Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:30 UTC
Apple At the 2006 WWDC in San Fransisco, Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced several new products during his opening keynote speech. Read more for a chronological summary of the keynote-- including the much-debated preview of Mac OS 10.5, Leopard, which, according to Steve Jobs, will ship this spring. Update: Apparantly, a similar feature to Time Machine already exists in Linux. It is called 'Dervish'.
Order by: Score:
No builtin Remote Desktop?
by ronaldst on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:43 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Would make a good feature to sell more OS X.

It's XP's best feature IMO.

Hope the keynote will be DLable. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: No builtin Remote Desktop?
by Roguelazer on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:58 UTC in reply to "No builtin Remote Desktop?"
Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

You mean something like Apple Remote Desktop, which is built into every version of OS X since at least 10.3 (that's when I started using it). You can view it either with the reasonably cheap Remote Desktop application or with a standard VNC viewer. Apple's Remote Desktop does much more than Microsoft's, as well. You can manange multiple machines from one application, perform remote operations (installing software, rebooting, etc.) without actually logging into the machine, you can group and bookmark machines. You can generate reports about one or many machines of what software & hardware they have installed, accounts, file systems, whatever. It greatly simplifies running large labs of Macs.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: No builtin Remote Desktop?
by ronaldst on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE: No builtin Remote Desktop?"
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

No, I mean like the built-in Remote Desktop (RDP).

Not the software from Apple that is purchased seperately. IIRC Panther never included remote desktop capabilities.

Reply Score: 5

Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, the BUILT-IN Remote Desktop. ARD server is built into every release of OS X. The viewer costs money, but you can download a free copy of VNC for any operating system any time you'd like, and the ARD server includes a built-in VNC server. It's not like RDP is a standard feature on Windows, anyway. Since it's not included in Windows XP Home, that means that the majority of users will never see or use it. Just fyi, ARD's been out since 2002, and has supported VNC since 2004. Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Remote_Desktop

:-)

Reply Score: 4

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

The viewer costs money,

XP home includes the viewer. XP Pro has viewer and the terminal part. IIRC the viewer is also downloadable for NT and W2K.

Thank you for proving my point. ;)

Reply Score: 1

altair Member since:
2005-07-06

XP home includes the viewer. XP Pro has viewer and the terminal part. IIRC the viewer is also downloadable for NT and W2K.

Thank you for proving my point. ;)


You didn't read the rest of his post that says that you can use a VNC viewer which you can download *for free*.

Reply Score: 1

Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

One viewer costs money and does more than the XP viewer. Or, you can download a free viewer that does the same as XP's (vncviwer). I fail to see how I have proved your point. :-)

Reply Score: 3

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Please re-read my first post. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Troels Member since:
2005-07-11

But it doesn't do the same as XP's viewer, i wouldn't want to do a days work through VNC, even over a 100Mbps line, it is simply too slow. On top of that i have yet to see a VNC implementation where it doesn't occasionally (or sometimes constantly) forget to update parts of the screen. In contrast i can easily work through RDP, the lag is only really noticeable when i do things like image editing. (And i'm even connected remotely to the RDP session through citrix, so i get double lag)

Reply Score: 3

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

But it doesn't do the same as XP's viewer,

If I wanted S.M.S. and other capabilities I would mentionned something different. Thank you for your concern.

Reply Score: 1

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>even over a 100Mbps line, it is simply too slow.

I call BS. I regularly use VNC to a Linux server over a 10MB network, and by reducing the colour depth, it is easily usable over a 256k internet connection.

>On top of that i have yet to see a VNC implementation where it doesn't occasionally (or sometimes constantly) forget to update parts of the screen.

This only happens on Windows servers, due to the way VNC does screen capture on Windows, because the "proper" way to do it requires kernel-mode drivers and is largely undocumented. It *never* happens on a Linux or OS X server.

Reply Score: 1

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

XP Pro has viewer and the terminal part

And thats pretty much it,what is included by default.

Reply Score: 1

kadymae Member since:
2005-08-02

Not the software from Apple that is purchased seperately. IIRC Panther never included remote desktop capabilities.

I call horsefeathers on you.

I run 10.3 at home. Remote desktop is AN INCLUDED, BUILT IN FEATURE. You can't miss it, because you're prompted to install updates to it on a regular basis.

In fact, I was asked to download and install the latest update last night. And, infact, when I get home, if you still doubt me, I can provide a screencap, and I'll even have the "About This Mac" window open, too.

(I'll be asked to install the update to Remote Desktop again as soon as I hit Software Update. [Since it's a feature that I've locked out of use, I don't bother updating it often and will be prompted to do so.])

Edited to clarify:

OP said OS X had no remote desktop built in. It does, but what it doesn't have is a fancy GUI interface built in. That's different than saying there's no remote desktop/remote access capablilites.

