Mac OS X 10.5.5 approaching as testing focus narrowed

[AppleInsider]

A release of the fifth maintenance and security update for Apple's Leopard operating system appears to be approaching a release, with the company reported to have lopped the number components requiring evaluation in half.

Developers claim to have received their pre-weekend build of the upcoming Mac OS X 10.5.5 Update on Thursday evening. The new build, labeled 9F32, arrived just days after a smaller subset of developers were equipped with build 9F30, which similarly followed on the heels of build 9F29 distributed more broadly near the start of the week.

With the latest build, Apple has narrowed its testing field from 24 core system components to just 12, according to people familiar with the software. Among the components still in need of further testing are AirPort, graphics drivers, iCal, iChat, screen sharing, and Time Machine, those people say.

Build 9F32 is also reported to have stemmed a nasty memory glitch that was affecting Time Machine volumes formatted in HFS. A problem using the CUPS printing environment with documents loaded into Apple's Preview application is also said to have been fixed.

While Mac OS X 10.5.5 remains hampered by a single known issue related to email search in the company's Mail application, the narrowed focus list combined with more rapid test releases over the past week has led some developers to believe the Update may only be a week or so away.

Only once in recent memory has the Mac maker shaved a large number of components from the focus areas of an impending Mac OS X update late in its development cycle and then spun around to re-broaden them.

Mac OS X 10.5.5 currently weighs in at around 320 megabytes in its bare bones Delta form, those familiar with the software say.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Cory Bauer]

Bring on 10.5.6 and it's rumored Blu-Ray support, please

[pdiddy]

I hope they fix that error. I don't want to have to sue.

/sarcasm

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

Bring on 10.5.6 and it's rumored Blu-Ray support, please

Kevin Rose is full of shit. There is no parallel development of Mac OS X. As much as I wish there was, there isn't. There isn't a team secretly working on 10.5.6 while 10.5.5 is being worked on. If there's no hints of Blu-Ray in 10.5.5 it's probably not coming in 10.5.6.

As much as I wish that there would be parallel development at Apple for point updates, there isn't.

The only parallel dev happening is between the full version number changes.

[backtomac]

"Mac OS X 10.5.5 currently weighs in at around 320 megabytes in its bare bones Delta form, those familiar with the software say."

Holy shit that seems like a large update or is it me?

[Cory Bauer]

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Kevin Rose is full of shit. There is no parallel development of Mac OS X. As much as I wish there was, there isn't. There isn't a team secretly working on 10.5.6 while 10.5.5 is being worked on. If there's no hints of Blu-Ray in 10.5.5 it's probably not coming in 10.5.6.

As much as I wish that there would be parallel development at Apple for point updates, there isn't.

The only parallel dev happening is between the full version number changes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only major computer manufacturer now that isn't offering Blu-Ray? Their lack of support is fast-approaching the seriousness of their situation several years ago when everyone else was offering CD burners and Apple ignorantly thought the world would skip CD and go straight to DVD.

[bdkennedy1]

When I worked at Cisco, we worked on .1, .2, and .3 in parallel with each other.

So how do you know there's no parallel development? Did you work there? Do you have a spy camera hidden somewhere on their campus?

Please share with us your factual knowledge of how you could possibly know this.

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Kevin Rose is full of shit. There is no parallel development of Mac OS X. As much as I wish there was, there isn't. There isn't a team secretly working on 10.5.6 while 10.5.5 is being worked on. If there's no hints of Blu-Ray in 10.5.5 it's probably not coming in 10.5.6.

As much as I wish that there would be parallel development at Apple for point updates, there isn't.

The only parallel dev happening is between the full version number changes.

[lukec]

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Apple the only major computer manufacturer now that isn't offering Blu-Ray? Their lack of support is fast-approaching the seriousness of their situation several years ago when everyone else was offering CD burners and Apple ignorantly thought the world would skip CD and go straight to DVD.

I think apple is looking to promote its way of delivering high def movies: iTunes Music Store. Less support for blueray, might mean more people download from apple.

I think there is blueray support for apple, it's just not being built into the systems.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Build 9F32 is also reported to have stemmed a nasty memory glitch that was affecting Time Machine volumes formatted in HFS.

Does this mean "as opposed to HFS+", or am I clueless about how TM drives can be setup?

Originally Posted by pdiddy

Mail searching... I hope they fix that error.

I recently had that issue too. I rebuilt and everything was okay.

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Kevin Rose is full of shit. There is no parallel development of Mac OS X.

