Leopard to enable collaboration?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Leopard could bring Collaboration tools to iWork, iCal and others.



Quote:

Since Apple announced Leopard last year during WWDC, MacOSXRumors obtained reports on two major features in the next release of Mac OS X. The first is a redesigned Finder making extensive use of Spotlight and the second is the inclusion virtualization software. Recently sources have been indicating that Leopard will feature easy collaborative work throughout the OS.



The main idea is that it will be possible to declare a document as available for collaborative use over a network or Internet. Users who want to work on this document will be able to connect and work simultaneously on it. Modifications made by each user will be updated in real time for all connected users.



Actually, the concept of collaborative document may be integrated into a new dedicated framework. Much like Apple has made image effects easy with CoreImage and powerful data indexing available throughout the OS with Spotlight. If Apple indeed makes of it a software API, it will allow third party developers to implement collaborative documents on their own applications very easily.



Sources also claim that Apple is already integrating support of collaborative documents into iWork and iCal; in fact, MacOSXRumors has learned that the company decided to restart the development of its calendar application. The new version, due to ship with Leopard, will bring collaborative features and a new widget along with many other enhancements.



MacOSXRumors has also obtained what could be precise information about release timeframe of Mac OS X Leopard and iWork ?07. Both of them will probably be released in January 2007, during the annual Macworld SF opening. We?re quite surprised that Apple choses similar release timeframe to Microsoft?s Windows Vista though.



Sounds very interesting. I'd love to see some colloboration tools integrated into OS X frameworks. It's about time we started using computers in a communal setting to get projects done on a more granular level.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    irelandireland Posts: 17,290member
    (beat AI to it) This is very interesting! Bring on WWDC
  • Reply 2 of 16
    Neat.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    Crossing my fingers for a new beefed up iWork 2007.



    I'd love to see Apple supporting virtualization and Collaboration. It'd definitely make Leopard a "must have" upgrade for me.
  • Reply 4 of 16
    archstudentarchstudent Posts: 262member
    a redesigned finder?!



    could this be too good to be true!



    (methinks I will wait until leopard release before I buy my new lappy)
  • Reply 5 of 16
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    MacOSXRumors has also obtained what could be precise information about release timeframe of Mac OS X Leopard and iWork ?07. Both of them will probably be released in January 2007, during the annual Macworld SF opening. We?re quite surprised that Apple choses similar release timeframe to Microsoft?s Windows Vista though.




    No shit sherlock...
  • Reply 6 of 16
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,127member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by hmurchison

    Leopard could bring Collaboration tools to iWork, iCal and others.







    Sounds very interesting. I'd love to see some colloboration tools integrated into OS X frameworks. It's about time we started using computers in a communal setting to get projects done on a more granular level.




    It's called the SOUPS Project at NeXT that was haulted when Mecca was haulted.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    It's called the SOUPS Project at NeXT that was haulted when Mecca was haulted.



    Not much comes up in a Google search on Soups and NeXT any good links?
  • Reply 8 of 16
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    It's called the SOUPS Project at NeXT that was haulted when Mecca was haulted.



    Maybe you could shed a little light on Mecca? I've heard of it, and a little bit about it, but despite my best Googling, I can't turn up much. Was it just the NeXTstep 4 that never was? With the uber-shelf and everything? Or... what?
  • Reply 9 of 16
    thttht Posts: 2,794member
    Mecca likely never received much development. By that time, 1995, NeXT was on course to becoming a WebObjects company, and OPENSTEP 4.x was likely the last release. I really can't see how NeXT could have continued operating system development at all.



    Mecca at the time was a little bit like Apple's Gershwin, something on a roadmap. If it came to be in an alternate timeline, NEXTSTEP 4 and 5 (as opposed to OPENSTEP 4) would have likely had:



    1. New workspace manager UI with the tabbed shelf/dock and other Jobs-ian visual niceties.

    2. Expanded EOF and PDO to form a pseudo object oriented filesystem - perhaps the SOUPS project was this

    3. The Red Box (rootless Windows emulation)



    In many ways still, the NeXT UI is still superior to what is available today on Mac OS X or Windows XP. Just unfortunate Apple wasn't willing to include the Shelf and bread crumb bar in the OS X finder.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Longish video of Steve introducint NextSTEP Release 3.



    http://youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A
  • Reply 11 of 16
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Funny it was named SOUPS, since the soups model on the Newton is still the most flexible data/file repository system I've seen.