Edited 2006-08-07 19:29

Reply Score: 1

ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

You fell into the same trap. You can't use it until you purchase another seperate Apple product. By itself, it's useless.

If you can't use it, it's not a feature. ;)

Reply Score: 2

digitaldisaster Member since:
2006-01-02

you can use any VNC client to access it, if you want the advanced file transer and batch managment features etc. like Symantec's PCAnywhere then you need to pay

Reply Score: 1

PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

The ARD server is built in in Tiger, just use any free VNC client. As for Leopard, I guess you didn't see this (and it wasn't mentioned in the keynote):

From Apple's "Mac OS X - Leopard Sneak Peek - iChat" page:

"Filled with fun new features, iChat turns any mere video chat into an event. Video backdrops, Photo Booth effects, photo slideshows, Keynote presentations, or an entire Mac desktop — you can share it all with iChat in Mac OS X Leopard."
(bold added by me)

Look at the video on top of that page, or read the paragraph under the "Share and share alike" heading. The video is nicer ;-)

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ichat.html

Reply Score: 1

Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Apple's Remote Desktop does much more than Microsoft's, as well. You can manange multiple machines from one application, perform remote operations (installing software, rebooting, etc.) without actually logging into the machine, you can group and bookmark machines. You can generate reports about one or many machines of what software & hardware they have installed, accounts, file systems, whatever. It greatly simplifies running large labs of Macs.

In all fairness you can achieve these same results with Microsoft Management Console on windows, which is what a lot of admins use for various system administration so there really is no need for it to be included in RDP.

Sounds like a nice app that apple has put together all the same!

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I've used the VNC software on quite a few different combinations of platforms - and while it's handy (especially listen mode), unless Apple has somehow made their implementation orders of magnitude faster than the other impelmentations out there, it doesn't really compare to RDP.

VNC, as far as I can tell, sends images of what's running on the server (essentially a stream of screenshots, updated constantly so they appear live). RDP, on the other hand, appears to be much more comparable to exporting an X session under *nix.

There are, of course, tricks that even the free VNC implementations use to increase speed (polling only the foreground window / under the mouse cursor). But it's still been much slower than RDP in my experience.

Reply Score: 1

Still no iPhone or Newton 2.0 :-(
by mini-me on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:52 UTC
mini-me
Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh well...
Wait one more year for WWDC 07 :p

Reply Score: 1

LOL
by cchance on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:54 UTC
cchance
Member since:
2006-02-24

This was the biggest waste of time ive ever seen... there adding a bunch of old windows features with some polish on them... i mean give me a break the most interesting thing at the conference was the iChat backgrounds... i mean give me a break the mail now has themes for the messages... WOW go figure doesnt incredimale and even i believe outlook do that?

Time Machine... you mean like... previous versions in vista, xp , 2003 LOL

active desktop.. hmm never heard of that before
And ... Virtual Desktops... OH MY GOD could we go more old school thats so windows 95... microsoft later discovered that ...

more screens > more virtual screens

Reply Score: 1

RE: LOL
by Roguelazer on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:06 UTC in reply to "LOL "
Roguelazer Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually, Time Machine is nothing at all like System Restore. System Restore backs up the registry and certain Windows files (.exes and .dlls that are crucial to the system) and filesystem status at pseudo-random intervals. When you want to restore from System Restore, you need to restore the whole thing, which usually deletes most of the files created since the restore date, and screws up any programs you've installed since. Time Machine backs up every file, every time it changes, and is intended not so much to restore the system when you install Super Online Game and Spyware Program, but to restore your files when you accidencally delete them.

The new Dashboard feature is probably a little bit like Active Desktop, except not really. I won't comment too much.

Finally, as to Virtual Desktops, they've been supported on *nix window managers for a long, long, long time. Of course, they were not a stock feature on Windows 95, so I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. OS X has also had better support for multiple screens than Windows has for a long time, with the playing field becoming level only with the release of Windows XP.

BTW, yes, I know you're a troll. Oh well.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: LOL
by n4cer on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL "
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, Time Machine is nothing at all like System Restore.
...
Time Machine backs up every file, every time it changes, and is intended not so much to restore the system when you install Super Online Game and Spyware Program, but to restore your files when you accidencally delete them.


You're correct that this isn't like System Restore, but it is like volume shadow copy (Server 2003 and Vista) and CompletePC Backup (Vista).

VSC
http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/archive/2006/08/01/444439.asp...

CompletePC Backup
http://blogs.technet.com/aralves/archive/2006/07/10/440989.aspx

Edited 2006-08-07 19:29

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: LOL
by rajj on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: LOL "
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

FreeBSD has filesystem snapshots as well (since at least late 2002).

mount -uo snapshot /var/.snap/0 /var

I have a cron job that rotates snapshots for monthly, weekly, daily and hourly backups. You can mount the snapshots like any other filesystem image.

http://people.freebsd.org/~rse/snapshot/

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: LOL
by PowerMacX on Tue 8th Aug 2006 03:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: LOL "
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

FreeBSD has filesystem snapshots as well (since at least late 2002).

