Is there going to be a 10.4?
We have heard nothing about 10.4 at all, it seems to have no name or any presence. So are we going to jump to 10.8 or is the next version going to be something like LXIV (64)?
Could 10.3 be the end of our 32 bit OS development and all new development is on a fully 64 bit native OS?
Could 10.3 be the end of our 32 bit OS development and all new development is on a fully 64 bit native OS?
Comments
Just because there aren't reports on 10.4 doesn't mean it isn't on schedule for development.
Originally posted by Moogs
I really doubt they've even started developing it yet, seeing as there is a lot of work yet to do to make Panther as stable as it needs to be for a wide array of users. I don't think there's any doubt it will be 32-bit. For one thing not that many apps and aspects of the system would benefit from 64-bit, and for another there are tens of millions of Macs out there that are 32-bit only and which constitute the VAST majority of Mac users.
of course devlopment has started on it. Apple has always had seperate trees for updates to the existing OS and the next generation.
It's just....panther just was released and anything in the next major upgrade is probably very very primitive at this point. also, if apple came out and started talking about it, panther wouldn't be the new greatest thing anymore.
be patient. may see something at MWSF. although at this point I'd really like to see Apple put some time into their iApps and AppleWorks
I was thinking that SanFran might give us a glimpse, but that would definitely take the shine off Panther. And Apple wants your $129.
Now.
...For all the developers in the audience, Jaguar is finished, for today we are going to preview the next major upgrade to Mac OS X - Panther.
Was that the first time that Panther entered the public domain? I know it was the first demo of features such as Exposé, but did you guys already know all about the ongoing development program?
Originally posted by Addison
We have heard nothing about 10.4 at all, it seems to have no name or any presence. So are we going to jump to 10.8 or is the next version going to be something like LXIV (64)?
Could 10.3 be the end of our 32 bit OS development and all new development is on a fully 64 bit native OS?
I protest this shameful display of muddled techspeak.
- with "OS" do you mean "kernel" or what?
- what do you mean by "fully"?
- why would they not keep the thing 32-bit processor compatible for many years to come?
Im not saying that we should be like windows (what will it be, 4 years of no new os releases when longhorn gets here?) but i would like a little more time in between, with the gap filled with more minor updates, perhaps a few with a couple new features, like the home on ipod.
As Applenut said there are two seperate trees. I view 10.3 as the optimization tree. Most of the work seems to be beneath the surface. Jaguar had alot of new functions but needed new plumbing pipes and Panther provided those pipes. With "Tiger"(just guessing) I see Apple going back to adding featues and enabling new technologies. 10.5 will be the further polishing of those technoligies. Having a new OS every year is tough if you want to keep up with the jones' but I like of for perpetual forward progress. Panther is good enough now to make it extrememely difficult for Apple to sell a "ho hum" upgrade for 10.4.
We've done lists about what we expect in 10.4 but I'll highlight some popular onces for me.
Filesystem- It'd be nice to have a fs that acts like a mini database containing metadata. I think I should be able to search for any file on my computer like I search for a track in iTunes.
Quartz Extreme 2- Please let's vanquish slow gui speeds forever!
Workspaces- I know they have something similar now but true workspaces would be nice.
What I'm saying is, in effect, I doubt they've branced yet. Probably sometime in early 2004 they will do so.
Originally posted by ThunderPoit
i feel that 10.3 may possibly be the point in apple's os development where the release cycle may begin to slow down. people griped when only a year after 10.1, 10.2 was another 130$, even more griped about panther. Panther is full of features, so many that i cannot think of what to add to it. Sadly, with all these features rushed out the door, many bugs came along for the ride. What i would like to see is an os cycle closer to 18-24 months vs 12-18. This way, features can be more planned out, bugs can get squashed, and people wont be complaining about the 130$ a year.
I agree with this, 3 updates in as many years is probably as much as the Mac faithful can take which is why I think we may never see a 10.4. If I remember correctly there was never an 8.4 or 8.8 or 8.9. I am not sure how many new features we can see in future releases, perhaps my imagination isn't fertile enough. I can see further optimisations and bug fixes and support for new hardware but a full point next year, I am not convinced.
