Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 26th Jun 2006 22:14 UTC
Mac OS X 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.
Order by: Score:
What's new?
by Dias on Mon 26th Jun 2006 22:38 UTC
Dias
Member since:
2006-02-20

Besides Windows integration, what new features are going to be in Leopard? Anybody know?

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's new?
by dr_gonzo on Mon 26th Jun 2006 23:32 UTC in reply to "What's new?"
dr_gonzo Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe:

ZFS, new iTunes-like Finder, a new kernel with better performance, stable quartz extreme (or whatever it's called)...

I dunno. I hope they make some nice performance enhancements and redo Finder anyway. Although, Tiger's pretty good already.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: What's new?
by sjkx on Tue 27th Jun 2006 07:48 UTC in reply to "RE: What's new?"
sjkx Member since:
2006-06-06

new iTunes-like Finder

That's the kind of metaphor I'd like to see implemented in a file manager.

Reply Score: 1

RE: What's new?
by Kroc on Tue 27th Jun 2006 07:32 UTC in reply to "What's new?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Resolution Independence is already known to be certain.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: What's new?
by sjkx on Tue 27th Jun 2006 07:55 UTC in reply to "RE: What's new?"
sjkx Member since:
2006-06-06

Resolution Independence is already known to be certain.

Wasn't that being said about Quartz 2D Extreme before last WWDC? And where's the 3GHz G5?

What's only been promised isn't certain.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: What's new?
by Kroc on Tue 27th Jun 2006 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: What's new?"
Kroc 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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: What's new?
by sjkx on Tue 27th Jun 2006 10:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: What's new?"
sjkx 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.

Reply Score: 1

Vista competition? I LOL'ed!11one
by bornagainenguin on Mon 26th Jun 2006 22:43 UTC
bornagainenguin
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...)

Reply Score: 5

Dias Member since:
2006-02-20

Actually MacOS is more DRM-oriented that Vista (TCP is already on MacIntel motherboard and iTunes is full of crappy drm).

btw, I don't hate drm as it, but I hate it when it's closed the way Apple do.

Reply Score: 3

Kroc 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.

Reply Score: 5

Duffman 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.

Reply Score: 4

Dias 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).

Reply Score: 2

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"every plays-for-sure" device still only makes up 10% of the market, with Apple owning 85% and the last 5% non-DRM only players.

Reply Score: 2

Dias 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?

Reply Score: 2

JohnOne Member since:
2006-03-25

"Audiovox iriver RCA"

iRiver is going out of business.
Playforsure.com is really sure... X-D

Reply Score: 1

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Does that mean audio files will stop playing on existing iRiver devices? No. So what is your point then?

Reply Score: 1

DRM
by tryphcycle on Tue 27th Jun 2006 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista competition? I LOL'ed!11one"
tryphcycle 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.

Reply Score: 1

JohnOne Member since:
2006-03-25

"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)."

PlayForSure is so open that's owned by Microsoft!!! :-D

Reply Score: 2

Dias Member since:
2006-02-20

PlayForSure's DRM has open specifics, anybody can implement them in they own player (and they are no royality.

So I thanks MS for creating this program, closed DRM should be die.

Reply Score: 2

ha!
by tryphcycle on Tue 27th Jun 2006 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista competition? I LOL'ed!11one"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

he said "Open DRM" HA!

hey homes.... how bout this...stick to ripping your CDs.... and um...shush!

Reply Score: 2

SomeGuy 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.

Reply Score: 1

truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

When will Apple release their PowerMac replacement? It's the only computer still using the G5 CPU.

Are they waiting for Intel Core2 ?

Reply Score: 1

The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't be surprised if they make some sort of announcement about that at the WWDC keynote.

On the lighter side, I almost fell out of my chair when I read that Jobs would be delivering the keynote. How did they manage to convince him to do it?

Reply Score: 5

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

They might even get Jobs to put on a black turtleneck, jeans and sneakers. lol

Reply Score: 5

chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

its sad but oh so true.....
and who is they by the way..?

Reply Score: 1

junior Member since:
2005-07-07

They threw in a free lube job and a tank of fuel for his jet?

Edited 2006-06-27 14:15

Reply Score: 1

Vorbisophile Member since:
2006-01-06

If the Ars information on Intel's new Core2-based Xeon's is all true, you might even get (finally) a 3GHz XeonMac?

Reply Score: 1

full NTFS read/write
by Jake on Tue 27th Jun 2006 03:35 UTC
Jake
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.