"As well"? This isn't just filesystem snapshots. Look at the video here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html

Compare to what you said in just a short post:
"mount -uo snapshot /var/.snap/0 /var "
"cron job"
"monthly, weekly, daily and hourly"
"mount the snapshots"
"filesystem image"

See where I'm going? Making something accessible is making it useful :-)

This makes backing up & restoring intuitive for a large number of people who would never go to the trouble otherwise. That is in my opinion the important part of Leopard's 'Time Machine'.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: LOL
by eschrock on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL "
eschrock Member since:
2005-07-07

Time Machine backs up every file, every time it changes, and is intended not so much to restore the system when you install Super Online Game and Spyware Program, but to restore your files when you accidencally delete them.

Not quite. From the time machine page:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/timemachine.html

Backup Time: Time Machine will back up every night at midnight, unless you select a different time from this menu.

So Time Machine is a standard sparse backup utility, with a very slick layered GUI. It doesn't back up files continuously, which would require a COW filesystem to be anywhere near feasible. Applications must use new APIs in order to access these alternate versions. Very nice GUI and integration work (which Apple is always good at), but the underlying filesystem technology is rather mundane.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: LOL
by BluenoseJake on Tue 8th Aug 2006 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE: LOL "
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Actually, Time machine is very similar to the way System Restore works on Vista, as MS have added file versioning on the filesystem level:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7383.html

Reply Score: 1

Secret
by PowerMacX on Mon 7th Aug 2006 18:59 UTC
PowerMacX
Member since:
2005-11-06

"Top secret features not being shown" - "don't want photocopiers started too early"

Hehe

Lots of nice stuff, looking forward to Xcode 3 when I get back home.

Reply Score: 3

modularity
by netpython on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:03 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

More than 4 Million Possible Configurations

You’re the expert.

Thats right.


With build-to-order options available for processors, graphic cards, memory, hard drives, optical drives, and other features and components, the über-configurable Mac Pro lets you build your personal dream machine. The Mac you’ve been waiting for.

About time some modularity kicks in,never to late though.

Reply Score: 1

64 bit support
by TomB7 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:14 UTC
TomB7
Member since:
2006-01-03

The new features in 10.5 don't "wow" me, but if they introduce solid 64 bit support that would put serious pressure on Windows since this is a very weak area for Redmond.

Reply Score: 2

"Top secret features not being shown"
by tiiim on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:29 UTC
tiiim
Member since:
2005-09-02

I wonder what these secrets are?

As a mac user who finally woken up to alternatives apple's new system didnt really grab grab me, it was nice. But i cant help some of it simple rescycled in a fuzzy wrapper from other systems. Im getting a new laptop next year and I have decided between vista or 10.5 and im not sure. I dont wont to go down the linux road again that doesnt really grab me anymore. Vista is very nice but i do find apple system very nice. However you can get a dell with more specs for cheaper these days so im not sure. If apple show of these secret features maybe it will help me decide. Im guess im fed up of falling for all the media hype everytime apple sneezes but im fed up with broken promises Vista. So who knows, good on apple but show up something better than just "good".

Reply Score: 1

Kelson Member since:
2005-07-06

That is why you buy an Apple, use Boot Camp and run both 10.5 and Vista, depending on what mood you are in that day.

- Kelson

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are looking for stability the choice should be easy. Unless you don't really know Windows operating systems.

Reply Score: 1

Holy Mac Pro
by rayiner on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:31 UTC
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

Geez, look at the Mac Pro configuration. Quad 2.66 GHz with 1GB of RAM for $2500? That's well over a grand cheaper than a comparable BOXX workstation. Hell, just the Xeons, RAM, and motherboard will run you $2k on Newegg. Apple must be getting some insane discounts from Intel...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Holy Mac Pro
by TomB7 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:33 UTC in reply to "Holy Mac Pro"
TomB7 Member since:
2006-01-03

". Apple must be getting some insane discounts from Intel.."

I expect Intel LIKES Apple; gives them a chance to showcase their work on a hip, non-pokey OS.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Holy Mac Pro
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:38 UTC in reply to "Holy Mac Pro"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Geez, look at the Mac Pro configuration. Quad 2.66 GHz with 1GB of RAM for $2500? That's well over a grand cheaper than a comparable BOXX workstation. Hell, just the Xeons, RAM, and motherboard will run you $2k on Newegg. Apple must be getting some insane discounts from Intel...