    Truly an amazingly well thought out beast.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    progmacprogmac Posts: 1,850member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinea

    Longish video of Steve introducint NextSTEP Release 3.



    http://youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A




    really interesting. particularly to be reminded that systems back then were doing all sorts of cool things, multitasking and having multiple images open and the like...everything was top-end once.



    and the "dock," what a neat idea!
  • Reply 13 of 16
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,127member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    Mecca likely never received much development. By that time, 1995, NeXT was on course to becoming a WebObjects company, and OPENSTEP 4.x was likely the last release. I really can't see how NeXT could have continued operating system development at all.



    Mecca at the time was a little bit like Apple's Gershwin, something on a roadmap. If it came to be in an alternate timeline, NEXTSTEP 4 and 5 (as opposed to OPENSTEP 4) would have likely had:



    1. New workspace manager UI with the tabbed shelf/dock and other Jobs-ian visual niceties.

    2. Expanded EOF and PDO to form a pseudo object oriented filesystem - perhaps the SOUPS project was this

    3. The Red Box (rootless Windows emulation)



    In many ways still, the NeXT UI is still superior to what is available today on Mac OS X or Windows XP. Just unfortunate Apple wasn't willing to include the Shelf and bread crumb bar in the OS X finder.




    Mecca is Openstep 4.0 PR1. It's sitting on my shelf. And yes the entire OS was fully Openstep compliant, just like Openstep for Solaris which also got shelved.



    And no SOUPS work actually predates EOF. Openstep 4.x released was not the version of Openstep we showed Apple during the merger talks--the one everyone used was NeXTSTEP with the Openstep APIs. A different bird.



    The Red Box was after the merger. NeXT Distributed Objects was obviously going to be leveraged with SOUPS, and PDO being a portable version for a specific platform other than Openstep.



    By 1995? WOF wasn't remotely where it needed to be by 1995. In fact it was a weekend project in late 1995 as Steve wanted us to leverage Foundation/AppKit to do stuff on the web that no one else was doing well. So when WOF 3.0 came out and EOF 1.2-2.0 was more mature then we started really pushing WOF. People don't actually realize how small the Openstep principle team size actually was and if they did they'd figure out how much "bloat" was added to OS X to bring forward legacy stuff, not to mention the Carbon transition layer.



    Let's put it this way, Apple's IT group had over 500 full-time employees. Apple's SQA had over 400 members. NeXT combined, world-wide had 300 full-time employees.



    People wonder what took so much time for the OS to transition and don't even realize the amount of tools used by Apple and tools used by NeXT that were different. An awful lot of time was spent working on behind-the-scene build systems, political infighting and whatnot.



    SOUPS was never discussed with Apple during the merger. It was one of many hidden gems that could be addressed at a later date.



    Whatever they come up with, I do know that this won't be a Carbon solution.



    I'm looking forward to seeing what Steve says about Leopard and Cocoa.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Indeed.



    Note the nearly complete lack of mention of Carbon on the WWDC schedule pages... I think we're going to see the beginning of the end of Carbon at this WWDC.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    And no SOUPS work actually predates EOF. Openstep 4.x released was not the version of Openstep we showed Apple during the merger talks--the one everyone used was NeXTSTEP with the Openstep APIs. A different bird.





    Can you give a comparison of SOUPS to Groove in terms of concept?



    Vinea
  • Reply 16 of 16
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    It has become my firm belief that WWDC is going to rock.



    There is a lot of conversation about communications and Leopard. I would point out that Apple is getting ever more inventive about its vertical business model -- the widget -- expressed in technology and business models (iPod + iTunes + Mac being a good example of hardware, software and business). For example Shake's new pricing.



    Why haven't Apple launched an iPhone (which I've uh hypothesised about in the past)? The operators. They are not vertical. Oh no. They're a pain in the arse actually.



    I'd hypothesise that Apple's increased focus on real-time communication and collaboration fits across the business *including iPod* and that CoreComms or CommsKit or something is on the way.



    I'd also wonder how all that patent goodness applies to iPod as a communications device with nothing to do with cellular telephony.
Sign In or Register to comment.