Apple has confirmed that Steve Jobs will hold a keynote speech at the WWDC, which will be held from 7th to 11th August. Jobs will unveil the feature set of Apple's answer to Windows Vista, MacOS 10.5, Leopard. Apple fansites have been buzzing with rumors and screenshots (which were fake anyway) about Leopard; the main point of interest seems to be not if, but how Apple will provide support for Windows in Leopard.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-02-20
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-06-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-06-06
Member since:2005-11-10
Er, Q2DE wasn't enabled in Tiger by default because it wasn't entirely functional and unstable. If you have developer tools installed in Tiger, you can enable it yourself. Apple have issued documents to instruct programmers to prepare for resolution independence and the Tiger developer tools come with with an app to change the screen DPI to test with.
The 3GHz G5 has to do with IBM not Apple.
Member since:2006-06-06
My point was that regardless of what Apple has said up until now there's still some possibility that resolution independence won't be finished before 10.5 is released. That is, unless you or anyone else is leaking inside information that knows it's a certainty. All "legit" public 10.5 info is still in the realm of speculation. Always less speculative after WWDC, legit or not.
That said, resolution independence is one of the few things we can be relatively confident about being released in 10.5 for the reasons you mentioned.
Member since:
2005-08-07
Given that all the features that have been removed from Vista one by one, what does Apple really have to do besides hold steady, stay the course and avoid the DRM nightmare about to begin for Vista users?
--bornagainpenguin (who finds it hysterical that all of the features promised in Vista have appeared in every other OS besides Vista...)
Member since:2006-02-20
Member since:2005-11-10
Closed the way Apple do?
Sign up to Rhapsody sonny and see how far your rights go there! Apple's iTunes DRM is the lightest of all the stores with DRM.
OSX also doesn't have protected processes that stop other processes tapping in to debug and doesn't have a protected driver space to prevent people creating vitual audio and video devices for copying data.
"Apple's DRM" doesn't compare to the lock-down going on in Vista.
Member since:2005-11-23
"btw, I don't hate drm as it, but I hate it when it's closed the way Apple do."
I only have to burn iTunes tracks on a CD to remove the DRM. I feel so closed by Apple, its awful (I am waiting the same with Microsoft's DRM).
And with the rumor of tracks on iTMS with Apple LossLess Codec, burning tracks will remove the DRM AND their will be NO quality loss.
Member since:2006-02-20
I only have to burn iTunes tracks on a CD to remove the DRM. I feel so closed by Apple, its awful (I am waiting the same with Microsoft's DRM).
You download lossy format music
You burn that music
You rip that music again to your PC and by doing that you lose quality again
Conclusion: you waste your time to get worse quality than before
I respect Apple but iTunes DRM is simply Crap. If they will continue this way, I think that people will choise URGE at the end (open DRM, compattibile with every "play-for-sure" devices).
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2006-02-20
Lol, where did you get that statistics?
Actually play-for-sure devices are a little more than 10%, here are a list of manufactors that support Ms' programm:
Archos ILO RaveMP
Audiovox iriver RCA
Creative Labs JVC Rio
Dell mpio Roku
Denon Netgear Samsung
D-Link Palm SanDisk
Gateway Philips Toshiba
(from playforsure.com)
The question is, don't you want to have a freedom of choise? Even today there are a lot of player that are better of iPod, what if next line of ipod product will crap? Why do I have to use iPod to listen the music that I have legally bought?
Member since:2006-03-25
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-16
as it stands... not a single person on this planet is forced to buy music from apple iTunes. NOR are thay forced to use iPod. Hence.... NO ONE is forced to use apples DRM. You have the freedom to buy music ANY WAY YOU WANT! so please dont confuse being able to play you "plays for sure" WM files on any "plays for sure" device as freedom!
am i free to do what I want with MSs DRM...... oh... no?
but hey....
it i buy a CD, rip it.... i can do what ever the hell i want with it! Legal or not legal!
thats freedom!!!!!
DRM...is DRM no matter how you look at it!
if you think creative... or samsung make better MP3 playes than apple and thir iPod.... have at it! yoiu have the freedom to buy what ever you want.....
but with DRM... you have no choice, but to comply with the related licence... PERIOD..... weather is MS, or real... or... apple
this conversation is over.
