Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" reaches final candidate stage

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    louzerlouzer Posts: 1,054member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GregAlexander

    Sorry, no idea how that addresses what I said. For instance, how do 10.3.x updates address giving users access to apps requiring core-video, or standardise support and security updates across 10.1/10.2/10.3/10.4?



    I would assume most good developers will not be coding to 10.4 specifically. If they use Core Video (big if), that would either be for features disabled for 10.3 users, or 10.3 users will use the app's old code (which most apps who'll use Core Video already have the old code), which let's the processor do everything.



    Keep in mind that's how CoreVideo works on macs without the requisite video cards. The CPU will be doing all the work. CoreVideo is just a set of libraries that, if you have the correct video card, can offset some of the work onto the video card. Just like what Quartz Extreme does (but don't make the bad link that since some effects that use QE don't work at all on computers without a good video card, that CoreVideo works the same way).



    Oh, and trying to standardize the underlying OS actually can cause support problems, because Apple's been basically changing the underlying Unix in conjunction with OS X. Trying to upgrade the underlying Unix without changing the OS X layer would probably cause more problems then it would solve, and updating OS X to the latest Unix changes just is a lot more work, just to get where they are now.



    And after all that, there'd have to be a benefit to Apple, which would seem minimal (having to update only one core for all systems for the occassional set of security updates). And if Apple puts in all the code to support, as your example states, CoreVideo apps, then there's less impetus on the users to update to 10.4 (sorry, Searchlight/spotlight/whatever and dashboard aren't 'killer' features that people are going to drool over and buy regardless of other stuff).
  • Reply 62 of 71
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Keep in mind that's how CoreVideo works on macs without the requisite video cards. The CPU will be doing all the work. CoreVideo is just a set of libraries that, if you have the correct video card, can offset some of the work onto the video card. Just like what Quartz Extreme does (but don't make the bad link that since some effects that use QE don't work at all on computers without a good video card, that CoreVideo works the same way).





    The Core* APIs will only be available in Tiger so you couldn't just port the code to 10.3 or below without actually writing the Core* routine functionality that you'd be executing with a function call in Tiger. These libraries that you speak of won't exist in 10.3 so whether the GPU does the work or not if you tried to call these functions in 10.3 your program will bomb.



    For programs like Photoshop this wouldn't be a problem since they already have their own crop/rotate/blur/etc. routines. For people like me who might use the Core* functionality to spice up my programs in Tiger it would be a total bear to recreate that functionality so my program would run the same in Panther or below. This is probably why you'll see many programs come out that only run in Tiger.
  • Reply 63 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Wow, someone needs to get away from the RDF and read up Apple's materials on Mac's 64-bitness. As I saw on Macintouch...



    ... I should also add that one of Apple's WWDC sessions is as follows:



    Building 64-bit Solutions for Tiger

    Are you developing an application that could benefit from more than 32 bits of address space? Mac OS X Tiger offers support for 64-bit command-line processes that can address vast amounts of memory. Learn the specifics of Tiger's 64-bit support and how to factor a Carbon or Cocoa application to run in conjunction with 64-bit backend processes.




    So, not sure why Apple would be holding a session on how to talk to back-end processes if they had it in their Cocoa space.




    Apple explains that on http://developer.apple.com/macosx/tiger/64bit.html
    Quote:

    Adding a GUI to a 64-bit Application



    As mentioned earlier, the use of a 64-bit address space is limited to non-GUI applications in Tiger. This doesn't mean, however, that the results of a 64-bit enabled computation can't be displayed on the screen. The strategy that you should use is to create two separate executables that are cooperative. These are:



    * A 32-bit based Cocoa or Carbon GUI executable that the user can launch and which presents the application's user-interface.

    * A 64-bit based command-line tool that is launched by, and under the control of, the GUI



  • Reply 64 of 71
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott Finlayson

    Why do people seem to think Tiger will "break" their apps...?



    you'll have to forgive some of us "old timers," who remember the days when every new issuance of classic conflicted with extensions and control panels from 3rd parties that blew all of our apps to hell.



    once bitten, twice shy, you understand.
  • Reply 65 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    i believe, if i may be so bold, he was simply replying to your comment which seemed to focus on compatibility with CURRENT apps as being a critical feature. therefore, the latest issue of panther should satisfy those needs if they are foremost on your checklist,



    I don't have a checklist so to speak. No.. actually... after these posts I've started to make one.



    My original response in this thread was purely an address to JamesG's concern:
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JamesG

    They are inadvertently (or purposefully) creating a situation where people are running 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and now 10.4...makes it very tough for developers. We can't assume that everyone has the money to upgrade their OS all the time (and yes, I know they should).



    I had simply wondered if Apple could do anything to help developers in that situation. Possibly by getting people who didn't want to pay for an upgrade to have an alternative - I figured instead of 4 OS versions to support, they could have 10.4 and 10.4.lite. That is all I wondered.



    This got confused with App compatibility with the following statement:
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Not feasible. For every subset of features you can come up with that would satisfy new app needs, I can come up with an app that breaks that.



    If you want the apps, you have to upgrade to the OS platform that provides the technologies those apps use.




    Only at this point did I ask whether 10.4 would break some apps, which as Kickaha said was not his point at all, apps would be fine. Still the question of compatibility had now been raised and it snowballed a little
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott Finlayson

    Tiger is not a ploy to get you all to "upgrade-all-your-apps"... that'd piss everyone off and not many people would buy the new OS when they found out.