I agree. That's a whole lotta computer for USD 2499.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Holy Mac Pro
by suryad on Mon 7th Aug 2006 23:33 UTC in reply to "Holy Mac Pro"
suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

I have to echo the same sentiment. Looks like it is time for me to join the dark side indeed. If I am not mistaken the Woodcrest processors are based on the Core architecture no? If yes, I am gonna have to get me one of those bad boys...I configured a 1 gig quad 3 ghz machine with the smallest hdd because I plan to get my own...and it wasnt bad...6k! Quite cheap actually because the one monster I was planning to build on AMD opteron 285s hit me over 9k! Of course it had sli graphics cards and so on...this one doesnt have sli. But still...that sucker will smoke! And now that I can run Windows too an ati 1900 xt should be fine for work and play! ;) Time to open up the checkbook!

Reply Score: 1

Most
by hraq on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:36 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

Most of the amazing features of OSX are already there, nothing more will be so big that's why I didn't expect a huge leap in 10.5, even though there are some which are very good. The last date that closed the chapter of IBM CPUs is today, everything to be build will be Intel, unless you buy their old stock for reduced price. The importance of Intel CPU is with the push it will give to developers to write optimized software for.

I wish Microsoft produce something as good as even oSX 10.3!

Good Job Steve!

Reply Score: 2

10.5 completely 64bit
by kittynipples on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:46 UTC
kittynipples
Member since:
2006-08-02

This is probably the most notable thing. Now you can build a fully 64bit app with a nice cocoa gui.

Reply Score: 4

Still not getting the OS name right...
by jtfolden on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:50 UTC
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

It's OS X 10.5, not OS 10.5. I know it's an "intentional mistake" but it seems fairly unprofessional to let personal agendas cloud news reports and screw up searches.

Reply Score: 1

Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

You're right, but in fairness, it is pronounced "Oh Ess Ten," not "Oh Ess Ex." It makes writing the X or the 10 seem redundant.

Reply Score: 1

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

I agree, as well, however this is what Apple has officially decided to call it... and they have been doing this for years. Even the classic OS was referred to as OS 8 version 8.5, OS 9 v9.0.2, etc on some CDs and whatnot.

I see the title has been changed now, though not in the content.

Reply Score: 1

I take it back.
by DittoBox on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:52 UTC
DittoBox
Member since:
2005-07-08

About a week ago I was banging on Apple about some of the rumored specs and about how they weren't really up to par with other brands, namely Dell. But two dual-core Xeon 5100s starting at 2ghz with a decent nVidia video card and it starts at 1GB of ram, that's an insane amount of computer for a mere 2200 USD.

Upgrade to 2.66ghz per core for just 300 USD more...

You really can't get a Dell at that price with those features.

I'll wait and see how the quality is, and if it's good enough my next upgrade will be to one of these Mac Pros. Now all I need is for Adobe to get on the ball and get CS3 on Intel. By that time leopard will be out with virtual desktops.

Finally, I chance to ditch MS almost completely. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: I take it back.
by rayiner on Mon 7th Aug 2006 21:12 UTC in reply to "I take it back."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

The quality seems really good. The case and internal mechanical bits on a PowerMac (the Mac Pro uses the same case) are incredibly solid (and fricking heavy). If the motherboard is typical PowerMac quality as well, it should be an absolutely rock-solid workstation.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I take it back.
by elsewhere on Tue 8th Aug 2006 01:55 UTC in reply to "I take it back."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

You really can't get a Dell at that price with those features.

No, but give it a month or two and you will.

I'll give Apple credit for being aggressive with the pricing here, but remember that Dell's prices generally fluctuate with their component pricing, Apple's remain fixed.

Dell's prices will drop almost immediately when their prices on processors et al. drop, because they operate on a fixed margin model, whereas Apple's prices will remain the same even when they realize cost savings on the components down the road. They're banking on profit being made over the lifecycle of the product, not necessarily at launch.

Or Apple may have had to commit to a contract price and quantity with Intel to obtain a sweetheart price on the procs, which can give them significant edge if execute properly or can explode in their face if they overestimate demand and wind up with inventory on processors locked in more expensively than Dell's aquisition cost. No way of knowing for sure what type of deal was brokered, but it's hard to believe that Apple can really strong arm that deeper a discount out of Intel than Dell can even despite the AMD deal. Will be interesting to see how the systems match up pricewise 60-90 days from now.

Regardless, the cycle will start all over again towards the end of the year when Apple launches the new models. Business as usual.

Reply Score: 1

VNC is a lot slower than MS RDP
by devtty on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:53 UTC
devtty
Member since:
2006-04-02

If Apple's Remote Desktop is based on VNC, then it's way behind MS RDP.

MS RDP can map drives, printers, serial ports as well as sound playback device to a remote computer

Reply Score: 5

Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

RDP doesn't do the same thing as VNC. VNC interacts with a session. RDP is generally used for terminal services, or instantiating a NEW session.