Member since:2006-03-25
Member since:2006-02-20
Member since:2006-02-16
Member since:2006-03-20
Isn't DRM closed by definition?
http://defectivebydesign.org/about/
Leave enforcement of copyright to law enforcers, not hardware manufacturers.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-05-11
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:
2006-01-08
For those who don't already know, the next OSX release will supposedly feature full NTFS read/write (http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ntfs-dev&m=114908029707733&w=...), at which time a Linux version will also be released.
Member since:2006-01-25
Member since:
2006-02-05
Member since:2005-10-21
Member since:2006-06-27
Member since:2005-09-06
I thought it went like this.
mac os 9
mac os 10=X, have you ever seen a roman numeral?
The reason I think they put "OS X 10.46" is to tell people the build number.
Also I just looked on amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-9482289-35...
go forward a few pages to chapter 1 and it says macOS X stands for ten.
edit: If the x in linux was ment to be a 10 it would have been like this linu X, they wouldnt have it mashed together.
Edited 2006-06-27 06:11
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-08-12
Sorry Thom but you are quite wrong.
It is, for example, "Mac OS X version 10.4.6" or "Mac OS X v10.4.6" for short. This is how it is printed on the discs and on Apple's own website. It's silly to argue with reality and the thread title is incorrect.
Just take a look at Apple's website, at system requirements, etc...
System requirements for iLife '06 : "Mac OS X v10.3.9 or Mac OS X v10.4.3 or later; Mac OS X v10.4.4 recommended"
The page to purchase OS X is titled "Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger"
This is, also, nothing new AT ALL. Take a look at an older disc and you'll find something like "Mac OS 9 Version 9.2.1".
Member since:2005-07-23
Member since:2006-03-12
I think the point of the redundancy (Mac OS X 10.5) is to create a common symbol for the whole product line into the future. X is the way to go not only because it was version 10, but also because it's Unix, and we all know any Unix variant has to have an X somewhere in the name. I suspect the 11 and 12 series will still have a giant X featured on the box. It won't mean =10, but it will mean part of the 10 era.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Apple's answer to Windows Vista
You have to be kidding, or just have receieved a cheque from MS. It's like someone advertised their game as an answer to DNF. Or like when some nitwit critic called Tron as the Matrix of the 80's. When you try to compare apples and oranges, it'd be nice if you knew which is which first.
Member since:2006-05-11
Member since:
2006-06-27
[Quote]
I thought it went like this.
mac os 9
mac os 10=X, have you ever seen a roman numeral?
The reason I think they put "OS X 10.46" is to tell people the build number.
[/Quote]
Yeah I know roman numeral.
I guess the X stand for using UniX stuff in it.
So it went
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X 10
We will see after Mac OS X 10.9 who is right ;-)
How do I quote, btw ? *g
Edited 2006-06-27 07:04
Member since:2005-11-07
So it went
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X 10
I believe it is:
"Mac OS" v8.x commonly refered to as "System 8"
"Mac OS" v9.x commonly refered to as "System 9"
"Mac OS X" v0.x commonly refered to as "Cheetah"
"Mac OS X" v1.x commonly refered to as "Puma"
"Mac OS X" v2.x commonly refered to as "Jaguar"
"Mac OS X" v3.x commonly refered to as "Panther"
"Mac OS X" v4.x commonly refered to as "Tiger"
"Mac OS X" v5.x commonly refered to as "Leopard"
I did not get a Mac until Panther was released, but I am sure the consensus is that Cheetah was a beta/RC and Puma was the first "true" version of OS X.
10.5.x are build numbers. If I type 'ver' in a command prompt on my Windows machine it displays:
Mirosoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
Member since:2006-03-12
(Responding to both parents in one spot)
We will see after Mac OS X 10.9 who is right ;-) (th22)
Version numbers aren't decimal. The periods are just group separators. After 10.9 comes 10.10 (not to be confused with 10.1), if they choose to stay on the same major. Theoretically, you could go to 10.4982734000, the "four billion, nine hundred eighty-two million, seven hundred thirty-four thousandth" minor release of major version 10.
I did not get a Mac until Panther was released, but I am sure the consensus is that Cheetah was a beta/RC and Puma was the first "true" version of OS X. (Thomas2005)
There was Rhapsody (OS X under the hood with OS9's GUI), and then a public beta of X, and then 10.0 was released (retail), but it wasn't very well received (very little software, interface was all gimmicky and gross, slow and relatively unstable), but the upgrade to 10.1 was free, so while it was a release version, it looks pretty irrelevant in retrospect (though it was monumentally important to the development of what we have today).
