Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Apr 2007 21:03 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Mac OS X Apple conceded that it will be unable to release its next generation operating system in June as previously planned and now says it anticipates launching the software in October. In a statement released after the close of the stock market, Apple said its highly anticipated iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. "We can't wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is," Apple said. "However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price - we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our WWDC in early June as planned." Update: New Leopard screenshots.
Thread beginning with comment 230212
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So what?
by s_groening on Thu 12th Apr 2007 21:26 UTC
s_groening
Member since:
2005-12-13

I really don't care too much, since Mac OS X 10.4.x suits my needs beautifully for now and I'd rather have Apple finish its product before release, than seeing them pull a 'Microsoft' and having to abandon key elements because of deadline or technical issues, like Microsoft did with WinFS e.g.

On the other hand Apple is fortunate to have the ability to spin off of other people's work and (hopefully) bring e.g. Sun Solaris' ZFS file system to the Mac platform...

Maybe the delay will even add an Apple first time ever .10 release - bringing about a Mac OS X 10.4.10....

But seriously, this extra waiting might just make Leopard worth waiting for, on account of a more finished product.

Reply Score: 5

RE: So what?
by Pseudo Cyborg on Thu 12th Apr 2007 21:29 in reply to "So what?"
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:
2005-07-09

"I really don't care too much, since Mac OS X 10.4.x suits my needs beautifully for now and I'd rather have Apple finish its product before release, than seeing them pull a 'Microsoft' and having to abandon key elements because of deadline or technical issues, like Microsoft did with WinFS e.g."

My sentiments exactly. I'd much rather they get it right than simply pushing it out the door.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So what?
by shykid on Thu 12th Apr 2007 21:35 in reply to "RE: So what?"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

I really don't care too much, since Mac OS X 10.4.x suits my needs beautifully for now and I'd rather have Apple finish its product before release, than seeing them pull a 'Microsoft' and having to abandon key elements because of deadline or technical issues, like Microsoft did with WinFS.

Thirded, just replace 10.4 with 10.3. I'm still chugging along just fine with my nearly four-year-old iBook G4 with 10.3.9.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So what?
by twenex on Thu 12th Apr 2007 22:05 in reply to "RE: So what?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

My sentiments exactly. I'd much rather they get it right than simply pushing it out the door.

Hear, hear!

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: So what?
by aGNUstic on Thu 12th Apr 2007 21:38 in reply to "So what?"
aGNUstic Member since:
2005-07-28

Same here. My Mini runs fine with 10.4.x.

Unlike our friends in the McSoft Wind world, I'm sure Leopard's final touches won't take five years to complete or be much less than what it was planned to be.

Usability and stability are the name of the game in my computing world.

BTW, a business friend of mine said he installed the latest and greatest McSoft product onto their machine and it worked fine until he installed a Nero version onto it. It literally imploded all the data on the hard drive. Anyone had a similar experience.

Edited 2007-04-12 21:53

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So what?
by StephenBeDoper on Fri 13th Apr 2007 05:24 in reply to "RE: So what?"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

BTW, a business friend of mine said he installed the latest and greatest McSoft product onto their machine and it worked fine until he installed a Nero version onto it. It literally imploded all the data on the hard drive. Anyone had a similar experience.


Has an actual data recovery professional looked at the drive? I would be much more inclined to suspect hardware failure/defect, if for no other reason that it's the statistically most-common cause of data loss (or second-most common, after user error - I don't entirely remember).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So what?
by sappyvcv on Sat 14th Apr 2007 02:15 in reply to "RE: So what?"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I've never heard of "McSoft" before. Who is this company?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: So what?
by kaiwai on Thu 12th Apr 2007 22:55 in reply to "So what?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

From what I understand, however, MacOS X 10.4 still contains large chunks of PPC code which requires rosetta to translate into x86 thus there is a performance hit - they've been gradually back porting parts from their development, but I would say the ones who will reap the biggest reward will be the x86 adopters.

As for Leopard, ZFS and other features, the more important thing to be concerned about is making sure that if ZFS is going to be on offer, its implemented properly - sure, other parts you can have the occasional bug here and there without much concern, but the file system has to be one of the most important components of an operating system; if something goes wrong there, all hell breaks loose.

For me, if I was Steve, I would keep pumping out updates for 10.4, get Leopard up to scratch with ZFS bootable out of the box, and work on stability and fixing long standing issues, like FTFF (Fix The F*cking Finder) by either replacing it or fixing it, which ever way, something needs to be done.

They also need to stablise things down better; have at least a gap of 2 years between releases, and support the previous operating system at least 2 years after the next one is released, giving a minimum of 4 years support - provide at least, minimum, security updates so that there isn't a feeling of being 'forced' to upgrade due to lack of support for the older version.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: So what?
by SpasmaticSeacow on Fri 13th Apr 2007 11:54 in reply to "RE: So what?"
SpasmaticSeacow Member since:
2006-02-17

I don't believe that in 10.4.x there is any PPC code run on Intel any more. ZFS works quite well now, though booting from it will likely require an EFI update. Booting from ZFS is non-trivial, though probably simpler because they aren't using a BIOS.

I think the Finder is not bad. It's on par with Windows Explorer (which isn't saying much). Personally, I like the way Konqueror or Dolphin operate (particularly with the KIO-based VFS layer), but I understand it's not for everyone. I think the path widget (from the "Customize ToolBar dialog" should be there by default, or better to be like in Vista or better still Dolphin). In general, I'd like Finder and the Windows Explorer (sorry, but I don't get to choose OSs, I have to use them all) to operate more like Dolphin.

Reply Parent Score: 2