While I tend to agree that Rose doesn't have any inside sources, is it not possible that Bly-ray support, not its specific inclusion into a point release, be worked on another group. If they were going to release it I would think that iDVD and other professional apps would the be first to get it. At that point any framework or system support for BR could be put into the point release, so perhaps it's just a bulletin of what may be coming next time... but I having doubts that BR support is coming at all.

[Cory Bauer]

Originally Posted by lukec

I think apple is looking to promote its way of delivering high def movies: iTunes Music Store. Less support for blueray, might mean more people download from apple.

Unfortunately I'm afraid that's probably the case; problem is 1.) their HD quality is closer to an upconverted DVD than actual HD due to their low bitrates, and 2.) most people don't want to pay-to-own super-compressed videos trapped inside a proprietary box. Both storage and the internet are not mature enough yet for real HD content delivery; we need Blu-Ray as a stopgap for at least five years.

[ghostface147]

While I don't work for Apple or have any inside knowledge, the biggest gripe I would have with supporting it on OS X is the fact that the OS has to continually monitor the video path for any signs of messing with it. We all know that the DRM that Blu Ray uses is always checking for any signs of tampering with the video path, and if it finds anything, it will either degrade the quality of the video or stop it all together. I am also sure there is some kind of licensing fee or something that some manufacturer has up their sleeve that Apple doesn't care to pay.

[success]

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

Both storage and the internet are not mature enough yet for real HD content delivery; we need Blu-Ray as a stopgap for at least five years.

One of the smartest things someone's said on this forum. Mostly because I've been saying the same bloody thing while everyone else is saying, "what?! We don't need Blu-Ray. We need thumb drives and more MacAir's with flash." The same people who invest in APPL based on rumors.

p.s. Not to mention media pros need Blu-Ray for well...media.

[Wings]

I wonder if or when Apple will see fit to have a look at Migration Assistant. If you have a RAID on either the source disk or target disk, forget it. (What this means is, if you have a RAID and use Time Machine for backup, then the worst happens, you're on your own in getting your new system back on track.)

I've complained to Apple about this several times. Wonder if they fixed it.

[bigdaddyp]

Originally Posted by success

One of the smartest things someone's said on this forum. Mostly because I've been saying the same bloody thing while everyone else is saying, "what?! We don't need Blu-Ray. We need thumb drives and more MacAir's with flash." The same people who invest in APPL based on rumors.

p.s. Not to mention media pros need Blu-Ray for well...media.

Lets not forget that Isp's like Comcast are putting the smack down on your download's. If this move catches on your allocated bandwidth could be used up downloading 5-10 movies. Blueray may not be a "must have" for a mac but do not write off physical media just yet.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by ghostface147

... I am also sure there is some kind of licensing fee or something that some manufacturer has up their sleeve that Apple doesn't care to pay.

Make it a BTO option and pass the cost on to the consumer. There are people that will *gladly* pay the fee.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyp

Lets not forget that Isp's like Comcast are putting the smack down on your download's. If this move catches on your allocated bandwidth could be used up downloading 5-10 movies. Blueray may not be a "must have" for a mac but do not write off physical media just yet.

Good point. Downloaded HD faces two hurdles. The lack of really fast broadband service (like FIOS) in all parts of the country and bandwidth caps. Apple have no control or influence over this either.

I agree with Corey. BR will reign for at least 5 years.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Make it a BTO option and pass the cost on to the consumer. There are people that will *gladly* pay the fee.

Except that this 'option' would require embedding the HDCP DRM into *the entire system*, even for machines that would never use Blu-Ray. It's not going to be just the folks who BTO it who would pay for it, it would be all of us.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Except that this 'option' would require embedding the HDCP DRM into *the entire system*, even for machines that would never use Blu-Ray. It's not going to be just the folks who BTO it who would pay for it, it would be all of us.

1) Isn't Montevina the first Intel chipset that has this natively?

2) What is the cost of this?

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by bdkennedy1

When I worked at Cisco, we worked on .1, .2, and .3 in parallel with each other.

So how do you know there's no parallel development? Did you work there? Do you have a spy camera hidden somewhere on their campus?

Please share with us your factual knowledge of how you could possibly know this.

i make plastics...for apple

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by Kickaha

Except that this 'option' would require embedding the HDCP DRM into *the entire system*, even for machines that would never use Blu-Ray. It's not going to be just the folks who BTO it who would pay for it, it would be all of us.

Why couldn't be embedded into systems that only use BR?

Apple releases system software versions specific to machines, why not with this as well?

[godrifle]

What does that have to do with software engineering? Do you work at Apple and do you work in one of Apple's software development groups?