Member since:
2006-06-27
[Quote]
MacOS X = MacOS 'Ten'. Hence, Leopard is MacOS 10.5. Else we'd get, MacOS Ten 10.5. Now that's just silly, ain't it.
[/Quote]
You give your answer to yourself. Apple always calls it MacOS X 10.4 and not MacOS 10.4
Maybe Apple doesn't know themself what they write and are silly ;-)
Apple calls it on their HP: Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger
As you see MacOS X version 10.4.
And you wanna tell me they mean MacOS 10 Version 10.4 ?
Member since:2006-02-16
Member since:
2006-03-19
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-03-12
To be incapable of running specifically on G3s, they'd need to put more AltiVec code in it. Very unlikely, since they're dropping PPC altogether and especially since Rosetta can't do it. And there are some G3s over 1GHz, so I really don't see that they could spec over it, either (and it would probably still work even if official specs said it wouldn't.)
Apple has already stated that 10.5 will run on PPC machines. In fact, I think that may be all that's been said about it officially. I don't know if it was through official channels or not, but it's also been said that this will be the release to reunify the operating system, i.e. no more separate downloads for Intel and PPC subminor updates, and 10.5 will come on the same DVD regardless of your arch. Apple likes to keep development tight, but that's a lot of trouble to go to of they plan to make 10.5 the last PPC MacOS. Just a thought.
Personally, I don't see them dropping PPC on any 10.x. System 6 was m68k only, 7 was m68k and PPC, and 8 was PPC only. I think the same will happen here. 9 was PPC only, 10 is both, 11 will be all Intel. Then maybe OS 13 will run on Intel and Niagara. Who knows? That Jobs is a wild one.
Member since:
2005-11-07
Steve will most likely use an Intel based Mac to do his keynote so we can see the full potential of Leopard, which will give us a reason to ditch PPC, but I am wondering if he will have a list of things the PPC can't do (bootcamp/virtualization) so people do not get Leopard only to find out they are screwed.
The things I am most interest in are:
1 - Xcode/IB
2 - Finder
3 - Spotlight
Member since:2006-02-16
i am confident Leopard will scream on ANY Mac relitive to what ever version of OS X was running prior. Any one with a G5 (single dual or quad) will be VERY impressed with the performance... and wont be ditching there PowerMacs any time soon!
Granted.... 10.5 will be amaizing on brand new intel boxes.... OF COURSE! but PPCs are not going away any time soon!
Member since:
2005-09-30
Member since:
2005-07-06
some ideas as to what can be expected in Leopard
What we know:
The kernel API was stablised in 10.4
There was a resolution independent display, which was turned off by default.
HFS+ has had more metadata capability added than the interface currently handles, and Dominic Giampaolo works for Apple.
What we can infer:
Lots of algorithm optimisation to the kernel so it will run faster on existing hardware since they nolonger have to worry about bug compatibility for drivers.
Resolution independent display will have been finished and turned on. This will also require the complete replacement of all the widgets with ones that will be able to scale. Doing this would be a good time to make other changes to the basic UI as well, possibly including a UI to utilise metadata better.
Basically a more efficient OS with resolution independent display and a better Finder, possibly with metadata capability a bit like the BeOS Tracker.
Member since:
2006-06-27
I am so sick of hearing people complain about Apple's iTunes DRM. Face it: people who care about audio quality or portability don't buy from the iTunes music store and everyone else is perfectly happy because they don't even understand how it all works.
Apple, iPods, iTunes, and the iTunes music store are quite different things. Apple is awesome no matter how you like at it, if they offer a crappy online music store at little profit big deal? Don't buy from it. iPods are the best mp3 players on the market, but are overpriced. Again, if you don't want to be cool buy a Zen and let the cool kids make fun of you. iTunes is a great program, it does not depend on the iPod or the Music Store - I would use it anyway. The iTunes music store is cool for what it is - somewhere for iPod users that don't care about audio quality or complete vender lock-in to buy their stuff. Honestly, I've never paid for a song from iTunes and I never will. But Apple / iPods / iTunes still rock.
Get your music "elsewhere," play it on Apple iTunes / iPods, be happy. DRM sucks even when it works on every poorly designed mp3 player on the market. People want to own a copy of a song, not the DRM laden remnants of a song. With the huge amount of piracy that's going on and the corresponding DRM nuked commercial products music sales are headed for doom. I suggest you start collecting vinyl ladies and gentlemen.
Edited 2006-06-27 20:04
