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.
some guy on macbreak weekly was saying that he didn’t think leopard would ship as early as promised. It wasn’t Leo. I was going to buy a macbook in june when taxes came back, but I’m not sure if I should wait for leopard. This will be my first mac, and I’m not sure if leopard will actually be any advantage anyways, other than having the latest and greatest. Besides they might pull a vista and delay it till next january…
Besides they might pull a vista and delay it till next january…
“Next” January? Check your calendar. Mine says it’s April 2007. Pulling a Vista would mean delaying it until January 2012.
“””
“Next” January? Check your calendar. Mine says it’s April 2007. Pulling a Vista would mean delaying it until January 2012.
“””
Well, that’s OK. I can’t wait to see the new arrivals, Leopard and Lenny, duking it out in 2012!
It’s my reason for living. 😉
Leopard might very well be an improvement for owners of Intel Macs, since it might very well be more fully adapted to the platform than Tiger is and was…
I somehow fear that PPC Mac users might not get ‘as much’ from the upgrade in terms of stability and general support of the platform, compared to Intel Mac users, since Tigers code base was probably at least as PPC oriented as it was Intel – but that’s probably goin to change…
I.e. if you strip your version of iTunes 7 on a PPC for the Intel specific parts, you’ll save up to 50% RAM usage and decrease cpu utilization by up to 40-50% as well… Now take an entire OS acting like that here and there… That’s definately not goint to be pretty on a non G5 PPC system…
um, no. You will not save RAM or CPU by removing the Intel code, since the Intel code is not loaded on a PPC system. The only increase is in the size of the application on disk since it contains 2 binaries.
I am sorry to tell you that this actually happened to me, albeit on an old rev.b iMac G3 233 MHz with Mac OS X 10.3.9, 256 MB RAM and iTunes 7.02 …
It wouldn’t load unless I stripped off the Intel bits (after which it has just kept running though the library keeps growing + the RAM usage went down dramatically even on my PB G4 1.5 GHz with 1.25 GB RAM …
I know it’s not supposed to make a difference, but in my case it did, and quite dramatically I might say!
There was never an intel version of 10.3.9. You are running entirely PPC code on a PPC machine. Anyway, if you WERE running a universal binary, the intel code would be ignored by the PPC processor. It wouldn’t even look at it, as there is no “forwards” compatibility with intel executables.
I don’t disbelieve that you made your computer run faster somehow, but I seriously doubt that it was by stripping out all the intel code, which doesn’t even exist in 10.3.9.
…DOES in fact contain Intel code!
When I stripped this for use on my PPC Macs, iTunes did run faster… On my old iMac G3, I couldn’t even open the app because of too heavy RAM requirements, before stripping it of the above mentioned Intel part….
And this was all I did and RAM usage for iTunes 7.02 went down by approx 50% and so did the cpu usage …
I never said that Mac OS X 10.3.9 contained any Intel code…. Never!
Edited 2007-04-13 07:39
Even more than that: take a look at anything in /System on Tiger/ppc, you’ll find that nothing in there is a Universal binary; it’s all PPC-only. Do the same on Tiger/x86 (assuming you haven’t run Monolingual on it), and you’ll find it’s not Intel-only, but all dual-architecture fat binaries.
Quite an odd choice, really.
To those wondering about the stability of Mac OS X on Intel, be aware that Darwin has been available for x86 for as long as it’s been available on PPC: it didn’t run on very many hardware configurations, but those it does run on work just fine (and really, limited hardware configurations isn’t exactly a concern for Mac OS X)
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.
“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.
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.
…And since I never use Spotlight anyways, I might as well do the same, if only my Powerbook 12″ 1.5 GHz would boot the beast
I run Tiger on a 1.25 Ghz 15″ PB G4 and it runs well. Why wouldn’t your 1.5Ghz PB boot it?
It’s the other way ’round … I might as well use 10.3.9, but my PB 12″ 1.5 GHz won’t boot anything prior to 10.4.something
Btw:
Panther = 10.3.x
Tiger = 10.4.x
May be I wasn’t clear. I find no discernible difference between 10.3.x and 10.4.x on my 1.25ghz G4 Powerbook.
You haven’t yet provided a technical reason why a universal binary would cause a performance difference on a PPC system.
