac computers wouldn't be fast enough to run that GUI and everything, on top of iTunes playing and a bunch of other things going. People are sold on Apple's perfection, I know many people who are turned off by any glitch because they think it must represent the whole computer/structure, even though they know windows is awful. So once the computers (even base comps) really get much faster, all these new features might have to wait.
We know that Vista is new so its bound to have bugs. Vista isn't doomsday for Apple. There are like 6 or 7 versions (levels) of Vista coming out all with different pricing. That idea would make me mad enough to switch right there.
Just my opinion
As for the numbering, 10.5 is logical and sensical. Apple needs that consistancy of thought to not confuse people. They've made a business by wowing people with their simplicity.
I do think iTunes 6 came out to compete with WMP because that's in its 11th edition. I think in some people's minds, the higher the number, the better it is. So other than that, I don't see a reason to make 10.6
I like the idea for the 3D interface. One thing to remember is that all the Mac computers wouldn't be fast enough to run that GUI and everything, on top of iTunes playing and a bunch of other things going. People are sold on Apple's perfection, I know many people who are turned off by any glitch because they think it must represent the whole computer/structure, even though they know windows is awful. So once the computers (even base comps) really get much faster, all these new features might have to wait.
We know that Vista is new so its bound to have bugs. Vista isn't doomsday for Apple. There are like 6 or 7 versions (levels) of Vista coming out all with different pricing. That idea would make me mad enough to switch right there.
Just my opinion
They do it the way they do in order to integrate everything properly, with the minimum amount of fuss. If they said, "here's what we're putting into 10.4, let's lump all our proposed 10.5 features in as well" they would change too much too fast and end up with a buggy product.dogbone said:
The sequential system allows them to make incremental cahnges, nail them down tight and *then* start adding new ones. In theory.
Without 10.1 there would be no 10.2Thanatoast said:
Without 10.3 there would be no 10.4
Apple's change in code and under the hood functions are so drastic and so many, that they can't afford not letting people know what the changes are so far.
To be more specific, I will explain things for the last 2 OS's, from Jaguar, to Tiger (because that's what I have used the last years):
--Jaguar to Panther: CoreAudio was impemented, and Expose was introduced. Many programming API's were updated, and the Path to a formal implementation of OpenAL was made clear.
They shipped the product so fast, because:
1)They wanted to test the stability of the system in a large scale. Thousands of users make a better testing system than 8-9 people in the developing company.
2)They wanted to push the developers to use the new technologies as fast as they could, in order for the transition and the new implementations' learning curve to be better. Imagine if we skipped the Panther release:
Programs wouldn't work, and CoreAudio, CoreImage, CoreVideo, Spotlight, GCC 4.0 new Xcode, OpenAL official implementation, new Installer Application (yup, the old installer app was a total mess)... all those API's introduced at once would be apple's downfall!
Panther to Tiger
After CoreAudio, which was the introductory API for all the later Core features, CoreImage and CoreVideo were introduced. GCC 4.0 is now supported on Tiger. This made the transition smoother for developers.
For Users
The transition must always be smooth. The first OS's of the X series didn't take too long to be released, simply because there were so many things that clearly needed to be updated and fixed.
--OS X 10.0 needed some serious tweaking in performance.
--10.1 solved that problem and introduced some memory handling routines. --OS X Jaguar was just a little faster than 10.1, but it introduced more interface features and networking options, and multilingual unicode support (which made a big difference for me).
--OS X 10.3 was a step forward to the right direction: CoreAudio implementations that helped a lot of musicians to do their work, and music app developers to make programs with minimum effort. It also introduced expose, and it was much faster than 10.2
--Tiger is even faster than 10.3, with many more implemented features, mostly on the programming side, but it also integrates spotlight (I can't live without it), dashboard (alright, this is a useless feature for most of us but let's leave that fact), and many graphics upgrades in drivers (OpenGL 2.0 support).
You see, those things could not happen all at once. People need a smooth transition, always. This is also good for Apple's marketing strategy. Apple needs to be at the top, always, in order to provide a good justification of why Apple's machines are so expensive. So they need to upgrade their system constantly, because most people that use Macs, are professionals that need always to use the latest and most powerful tools.