Reply Score: 1

n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

RDP doesn't do the same thing as VNC. VNC interacts with a session. RDP is generally used for terminal services, or instantiating a NEW session.

RDP can also be used to interact with currently running sessions. This capability is generally restricted to the server SKUs however, with the exception of Remote Assistance, which provides this capability using RDP on client machines.

Reply Score: 2

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

>RDP can also be used to interact with currently running
>sessions. This capability is generally restricted to the
>server SKUs however, with the exception of Remote
>Assistance, which provides this capability using RDP on
>client machines.

You can do it in XP Pro, in conjunction with Fast User Switching, sorta...

Reply Score: 1

rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

RDP and VNC do, in fact, accomplish the same goal. Namely to provide a way to do graphics over a network. However; they achieve this in entirely different ways.

VNC essentially send compressed bitmaps and is raster orriented. RDP, on the other hand, works in a way more similar to X11 protocol. Namely, it sends high level graphics primitives to a display server running on the remote (client) end.

IMHO, RDP is superior to the way VNC works simply because the graphics are rendered the same way locally as remotely. Also, at least on Windows, VNC polls the physical console which means that you have to leave someone logged in and everyone VNCs into the same session. Additionally, anyone in the machine room at the console can see what you're doing.

Edit: I should also mention that Terminal Services (RDP) is very similar to Citrix MetaFrame. Microsoft licenced the protocol from Citrix.

Edited 2006-08-07 20:48

Reply Score: 2

devtty Member since:
2006-04-02

"RDP doesn't do the same thing as VNC. VNC interacts with a session. RDP is generally used for terminal services, or instantiating a NEW session."

Yes, there are the diferences. However, RDP could be used over a dial-up connection, though pretty slow. VNC is practically unusable on the same kind of slow connection

Reply Score: 3

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

devtty: If Apple's Remote Desktop is based on VNC, then it's way behind MS RDP.

MS RDP can map drives, printers, serial ports as well as sound playback device to a remote computer


RDP in Vista goes even further, you will be able to remote individual applications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Desktop_Protocol#Upcoming_featu...

Reply Score: 2

Virtual Desktops
by zizban on Mon 7th Aug 2006 19:54 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

Finally, built in virtual desktops. This is a great feature that nearly ever OS has already and it's nice to see it coming to the Mac.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Virtual Desktops
by BlackJack75 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:29 UTC in reply to "Virtual Desktops"
BlackJack75 Member since:
2005-08-29

Indeed. I tried VirtueDesktop and use Desktop Manager, but still Apple's version of the same old concept looks very cool. Especially the "zoom out and drag'n'n drop between spaces"

Reply Score: 1

Surprisingly accurate rumours this time...
by Dave_K on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:03 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

Apart from rather unlikely ideas such as an Apple mobile phone, it looks like most of the predictions have turned out to be correct.

It's a little disappointing really, I was hoping for something that would really shake things up, rather than the evolutionary changes in Leopard and rather predictable hardware releases. Time Machine and Spaces are nice additions to an already excellent OS, but automated backups and virtual desktops are hardly radicaly new and innovative features.

As for the Mac Pro, it looks like a very impressive workstation for high-end graphics, but what I'd love to see from Apple is a smaller and cheaper business Mac. The Mac Mini and iMac are nice systems but they simply don't meet my needs.

I'd like a more upgradable system, with dual headed display support and no integrated monitor. There are Mini-ITX PCs that manage to fit a couple of PCI card slots into a little media centre case. I'm sure Apple could design a cute little desktop with more expansion options than the Mac Mini. A modern equivalent to the Performa/Centris systems that were around in the days of the 68k Macs.

Of course I can't speak for other people and I don't know how many others would want a system like that. Maybe Apple have carried out comprehensive market research which indicates that there'd be no market for it. Yet the lack of upgradability is one of the main concerns cited on the PC forums I read whenever someone mentions Apple's consumer Macs. To me the gap in features/price between the Mac Mini/iMac and Mac Pro is large enough that a mid range system could easily fit between them in Apple's product range.

Reply Score: 2

hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"and I don't know how many others would want a system like that."

I would like a system like that.

I don't want an integrated monitor with mac and I don't want a notebook HDD, and I need to put 2 SATA HDD @ 10,000rpms RAIDed @ 0, and I don't want intel integrated Graphics solution that cannot play 720p let alone 1080p media files

So, I couldn't find a system that will fit me (not mac mini or imac). I am still waiting for such a system till now.

Reply Score: 1

I just went to the Apple Store...
by Tuishimi on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:09 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...to configure one for fun. *&%&*^% Did you see how much that Nvidia Quad card costs?!?!?!?! I could buy two mac mini's for the graphic card alone. Wowza.

Anyway, I was not super impressed with the software side of things but the hardware is smokin'. I thought we'd see more about spotlight integration in the Finder, and/or a modified Finder paradigm. But then again, that could be one of the "secrets".