Reply Score: 1

RE: full NTFS read/write
by aent on Tue 27th Jun 2006 06:43 UTC in reply to "full NTFS read/write"
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

I hate how Apple does this. All the developers work on Linux NTFS will be wasted if they switch over to the work done by the Apple employee. Why can't Apple allow their developers to work with open source people? Why must it be in million line chunks?

Reply Score: 1

wrong name
by Pliep on Tue 27th Jun 2006 03:40 UTC
Pliep
Member since:
2006-02-05

It's called "Mac OS X 10.5" not "MacOS 10.5". Thank you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wrong name
by qroon on Tue 27th Jun 2006 05:08 UTC in reply to "wrong name"
qroon Member since:
2005-10-21

But isn't X == 10 in "OS X"? So, in that case, it'll be MacOS 10 10.5 then? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: wrong name
by th22 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE: wrong name"
th22 Member since:
2006-06-27

[quote]
But isn't X == 10 in "OS X"? So, in that case, it'll be MacOS 10 10.5 then? ;)
[/quote]

Linux == Linu10 and Unix == Uni10 then? ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: wrong name
by sc3252 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wrong name"
sc3252 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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: wrong name
by Kroc on Tue 27th Jun 2006 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wrong name"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

So that would make SuSE X...? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wrong name
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 27th Jun 2006 10:06 UTC in reply to "wrong name"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: wrong name
by jtfolden on Wed 28th Jun 2006 02:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wrong name"
jtfolden 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".

Reply Score: 1

RE: wrong name
by halfmanhalfamazing on Tue 27th Jun 2006 11:55 UTC in reply to "wrong name"
halfmanhalfamazing Member since:
2005-07-23

----------It's called "Mac OS X 10.5"------------

Mac OS 10 10.5? Mac OS X 10.5? Why not just call it Mac OS X.5? Or X.v? :-P

When Mac OS 11 comes out will you still be called X, or XI?

Edited 2006-06-27 11:58

Reply Score: 1

RE: wrong name
by atsureki on Wed 28th Jun 2006 00:33 UTC in reply to "wrong name"
atsureki 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.

Reply Score: 1

Hardware
by Matzon on Tue 27th Jun 2006 06:17 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm mostly interrested in any hardware seasonal refreshes - especially related to Core 2 Duo & Mini

Reply Score: 1

"Apple's answer to Windows Vista"
by l3v1 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 06:51 UTC
l3v1
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.

Reply Score: 2

chlordane Member since:
2006-05-11

Apple = apples
Windows = grapefruit

Does that help?
^_-

Reply Score: 1

hehe
by th22 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 07:03 UTC
th22
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

Reply Score: 1

RE: hehe
by Thomas2005 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 14:39 UTC in reply to "hehe"
Thomas2005 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]

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: hehe
by atsureki on Wed 28th Jun 2006 01:08 UTC in reply to "RE: hehe"
atsureki 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).

Reply Score: 1

hm
by th22 on Tue 27th Jun 2006 10:31 UTC
th22
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 ?

Reply Score: 1

ok.... end this discussion!
by tryphcycle on Tue 27th Jun 2006 15:16 UTC in reply to "hm"
tryphcycle Member since:
2006-02-16

about what the official name for OSX!

it is:

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
or
Mac OS X Version 10.5

to argue this fact is TOTALLY pointless!

enough said!

Reply Score: 1

PPC?
by csynt on Tue 27th Jun 2006 11:14 UTC
csynt
Member since:
2006-03-19

Will this version work on G4/G5 machines too?

Reply Score: 1

RE: PPC?
by Kroc on Tue 27th Jun 2006 12:00 UTC in reply to "PPC?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple wouldn't dare! There's still no Intel Power Mac, and there's thousands and thousands of G5 Macs still around.

If Apple really push the agenda then maybe 10.6 could be intel only, otherwise maybe 10.7/8

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PPC?
by The Baron on Tue 27th Jun 2006 12:17 UTC in reply to "PPC?"
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

I would guess that X.5 will still support G4 and G5 machines, G3 machines? Not so much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PPC?
by atsureki on Wed 28th Jun 2006 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PPC?"
atsureki 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.

Reply Score: 1

Thomas2005
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

Reply Score: 1

tryphcycle 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!

Reply Score: 1

5 years
by marcushe on Tue 27th Jun 2006 16:45 UTC
marcushe
Member since:
2005-09-30

Apple supports machines for 5 years after release.

Therefore, a PPC version of OS X should be made for at least 5 years after the discontinuation of the PowerMac.

Reply Score: 1

some ideas
by amon ra on Tue 27th Jun 2006 17:57 UTC
amon ra
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.

Reply Score: 1

iDRM
by Cookie Monster on Tue 27th Jun 2006 19:57 UTC
Cookie Monster
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

Reply Score: 2