Regarding the future, we know MS has Longhorn in development and I assume that processor enhancements will continue but at a lower rate than in the past as the ceilings are hit with each level of miniaturization. MS has pulled out a gap because the ineptitude of Motorola held Apple back. If we assume that MS/Intel/Amd and IBM keep pace in terms of technology then a fully 64 bit OS is one way to keep one step ahead of the opposition. If Apple don't produce a 64 bit OS MS will it is inevitable, who would argue that we should have stuck with 16 bit OS's
64 bit is coming and the processors are here, the race is to develop an OS that can utilise it efficiently. Now I have no idea how easy it would be to re-compile existing applications to run on a 64 bit OSX but it obvious that with two years every Apple machine will have a 64 bit processor built in. Is there any reason why a 64 bit OSX could not run 32 bit OSX programmes allowing backward compatibility, none.
Also, the WWDC Panther build was VERY early in development. I would say it had been in development for 6 months or so. All the new stuff in the core OS had obviously just been got working, and the GUI was very underdeveloped.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing with 10.4. Remember, a lot of the OS components now get developed and released seperately from the OS. Think Safari, X11, QuickTime, iApps etc. Apple doesn't put all their development eggs in one basket any more.
Personally, I like the new Apple... very glasnost and perestroika.
Barto
Originally posted by Addison
I agree with this, 3 updates in as many years is probably as much as the Mac faithful can take which is why I think we may never see a 10.4. If I remember correctly there was never an 8.4 or 8.8 or 8.9. I am not sure how many new features we can see in future releases, perhaps my imagination isn't fertile enough. I can see further optimisations and bug fixes and support for new hardware but a full point next year, I am not convinced.
Regarding the future, we know MS has Longhorn in development and I assume that processor enhancements will continue but at a lower rate than in the past as the ceilings are hit with each level of miniaturization. MS has pulled out a gap because the ineptitude of Motorola held Apple back. If we assume that MS/Intel/Amd and IBM keep pace in terms of technology then a fully 64 bit OS is one way to keep one step ahead of the opposition. If Apple don't produce a 64 bit OS MS will it is inevitable, who would argue that we should have stuck with 16 bit OS's
64 bit is coming and the processors are here, the race is to develop an OS that can utilise it efficiently. Now I have no idea how easy it would be to re-compile existing applications to run on a 64 bit OSX but it obvious that with two years every Apple machine will have a 64 bit processor built in. Is there any reason why a 64 bit OSX could not run 32 bit OSX programmes allowing backward compatibility, none.
Read the other 64-bit threads for detail but here's a summary: 64-bit CPU's alone do not give a great performance increase. It just allows double the sized numbers to be manipulated in around the same number of clock cycles. If an application isn't making use of huge numbers then it will see very little benefit from a recompile for 64-bit. This is the reason it is perfectly valid for Apple to leave OS X a 32-bit OS with 64-bit enhancements (like being able to to address more memory). The true performance benefits of the G5 comes from the CPU architecture and the bus architecture probably more-so than the fact that it is 64-bit.
Barto
I mean jeez.
No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to buy the latest OS release. If you really can't control your buying impulses, try looking in the mirror, not blaming Apple for producing something that you (and many of the rest of us) want.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And I have to admit, I don't understand the reasoning that $130/yr for *OPTIONAL* upgrades is worse than $130/two years when you *CAN'T GET UPGRADES IN THE MEANTIME*.
I mean jeez.
No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to buy the latest OS release. If you really can't control your buying impulses, try looking in the mirror, not blaming Apple for producing something that you (and many of the rest of us) want.
Excellent point Kickaha. All things considered I'd rather Apple keep pumping out the updates and let me decide when I'm had enough of the treadmill. As OSX matures even more it'll be harder and harder to entice users to upgrade so the new version will HAVE to be a good one.
Although for some reason I do think 10.4 will not be here until MWSF 2005
Originally posted by hmurchison
Filesystem- It'd be nice to have a fs that acts like a mini database containing metadata. I think I should be able to search for any file on my computer like I search for a track in iTunes.
Quartz Extreme 2- Please let's vanquish slow gui speeds forever!
Workspaces- I know they have something similar now but true workspaces would be nice.
What about Piles? I remember in the months before Panther's release that everyone was talking about Piles, and it looked like a really neat idea. It's something I'd like to see in 10.4.