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

yeah... I would like to see a quick silver type set up so one can use an entire keyboard interface for the system.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Leopard looks like a nice modest incremental upgrade. But I think it should be priced as such, rather than $130-$150. I wish that Apple had upgrade prices so that if you already owned the previous version of the OS, you could get a discount on the newer version. Even Microsoft does this.

Also, while Microsoft struggles to release new version of its consumer OS (they have been able to release their Server OSes like clockwork), Apple releases too often. With Leopard, they'll have released 4 upgrades in 5 years, at $130 each. Their upgrade cycle is too short, which is a barrier to the corporate world (not that I care about that ;) ) and since they don't provide upgrade prices, it's almost like an annual tax if you want to stay up to date with the latest OS.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

18 months is too short?

Reply Score: 1

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Yes, its a hidden cost of ownership that is never reckoned with in the comparisons.

To be fair, you maybe do not absolutely need to upgrade now that the OS has reached stability, and you don't need to take every single release, but if you do, and if you buy the upgrades to the included packages, you more than pay for the cost of another entry level Windows machine.

Again, its not a question of value either - it may be perfectly good value - but it is an issue when you are advising people with limited funds on what they should buy.

Reply Score: 1

Troels Member since:
2005-07-11

But they do have upgrade prices, what they don't have is retail or OEM prices :-) All of the intended buyers of OS X already have a copy of Mac OS, so all purchases are upgrades.

Reply Score: 1

Spaces?
by Lu-Tze on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:23 UTC
Lu-Tze
Member since:
2006-01-10

Just curious whether the "Spaces" / virtual desktops is in any way related to Space.app
http://space.sourceforge.net/
Or is that just a coincidence?

Edited 2006-08-07 20:30

Reply Score: 1

RE: Spaces?
by Ronald Vos on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:57 UTC in reply to "Spaces?"
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really a coincidence, as there's a limited amount of terminology available ;)
But...these guys could get rich if they play their cards right. ;)

Reply Score: 1

Time Machine
by ormandj on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:29 UTC
ormandj
Member since:
2005-10-09

"Update: Apparantly, a similar feature to Time Machine already exists in Linux. It is called 'Dervish'."

Something like "Time Machine" exists in Solaris 10. ZFS. Add that together with the Apple guys posting on the ZFS list some time back and makes you wonder.

Not only that, but they integrated Dtrace into Leopard. Really cool, go check out the Xcode 3 page, you'll see it.

I think Apple is taking all the good tech out of Solaris, prettying it up, and running with the ball. I'm impressed. I'd love to see Apple work with Sun on the server-side and get something nice put out for a change. Sun need's Apple's design in terms of usability/cool factor, Apple obviously can use Sun's engineering/technology on the server-side. Combine the two, and you have the ultimate server, a SunApple (Snapple anyone?)! ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Time Machine
by butters on Mon 7th Aug 2006 21:38 UTC in reply to "Time Machine"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Check out this quote near the top of the Dervish project page:

"A dirvish backup vault is like a time machine for your data."

The page was last updated 6/9/2006. Coincidence?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Time Machine
by elevator on Tue 8th Aug 2006 08:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Time Machine"
elevator Member since:
2005-06-29

Microsofts' Volume Shadow Copy was codenamed "TimeWarp", so even the naming of this 'new feature' was borrowed ;)
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/09/06/461390.aspx

Can we say Leopard is Vista build no 4200? ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Time Machine
by digitaldisaster on Mon 7th Aug 2006 22:45 UTC in reply to "Time Machine"
digitaldisaster Member since:
2006-01-02

Yeah, my first thought when I saw that they introduced Time Machine in the Keynote was that ZFS posting a while back. I just noticed this on the XCode 3.0 page:
"Many such Xray instruments leverage the open source DTrace, now built into Mac OS X Leopard. Xray. Because it’s 2006."
Sun very nearly bought Apple at one point and there have been merger rumors for years. But now, why merge when you can get it off the net for free... ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Where is the 'Mac'
by shadow_x99 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:35 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

There is something missing in the lineup of Apple's Machine: The Mac with no freaking 'Pro' next to it...

A Mac Pro without the 'Pro' would mean:
- Core 2 Duo CPU
- DDR2 667Mhz Non-ECC Unbuffered
- sub-2000$ price
- Possible Upgrade to a Radeon X1900 XT 512
- OS X

That is what I want... I've been waiting for something like this since the PPC-to-Intel Transition Announcement... I was thrilled until I saw the Price Tag!

I hear you all saying "It's cheaper than Dell for the same hardware" and I would respond "A deal that you don't need is no deal at all!"

if only Apple would create a gaming rig!

Reply Score: 4

Oh and just out of curiosity...
by Tuishimi on Mon 7th Aug 2006 20:40 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...why did the updates have to be added about dervish and the link to Miguel's blog have to be added regarding how beagle already had what Apple was announcing?