Even if OS X did something stupid like load all the pages of the binary into memory during an Apps startup the intel pages would be evicted over time because they would never be used. You can’t jump to a piece of intel code on PPC without getting an illegal instruction fault and killing the process.
Sorry but I just don’t see the point of running 10.3.9 on a 1.5GHz G4. If for no other reason than All the patches and updates are going to happen on 10.4.x for a lot longer than 10.3.x.
BTW I also own a PM G5 dual core and run 10.4.x on it too.
My sentiments exactly. I’d much rather they get it right than simply pushing it out the door.
Hear, hear!
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
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).
I’ve never heard of “McSoft” before. Who is this company?
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.
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.
Agreed. If you look at Activity Monitor, you’ll see that there are no PowerPC processes running unless you’re using a specific application that requires it. Basically, all the OS components are compiled for Intel.
I probably phrased it badly, when I mean “PowerPC Code” I should have meant unoptimised parts of the operating system.
Yeah sure, and yes, Microsoft Vista is the “most sophisticated software ever written”…
And I don’t need to run the most sophisticated brain to know this is just plain marketting buzzword b*s* I really can’t stand.
Besides, Linux runs on mobile devices for years.
What more can you expect from Apple? They tried to innovate on technology in the 90s and they failed. So now they have to revert to BS (aka marketing).
Not to say that Apple’s marketing isn’t something to be respected. Just this is osnews.com, I would expect tech geeks to have higher standards when it comes to technology.
It’s irnoic that iPhone won’t even have native 3rd party applications. I think only JavaME apps will works on the iPhone.
You’re at the wrong web site for that kind of content. You’d find some of that at arstechnica. The techy people left a long time ago. They mostly left when the slashdot crowd moved in.
You’re at the wrong web site for that kind of content. You’d find some of that at arstechnica. The techy people left a long time ago. They mostly left when the slashdot crowd moved in.
Interesting that you feel so able to commentate on the movings and shakings of “the techy people”, since you quite clearly aren’t part of that community.
(MS shills are not “techies”.)
First signs that Apple is spreading its talent too thinly. This was the concern that many people had when Apple changed its name removing the ‘Computer’ part of it. Not the actually name change means anything but if you like Apple computers and software then the diversification of products may not be a good thing.
The next few years we will see what happens, but Apple appears to be at the peak of their current cycle. They may need to learn a few hard lessons in the coming years.
First signs that Apple is spreading its talent too thinly. This was the concern that many people had when Apple changed its name removing the ‘Computer’ part of it. Not the actually name change means anything but if you like Apple computers and software then the diversification of products may not be a good thing.
The next few years we will see what happens, but Apple appears to be at the peak of their current cycle. They may need to learn a few hard lessons in the coming years.
I don’t care as long as they come back and keep to computers. For sentimental reasons I want them to stick around. I’ll never buy them as they’re too expensive and proprietary, but although current Apple hardware is BORING from a technical perspective and cheese-grater-like from an aesthetic one, they made some nice stuff in the 80’s and early nineties. Plus, for all that it’s proprietary, I’ve always liked both Mac OS and NeXTSTEP. Not even compiz/beryl can make Linux look as nice as OS X.
I still use NEXTSEP v3.3 almost daily
Hopefully I will be able to upgrade my NeXTstation Turbo to OPENSTEP 4.2 soon.
Lovely GUI, Lovely Hardware, Lovely OS.
> I still use NEXTSEP v3.3 almost daily
>
> Hopefully I will be able to upgrade my NeXTstation
> Turbo to OPENSTEP 4.2 soon.
Helf, I think the significance of that statement is lost upon mere Mortals 😉
I have to disagree with what you have said there. The hardware on a mac is no more proprietary then any other PC company. the only component that i can think of that is different to PCs is that it doesn’t use BIOS. I think your confusing new macs with older macs which hardware was proprietary. The OS is also based on Darwin which is an open source OS.
Since a lot of people buy macs for there aesthetics i don’t agree with you about that either.
I have to disagree with what you have said there. The hardware on a mac is no more proprietary then any other PC company. the only component that i can think of that is different to PCs is that it doesn’t use BIOS. I think your confusing new macs with older macs which hardware was proprietary. The OS is also based on Darwin which is an open source OS.