    I think the original comment was the opposite - that some new apps are going to need 10.4 to run most effectively - so people will be 'encouraged' to upgrade to 10.4 to get the most out of their system.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    Oh, and trying to standardize the underlying OS actually can cause support problems, because Apple's been basically changing the underlying Unix in conjunction with OS X. Trying to upgrade the underlying Unix without changing the OS X layer would probably cause more problems then it would solve, and updating OS X to the latest Unix changes just is a lot more work, just to get where they are now.



    This method wouldn't work. My question is would any method work? It's why I said just release a 10.4.lite - that way the issues with OSX layer problems disappears.
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Louzer

    And after all that, there'd have to be a benefit to Apple, which would seem minimal (having to update only one core for all systems for the occassional set of security updates). And if Apple puts in all the code to support, as your example states, CoreVideo apps, then there's less impetus on the users to update to 10.4 (sorry, Searchlight/spotlight/whatever and dashboard aren't 'killer' features that people are going to drool over and buy regardless of other stuff).



    This is true.



    Sure, Apple could disable spotlight etc, and force corevideo to operate as if it had a minimal video card. Users would all be on 10.4.lite or 10.4 - but how many less people would bother upgrading to 10.4? Apple could be shooting itself in the foot.



    Personally, I'm upgrading largely for Spotlight and the new mail, but why are others upgrading?
  • Reply 67 of 71
    sjksjk Posts: 603member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott Finlayson

    Why do people seem to think Tiger will "break" their apps...?



    It will not "break" anything... it will run them all the same as they run in Panther now UNLESS an application update or upgrade utilizes features ONLY AVAILABLE in Tiger... and then just THAT update will require Tiger.





    Just like with every previous major OS X upgrade, certain Panther-compatible apps won't necessarily be Tiger-compatible. But backwards compatibility has improved with each release (e.g. more things "broke" between 10.1 and 10.2 than between 10.2 and 10.3).



    And, as Brent Simmon's says in DrunkenBlog: Inside Ranchero with Brent and Sheila Simmons:

    Quote:

    The rule of thumb is that you support the current operating system and the previous one for existing apps, while new apps can require the current operating system.





    Seems foolishly daring to do a major OS upgrade without researching whether apps you rely on are compatible with it. Maybe home users can get away with doing that but many businesses can't afford to take such a risk.



    As Kickaha wrote, "People will upgrade when they see a reason to, and not a second sooner." Certainly true, although I question the integrity of some of those "reasons". e.g. as Louzer wrote, "(sorry, Searchlight/spotlight/whatever and dashboard aren't 'killer' features that people are going to drool over and buy regardless of other stuff)" -- I wouldn't be so sure about that lest you underestimate drool's influence.



    Re: 64-bitness. Much of what's written on public forums about that topic is misinformation or incomplete information that's later misinterpreted. Glad the more recent posts here were pointed in the direction of accuracy.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    pbg4 dudepbg4 dude Posts: 1,611member
    I'm upgrading for CoreImage, CoreVideo, CoreData, Automator & XCode 2.0 (XCode/IB is worth the price of OS X alone for me). As a plus I get Spotlight, Dashboard, an updated Safari, FreeBSD 5.5 core and QT 7.0. If Tiger is anything like previous OS X upgrades, it'll run faster than Panther as well.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    dobbydobby Posts: 794member
    I'm all for Apple releasing new versions of its OS every couple of years, as most vendors do.



    I've got an old Mac OS X Server 1.2v3 on a G4 450 that still serves as a NFS server for some archive data.

    I've also got an old Alpha running OpenVMS 6.2.



    It's only when we want new features, new machines etc that we upgrade. It is a bit annoying that my Mosaic browser for OpenVMS/Motif is only supported on .00000001 percent of websites!



    I generally want everyone to use the latest and greatest as time is money! Saying this we still can't afford to replace our dated MS Exchange server with a new one.



    Dobby.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dobby

    I've got an old Mac OS X Server 1.2v3 on a G4 450 that still serves as a NFS server for some archive data.



    Hi Dobby,



    Just wondering, how would Mac OS X Server 1.4 run on your G4 450? Obviously it wouldn't be able to do the new tricks, but would it be equivalent functionally? just as fast for admin? just as fast for NFS users? (edit: naturally this is guess work!)



    I know it's good to stay with what works, I did the same when upgrading OSes for our shop financial packages. Just wondering what advantages and disadvantages might be (aside from the testing/stability issues).
  • Reply 71 of 71
    dobbydobby Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by GregAlexander

    Hi Dobby,



    Just wondering, how would Mac OS X Server 1.4 run on your G4 450? Obviously it wouldn't be able to do the new tricks, but would it be equivalent functionally? just as fast for admin? just as fast for NFS users? (edit: naturally this is guess work!)



    I know it's good to stay with what works, I did the same when upgrading OSes for our shop financial packages. Just wondering what advantages and disadvantages might be (aside from the testing/stability issues).




    I can only see positives with an upgrade.

    Currently I can't use UTF-8 file names and 10.4 could but we wouldn't yet use them. It would also be faster and I could use more advanced permissioning and indexing. I would also have to pay $500 (or whatever) for a copy of 10.4 Server.

    The point is I'm currently not forced to upgrade so why should I if I can't or don't want to afford it.

    The problem is the amount of seemingly negative feedback towards Apple for releasing a new OS. Yes its a pain in the wallet and you need to learn a few new tricks. I pay my $500 per year as a developer, so I can see whats comming out and for my 20% hardware discount (not that I can afford to upgrade afer spending the $500 per year!) .

    Its like Ford releasing a new model car and the current model owners complaining about not getting a free upgrade or that the latest model is a hybrid and their current models a diesel and doesn't like water in the fuel tank etc.



    Dobby.
Sign In or Register to comment.