Isn't this post supposed to be about what Apple announced at WWDC? Not how it compares to linux (or windows for that matter)?

Update: Linux already beats all other operating systems out there in anything they ever hope to aspire to!

Reply Score: 2

Apple likes the smell of their own farts.
by Mikee99 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 21:10 UTC
Mikee99
Member since:
2006-04-30

Apple has to be the smuggest company in existence. They SRSLY like the smell of their own farts.

They ALWAYS have to take stupid cheap shots at MS, and frankly, its retarded.

MS copies Apple the same as Apple copies MS. Apple copied Windows Media Center w/ Front Row, and MS copied Apple w/ the windows photo program. In a picture that was taken from the conference, it appeared that Apple completely ripped off of Flip 3d. So much for a copycat in Redmond. Let's also not forget that MS had a working widget engine in a 2003 build of at the time Longhorn. MS announced desktop search, Apple implements it, and MS is now the copycat.

Stop pointing fingers, b/c EVERYONE rips off of each other.

As for the remote desktop, I didn't see anyone mention Windows Collaboration.

Reply Score: 2

badtz Member since:
2005-06-29

Remember that even though microsoft ANNOUNCED it before Apple, doesn't mean that Apple wasn't ALREADY working on the technology. You would think that if someone announces it first, they would be the first to bring it to the marketplace.

Reply Score: 1

Mac Mini shortage of news
by Matzon on Mon 7th Aug 2006 21:39 UTC
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

pretty sad seeing the mac minis not being upgraded at all ;)

Reply Score: 1

Spaces?
by tikal26 on Mon 7th Aug 2006 22:18 UTC
tikal26
Member since:
2005-11-12
RE: Most
by Wowbagger on Tue 8th Aug 2006 02:18 UTC
Wowbagger
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wish Microsoft produce something as good as even oSX 10.3

You nailed it, I was just forced to work on a Windows XP machine for 3 weeks, and I felt like being in a nightmare about desktop computing in the early nineties. I really tried to become more productive on this machine, but I was shocked how bad the multitasking alone was on XP. If the machine gets quite busy, very often even the mouse will start to stutter... The only time I get performance as bad as this on OS X is when I suddenly loose connection to a fileserver and even that won't take very long, on Windows I just have to wait for the machine every now and then (a 1.9 GHz P4, so it's not too slow and with a GIG of RAM it should have enough RAM for what I am doing with it).

Some applications are still using this dreaded window in window paradigm (was it MUI? or whatever it is called) some don't, but even Adobe can't seem to make up their mind, which way they want to go on Windows.

Also there really are no consistent shortcuts across applications for closing windows or quitting apps, sometimes it takes an ALT+F4 (wow the intuitivity of that shortcut), sometimes CTRL+Q (that came from the Mac AFAIK), and some let you quit the app with CTRL+X. There's no consistent shortcut for closing windows, no shortcut for minimizing windows to the taskbar, and none for or creating new folders on the desktop either. I end up having to leave the keyboard and mouse around much more than I ever did even on Mac OS 7, 8 and 9.

The other thing I find annoying on a daily basis is that there seems to be no consistency in keyboard driven text handling/selecting/editing on Windows. Sometimes you can select all text with CTRL+A, but in many places like input fields you can't (I use that often, if I want to retype a misspelled password, or retype a messed up URL in the browser).

Furthermore there don't seem to be keyboard shortcuts for deleting one word or one line backwards either. On OS X you can usually use either the old Mac OS shortcuts, like ALT+right arrow for jumping one word ahead, or ALT+Backspace to delete one word backwards, or you can use emacs key bindings in Cocoa apps as well, which is quite neat at times. On Windows again, inconsistency and chaos.

I always hear Windows people mentioning how Windows has this concept of being usable even without a mouse, but to be honest I bet I can use my Mac OS X box quicker, better and more thoroughly without a mouse than any Windows box. Windows is just cluttered with utterly useless keyboard-shortcut, no consistency and no plan at all.

And then the none-existing text smoothing for Japanese (which would need smoothing the most) in XP. You're making my eyes bleed goddamit!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Most
by hraq on Tue 8th Aug 2006 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Most"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, on the server arena the inconsistency becomes more visible and horrible.