I wasn’t referring to hardware – although since MacOS X can only be run on “PC’s” with EFI I think it’s more proprietary than you give it credit for – but to hardware. Yes, it’s “based on” an open source OS, but proprietary *ware is no good to me whether it’s the icing on the cake or the cake itself – I’m still at the mercy of its vendor. Or rather I’m not, since I’ve learnt my lesson and no longer use it.
First of all: EFI is not proprietary technology (so useless to create “vendor lock-in” O.S. – HW)
Second: why should Mac OS X support BIOS if the replacement technology (EFI) is allready around since dec. 2000 ? No need to support BIOS as legacy if you start from scratch around 2006.
“The Unified EFI Forum or UEFI Forum (where UEFI stands for Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) is an alliance between several leading technology companies including AMD, American Megatrends, Apple, Dell, HP, IBM, Insyde Software, Intel, Lenovo, Microsoft, and Phoenix Technologies.”
F.i. Microsoft isnt’ ready to ship it’s flaship O.S. (Vista) to run on EFI hardware. This is what keeps other vendors not to sell EFI hardware but to keep the good ol’ BIOS.
Linux boots EFI since 2000 (elilo)
HP-UX uses EFI (on iA86) since 2002
All Itanium versions of Microsoft Windows server support EFI
Mac OS X supports EFI (not BIOS, no need to introduce legacy there) since releasing to Intel platform
Windows Server Longhorn will support EFI for x86
Windows Vista will get EFI support (for x86) in a service pack, somewhere down the road
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_EFI_Forum
Since a lot of people buy macs for there aesthetics i don’t agree with you about that either.
Up until the latest batch of hardware I admired their aesthetics too. And apparently a lot of people watch The Simpsons for humour. Your point?
Edited 2007-04-12 22:36
The Mac Mini is identical looking to the old one, while having more expandability.
If anything, the Macbook and MB Pro look better than their predecessors.
iMac looks identical to iMac G5. Ditto Mac Pro and PM G5, again with more expandability to boot.
Please explain what changed that you no longer admire their aesthetics, because I frankly, without looking at the connections on the back, cannot tell the difference with the desktops and think the laptops look better.
OK, I’ll admit that the Mac Mini doesn’t look any different, afaik.
The annoying grilles on the front. The ones I liked look like this:
http://lowendmac.com/ppc/g4-125.html
“Since a lot of people buy macs for there aesthetics i don’t agree with you about that either.”
My Mini is aesthetically clean and has a good feature set.
You only disagree abouth the aesthetics (I disagree too: I love how macs look), but we all three agree that the hardware is totally boring, as in “lacking anything to make it stand out”.
The only hardware innovation Apple introduced in the x86 PC market is the electronic locking device to prevent their customers from using Apple products as they see fit.
This really meshes well with Apples new attitude: look cool, smile brightly, and grab your customers by the balls. No more open systems that people can tailor to their liking; enter limited functionality devices that only do what Apple allows to do using their very shiny, very limited and very locked software.
This really meshes well with Apples new attitude: look cool, smile brightly, and grab your customers by the balls. No more open systems that people can tailor to their liking; enter limited functionality devices that only do what Apple allows to do using their very shiny, very limited and very locked software.
Welcome to the new Jobs, same as the old Jobs: if you remember, the open systems @ Apple came along soon after Jobs was ejected from the company – the original Macintosh and a few subsequent models having been designed with “no user serviceable parts inside”, as the casings themselves might well have said.
What exactly am I unable to do with Mac hardware? XP boots and runs fine, and while I’ve never tried to install Linux on it Knoppix boots just fine, etc etc.
You cannot run a virtualized OSX.
You cannot install OSX in a non-Apple PC.
That is not hardware.
Not being able to be installed on non mac hardware is in fact a software restriction, isn’t it?
So how does the mac hardware lock you in? Besides not being overly serviceable (which afaik the mac pro is)
“What exactly am I unable to do with Mac hardware?”
Buy it without OSX might be one thing. Why anyone would want to is another matter, but you can’t.
I am tired of people that complains that Apple is a “lock-in” bla bla bla.
If you don’t like it, go buy something else or build it by yourself.
Try buying a Ford without an engine…
c’mon please. Stop the Crap. People don’t care. Only Free “All must be open and open and open” people do.