Let me put it this way. If they're not working concurrently on dot updates, I've got a productivity idea I'd like to sell them.

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

i make plastics...for apple

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Why couldn't be embedded into systems that only use BR?

Apple releases system software versions specific to machines, why not with this as well?

Because it's a hardware requirement, not a software one. That's how firmly embedded the HDCP is - it demands hardware control and verification of the graphics channels. You can't do that with a software update. It has to be at the motherboard level, from CPU to memory to video bus.

It's like saying that you're going to offer an electric hybrid as an option to all car buyers... and only the people who buy the hybrid will get the electric motor, but everyone will get otherwise exactly the same vehicle. There's a ton of engineering that would have to go in to making a car that is drop-in hybrid ready. Claiming that only the people who purchase the electric motor would be paying for the overall engineering effort is silly, unless you charge those folks an ungodly amount.

[GregoriusM]

I agree about the 5-year Blu-ray need.

I also think that CDs have a ways to go before they are all gone.

People do like to have the quality of a CD even on their iPods, even if it is in Apple Lossless.

There are still a lot of audio equipment and users who CAN tell the difference between a CD and even a 256 AAC from Apple.

We have a good 5 years before the quality of the downloads for video and audio can match what we've come to expect from physical media. The internet just cannot expand that quickly to make downloading completely pervasive. It is still in its infancy, even if the Apple Store and iTunes have been around for 6 or 7 years.

How long ago did Apple even move SOME of its music to 256??? Not long.

[kaiwai]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Good point. Downloaded HD faces two hurdles. The lack of really fast broadband service (like FIOS) in all parts of the country and bandwidth caps. Apple have no control or influence over this either.

I agree with Corey. BR will reign for at least 5 years.

You do realise that there are more countries in the world than just the US - just a small tip.

Whether they have/haven't control over it, when one has caps, allocations, speed reductions and so forth; its going to throw a spanner in the works.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyp

Lets not forget that Isp's like Comcast are putting the smack down on your download's. If this move catches on your allocated bandwidth could be used up downloading 5-10 movies. Blueray may not be a "must have" for a mac but do not write off physical media just yet.

You'll have to download about a hundred 90 minute HD movies from Apple before you run afowl of Comcast's bandwidth limit. That is about three movies a day, every day, for the entire month.

So, no, I don't think that's a convincing reason to go for Blu-Ray. More convincing are arguments about higher quality or wanting special features. That, and you really can't buy HD movies from Apple, they are currently only rented, and only through AppleTV.

[Cory Bauer]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

You'll have to download about a hundred 90 minute HD movies from Apple before you run afowl of Comcast's bandwidth limit. That is about three movies a day, every day, for the entire month.

At the current "SD blown up to 720p" bitrates that Apple is selling, yes. But some day when bandwidth speeds allow for 40mbps birate downloads instead of 4mbps — and include all of the expected extras you get with physical media — , then Comcast's bandwidth restrictions are only going to get you 5-10 movies like bigdaddyp said. And I'll bet you Comcast & other service providers will keep those restrictions in place even when speeds become much higher, because it'll be a new way to make money, much in the same way prices on consumables goes up when ingredient and shipping costs increase, but not back down when the manufacturer's cost decreases.

Originally Posted by GregoriusM

We have a good 5 years before the quality of the downloads for video and audio can match what we've come to expect from physical media. The internet just cannot expand that quickly to make downloading completely pervasive. It is still in its infancy, even if the Apple Store and iTunes have been around for 6 or 7 years.

Right. I don't understand the argument that Apple shouldn't offer Blu-Ray for the next 5-10 years because the internet will be fast enough for streaming HD in 5-10 years. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't intend to spend the next 5-10 years not watching movies.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Cory Bauer

At the current "SD blown up to 720p" bitrates that Apple is selling, yes.

I don't know what specific instances you're talking about, but the two sample episodes I've seen aren't upscaled SD. 40Mbps is a lot more than is really necessary to get good quality, there are several 8Mbps 1080p clips around that are quite nice.

[Cory Bauer]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't know what specific instances you're talking about, but the two sample episodes I've seen aren't upscaled SD. 40Mbps is a lot more than is really necessary to get good quality, there are several 8Mbps 1080p clips around that are quite nice.

I'm just saying that at the bitrates Apple uses, their 720p content looks more like an upconverted DVD than it does high definition; it's about half as sharp looking as the same shows over broadcast cable, which is really saying something since everyone complains about the overly compressed signals the cable and satellite providers pump out.