If you like to enable a terminal server in windows server 2003, then you have to go through 10 windows to figure eg these necessary things:

1. Add users needs a window (run lusrmgmr.msc or from compmgmt.msc)
2. Add the user to terminal server group needs a window
3. Install terminal server window...
4. Configure termianl server window....
5. Monitor Termial Server window (for running applications)...
6. Allow terminal services to access internet (firewall.cpl)
7. Configure transmission/reception encryption window....
8. Allow a small bit depth (16 bit) to clients window...
9. Disable user from seeing drive C, D, E ....(3 windows)
10. Enable the user to see Drive H.
11. Oh no I don't want this nightmare window (device driver failure)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Most
by BluenoseJake on Tue 8th Aug 2006 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Most"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

That is only to enable Terminal services in application modem, which allows as many users to connect to the system as there is ram for the users session. To turn on terminal services in admin mode, you don't have to do anything, it automagically turns on terminal services for 2 concurrent sessions. Nice try though

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Most
by elevator on Tue 8th Aug 2006 09:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Most"
elevator Member since:
2005-06-29

Also there really are no consistent shortcuts across applications for closing windows or quitting apps, sometimes it takes an ALT+F4 (wow the intuitivity of that shortcut), sometimes CTRL+Q (that came from the Mac AFAIK), and some let you quit the app with CTRL+X.
Alt+F4 is the Windows' system shortcut and hence always works on programs that adhere to the Windows GUI guidelines.

Sometimes you can select all text with CTRL+A, but in many places like input fields you can't (I use that often, if I want to retype a misspelled password, or retype a messed up URL in the browser).
Well, this is fairly simple. Ctrl+A will work in all standard multi-line edits.

Shift+Home will select all tekst from current cursor position back to the first line, Ctrl+Shift+Home will select everything from the current cursor position to the top.

Furthermore there don't seem to be keyboard shortcuts for deleting one word or one line backwards either.
Well, actually there is. Ctrl+Backspace will delete the word left to the cursor.

Happy keyboarding ;)

Reply Score: 2

Just watched the keynote...
by Tuishimi on Tue 8th Aug 2006 02:37 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...well, sure Linux and other OS's might have the features (like time machine) already, but they sure as hell don't have that interface. It's pretty slick.

Reply Score: 1

Dang...
by Tuishimi on Tue 8th Aug 2006 02:58 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...have you all actually WATCHED the WWDC presentation?

I didn't like the idea of the "fluff" in mail, for example... but actually seeing what Apple did with it is pretty cool. I guess some of this might not be "new" but it is sure done well.

And he intimates that there are other improvements to mail other than the graphical stuff... The Universal Access stuff (voice) is pretty damn amazing as well.

Reply Score: 1

meh...
by hobgoblin on Tue 8th Aug 2006 06:11 UTC
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

this doesnt do it for me.

and the unprofessional kicks towards microsoft dont help it. i can understand that the fanbase does it but the people at the top should avoid doing that kinda stuff.

Reply Score: 2

where do i get it?
by broken_symlink on Tue 8th Aug 2006 12:22 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

i'm a little confused. i saw some people saying xcode 3 is shipping today, but i haven't been able to find it anywhere. so is it really out?

Reply Score: 1

Integration is the Key
by Gryzor on Tue 8th Aug 2006 13:35 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

Many ppl aren't realizing that most of these "new" features (which, like 'spaces' aren't new at all in the Window Manager arena, just to mention one example) are not really intended to be new features; Apple always provides 'new' stuff for its user base, in the best way they consider.
For example, Time machine, could be something like Retrospect Backup (we Mac users know Retrospect), however Apple gave the same idea, a "spectacular and easy to use" interfase where MOST of the options are hidden from the users' perspective.

That is the key behind Apple. Some things they create are really "new", others are not super new, yet are better integrated, and some other are simply "reinventions of the wheel" but in the Apple way.

Tha Apple way might or might not be the way you want it to be, but you can't almost never deny that for the Average Mac user and the NEW mac users, using these technologies will not be a PITA (Pain in the A..)

I have been a Windows user for a long time. I converted to Mac two years ago. I never looked back. There are things you may dislike about Apple, its OS, etc., however, most of the things that happen when you are WORKING on a Mac with Mac OS X are pleasant. Small details, things that you "thank" for being there and so easy to use; and I have the skills to use a Linux Box if I wanted, and I've even gave it a try (unfair try to be honest, it lacks Good Commercial Applications that I need) (Gimp/Inkskape doesn't compare to the real commercial alternatives, period), but I always went back to Windows for Gaming, and Mac for working.

Now your mileage may vary, you may advocate FOSS or whatever, yet you can't deny that Apple integrate things with certain "style" that is missing in the alternatives (whether FOSS or not). It's just that.

As a side note, when you really use Mac OS X, you start finding some quirks and some things that you wish you could change, it's the price tag you have to pay for having a well integrated operating system.

Leopard is, in essence, a natural upgrade to a rock solid OS with loads of new technology (when it came out), but "new" as I've said above, not new but well integrated. Leopard will "fix" what Spotlight didn't do right, will add stuff, will bring a new Finder, etc...

This was just a preview, let's just wait ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Most
by Wowbagger on Mon 14th Aug 2006 04:14 UTC
Wowbagger
Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for those shortcuts, this'll make my life easier :-)

Reply Score: 1