A computer won’t lock you down to anything. If you feel locked down to a vendor (i.e.: you choose Lotus NOtes and now decide to move to Exchange or Qmail or whatever) you’ll have to pay for the “mistake” you made.
SO when you buy an Apple Computer, for example, do realize what you’re buying and that’s the end of the story. If you latter feel “locked in” the key resides in your wallet. You may make the same mistake twice (as humans do), but in the end, you’ll learn.
Life is a bit***, then you die.
Well, it certainly was not a complaint, just mentioning an indisputable, if upsetting, fact. Nor was there any argument that Apple should do things differently. Just a statement of the way they do in fact do it.
Is the market for PCs and OSs like the market for cars and engines? Not really. Think about it for a few moments.
If it were, Ford would be something like Dell. All the car manufacturers in the world except one or two would get their engines from World Engines Inc. They would all use the identical engines. World Engines would make three or four different models, but when you bought a car, be it Ford, GM or Toyota, you’d buy it with one of these models of engine. Naturally the mounting lugs, electrical interfaces and transmission connection points would be the same on all cars, so as to take these engines.
All the components would be standardized. So there would be three or four light suppliers, a few seat suppliers, and any seat or light or aircon unit would fit into any car.
If you wanted to put your own car together, it would probably take a couple of days. You’d buy a body off the shelf from a body supplier. Then you’d buy some major sub assemblies and bolt and plug them together. That would be it. That in fact would be exactly what GM, Ford and Toyota would all do.
As soon as you think about it, you see why Ford does not sell engineless cars, and why no-one does. And why the task of installing an OS on a PC is nothing like the task of installing an engine in a car chassis. And why there are no barebones cars but there are barebones computers.
I am not arguing that Apple should sell Macs with no OS. But there is no reason of the sort inhibiting Ford from selling cars without engines to prevent them.
Turning to the real subject matter of this thread, what will the Leopard delay do to them and does it matter? It will be interesting to see if this is the last slippage, but generally, Apple’s reputation and stock are priced for perfection over the next few years. There is no room for surprises. Undiscounted positive surprises are unlikely given the level of expectation built into the price. Undiscounted nasties on either pods, phones or PCs are quite possible. So yes, it could come to matter quite a lot.
The only big and maybe positive undiscounted event that is dimly visible is unbundling of the OS. We can be fairly sure that no-one has made buying or selling decisions based on that. So if it happens, it will be a true surprise. Whether to the up or the downside, that’s the question. And how likely is also a question. My feeling is that the measures needed to stop Leopard running on non-Apple branded equipment, when anyone can duplicate any Mac configuration with a phone call, are probably less and less cost effective. So at some point they could make the most of a bad job. And this prospect, the countermeasures, and the debates over it, could well cause delays.
We’ll see.
Well then Microsoft must be in real big trouble in that department. Apple is delaying the release for 4 months. Microsoft delayed Vista for 4 years (with a far bigger release team employee wise I might add). Apple isn’t busy removing promised features in that extra 4 months, Microsoft touted numerous features for Vista and then proceeded to axe them. Apple isn’t stopping half-way through, scrapping the entire code-base, and starting over, Microsoft did precisely that with Vista.
Somehow I’m not too worried. In-fact, I’m glad Apple isn’t rushing Leopard out early. I would have been happy with Vista’s delay as well if the Vista that shipped didn’t end up being a lesser product than what Microsoft promised it to be.
If Time Machine, Spaces and other stuff starts disappearing like WinFS, THEN I’ll be worried.
Oh, and Apple makes a profit on pretty much every product they have, Microsoft turns a profit on 2 or 3 out of god knows how many products. Furthermore, I expect iPhone technology, such as multi-touch and optimizations to OS X, to eventually make its way into the Mac product line.
First signs that Apple is spreading its talent too thinly.
To be fair, Apple employs less than 1/10th as many people as Microsoft and they are delaying a product by 4 months (rather than 4 years), and they aren’t compromising on the feature set.
@ andrewg
I find it interesting that your comment is so similar to Troy Wolverton’s article in “The Mercury News” entitled ‘Apple spreading itself too thin?’
Just a thought…
Edited 2007-04-14 01:44
I’m in the ‘fine with that’ camp, but gosh, could they have put more spin on it?
“iPhone… iPhone… iPhone, iPhone… iPhone, [mumble]and oh btw the Leopard is delayed.[/mumble]”
I for one am sick of spin. If I wanted a spin cycle I’d stick myself in the washing machine.
That was tested on mythbusters. Apparently washing machines have clutches to protect the motor which give out with less mass in the washer than a small adult.
So you really can’t spin yourself in the washer.
I know, you don’t care; but it was a great episode!
Yet you still post on threads dedicated to “proprietary *ware”. If you are happy with whatever you are using and have no interest in a mac, why post here?
Yet you still post on threads dedicated to “proprietary *ware”. If you are happy with whatever you are using and have no interest in a mac, why post here?
Because as I indicated in an earlier post, I’m interested in Apple despite myself.
Happy there is a delay to get things fixed, nothing worse than the bubble bursting all over a buggy pile of crap after such expectation and anticipation … Now if only they can get my bloody Macbook fixed by the time it releases ill be even happier 🙂 damn battery detection problem is really starting to turn me against them … but thats another story …..
I’ve been looking at some macs I like the big screen ones with the pc hidden in back. If they had some linux certified models i would be looking a lot harder.
PC vendors like HP and Dell that don’t even have their own desktop operating systems don’t certify Linux. Why in god’s name would Apple certify Linux? You’re going to be waiting a long time, trust me.
Of course, that doesn’t stop you from using Linux. I’ve heard it runs just fine on the iMacs (never looked into it too much though).
my next system will most likely be linux installed or certified. (system76.com) If apple were to get there before i buy something i would strongly consider a mac.
is the new Vista? (I keed I keed)
I didn’t criticize MS for delays, nor shall I criticize Apple.
It’s done when it’s done.
From AppleInsider:
Too bad they won’t meet the deadline, but good for the developers who will now have a more complete picture of what the final OS is going to be like.
http://monolingual.sourceforge.net/
( Version 1.3.7 )
Indeed iTunes was cut in half.
Edited 2007-04-13 01:46
It’s is probably good news IMHO. Apple are taking their time to produce not just a stable new OS, but also a *compelling* upgrade. It’s not easy these days to give users something truly worth upgrading to (see Vista – I should no, I now have it like it or not on a new laptop).
@rm6990 – aren’t Dell in the process of certifying at least one distro of Linux as we speak? Also, I think the reference to the hardware problem on Apple is made because you’re kinda locked in to relatively small set of possible hardware options. I guess PC’s are no different, only that the options are much broader because pretty much every manufacturer supports Windows.
I just bought a larger disk in preparation of “Time Machine.” I could have had a bigger, faster and better disk in another 4 months, no doubt. Oh well, I took a gamble that it would be ready for June…
But this probably is good news. Perhaps they can squeeze in a few more useful features, maybe polish it all up a bit.
Still, if it slips past October I think Apple will take a big publicity hit with bloggers all over the world comparing the slip to MS and Vista.
When Apple was releasing its OS each years people was complaining.
Now that Apple takes time to release its OS, people are complaining too …
Only bashers and zealots really complain. I bet 98% of Apple User base, *really* doesn’t care.
Those of us who must get our job done, really don’t care. We turn the box on, work, close work, play WoW, sleep. Repeat.
The thing is that 2% (like me) care (but not complain) because we want to play with new stuff.
That’s all about it.
Same group 😉
I’ve been thinking of replacing OSX with Ubuntu on my macbook. With 7.04 about to go to final release and Leopard being delayed I may just take the plunge. I’ll have my OSX discs ready to go back if I develop headaches just in case.
I hope they get it out bevore 2012… because… you know what happens in 2012, well they mught not be able to do any developing on it after that date…
I am not sure how reliable the following site is:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
nor do I know which models are the most popular, or whether in fact the ones due (e.g., imac, mac mini) are likely to be given new releases during the course of this year, if that’s the case, but the delay of Leopard for software reasons may now neatly coincide with the hardware upgrades already scheduled for a decent amount of mac types.
In any case, this news gives me the chance to save up hopefully for the move to a very-latest Intel-powered imac, with Leopard, or just start dropping Crimbo hints for such a happy double-whammy