I don't think so. First of all, if it WAS planned out to any degree, virtually all of that would be different by the time of release. Why would they start planning of OS 11 now? My point was it is not in terms of OS 11. For OS Systems you have a large pool of technologies, features, and ideas you are working on in the labs, and you only have a road map for the next two (possibly three) operating systems.
No no no no no no no. To do good software development you have to plan into the future. Apple defiantly has a road map for where Mac OS is going. If they have no plans then the developers don't know what to work on.
No no no no no no no. To do good software development you have to plan into the future. Apple defiantly has a road map for where Mac OS is going. If they have no plans then the developers don't know what to work on.
You may be right but I can guarantee you that the team working on this roadmap is very, very small, in a basement room, with the words "R&D" scratched on the door.
OS X is much more modular than Mac OS 1-9 ever was. As consequence, I really doubt OS X will be replaced anytime soon since Apple can rip out entire modules and replace them with other, more modern, modules.
The need for a brand new OS will arise from a paradigm shift in computing...when OS X will simply be inadequate for future technologies. I don't think we'll see such a shift for another 7-10 years at a minimum.
add 7+ years... 14+ years. Then it no longer is the basis for the new OS as we move to OS 11
The timeline fits.
Now what?
What do you think we will see then?
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
This is the idealistic idea of technology and computers. The truth is, everything evolves equally or you will have a melt down. This is known as the Rubber Band Theory: As various aspects of something evolves at significantly different rates, there is stress on the system just like there is stress on a rubber band when one end is pulled faster than the other end is catching up (the stretching of a rubber band).
This being said, as technology evolves, the speed of getting certain tasks done (i.e. Video Editing, etc.) will increase due to more efficient workflows, software, etc. On the other hand, as the software gets more and more complex and there are new uses for computers, the demands on the technology will become greater. Generally in the technology industry, we see software and concepts preceding the technology which will support the ideas. And this is the exact reason why when Aperture came out, you needed a top of the line computer to run it. If I were to run OS 7 on my Mac Pro, it would be BLAZING fast. But think about how much more useful OS X is in terms of user interface, features, applications and technology it supports, the internet, appearance, etc. And that is why I use OS X over OS 7.
Now do you see where I am coming from when I say you can't plan a road map of OS 11 to any significant extent right now?
This is the idealistic idea of technology and computers. The truth is, everything evolves equally or you will have a melt down. This is known as the Rubber Band Theory: As various aspects of something evolves at significantly different rates, there is stress on the system just like there is stress on a rubber band when one end is pulled faster than the other end is catching up (the stretching of a rubber band).
This being said, as technology evolves, the speed of getting certain tasks done (i.e. Video Editing, etc.) will increase due to more efficient workflows, software, etc. On the other hand, as the software gets more and more complex and there are new uses for computers, the demands on the technology will become greater. Generally in the technology industry, we see software and concepts preceding the technology which will support the ideas. And this is the exact reason why when Aperture came out, you needed a top of the line computer to run it. If I were to run OS 7 on my Mac Pro, it would be BLAZING fast. But think about how much more useful OS X is in terms of user interface, features, applications and technology it supports, the internet, appearance, etc. And that is why I use OS X over OS 7.
Now do you see where I am coming from when I say you can't plan a road map of OS 11 to any significant extent right now?
Of technology? Yes. Of computers? No. Given the fact that a select number of GPU's are already up to 512MBs and we can currently buy a 750 GB drive, I don't see how a hard drive of over 1 TB and a GPU over 1 GB shipping in the iMac (or whatever the consumer machine will be) in seven to ten years is being idealistic.
Of technology? Yes. Of computers? No. Given the fact that a select number of GPU's are already up to 512MBs and we can currently buy a 750 GB drive, I don't see how a hard drive of over 1 TB and a GPU over 1 GB shipping in the iMac (or whatever the consumer machine will be) in seven to ten years is being idealistic.
You ENTIRELY missed the point of my post.
My point was, as the hardware becomes better, the demands on the hardware become greater. I think we will see 750 GB HDs and 512MB GPU in iMacs and computers in just two years. But by that time, programs will be MORE GPU intensive, take up MORE hard drive space, and be MORE CPU intensive. This is why OS X is about 3 GB where as OS 6 was less than 100 MB. By the same token, programs back then ran on 32 MB of RAM whereas many programs now run on 1-2GB of RAM. This is why you find yourself buying a new computer ever few years! Because your computer can no longer run the current OS or Software, because the software as evolved past your computer. Let's look at what you said closely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
Originally Posted by Feynman
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Precisly! As hard drives get larger, the OS systems and programs that run on them get equally larger. Therefore, you will never have hard drives that are proportionally much larger than the requirements of the time they are being used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
Again, as the hardware increases in performance, the demand on that hardware also increase. Software speeds will be just the same proportionally to the apps and programs being developed for it. True the newer computer will run the same program doing the same task faster than the older computer would, but the point of the newer computer is to use the new software, and the point of the newer software is UI, features, taking advantage of new technology, infrastructure, and hardware, and streamlining work flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
I am not going to even repeat myself here. I should think I have already made myself clear on what I believe about this. At any rate, "flowing smoothly without a hiccup" is more about eye candy than you may think. Two things with the same user interface, one ugly, one attractive, and the attractive one will look and feel easier to use. Thats part of human nature - we tend to favor things based on cultural ideals, patterns in nature (i.e. the Golden Ratio), and genetic/biological ideals. And by the way, UI is not graphics/visual. It is how you interact with the device. The graphics is just the shell slapped on to the user interface to make it more appealing.
A final word: Yes technology and computers evolves as a whole, eliminating some problems, making certain tasks progressively faster as they evolve, but new problems, uses, and tasks result causing further evolution.
System 6 was less than about 1.3 MB. It fit on a floppy!
Actually, System 6 was much smaller than that. Back in the day, software developers typically shipped their applications with a fully usuable copy of System 6 on a single 800 KB floppy. For about a year, I booted my Mac SE and ran WriteNow, Canvas 2.0, and Expressionist all from a single 800 KB floppy.
As we get further out than 5 years into the future, I'd say the guesses about what will be important will get hazy. Consider the (still) relative newness of the web, the growing impact of wireless...including the introduction of Wi-Max, collaborative tools and virtual communities, IPTV, mesh networks...
Remember also that according to Gordon Moore & Ray Kurzweil between 2020—2045 there may be a technological singularity, including human level artificial intelligence... that should give many people the willies...
icfireball Thank you for disecting my post but I am not talking about programs or software speeds, etc. I am talking about the OS. If we have a 1 TB drive surely the apps will not take over 300 GBs. Surely the Core technologies will not take over 512 MBs of GPU. I think you missed my point.
icfireball Thank you for disecting my post but I am not talking about programs or software speeds, etc. I am talking about the OS. If we have a 1 TB drive surely the apps will not take over 300 GBs. Surely the Core technologies will not take over 512 MBs of GPU. I think you missed my point.
I currently have a 500 GB HD with a 3GB operating system. Double that and I should have a 6 GB operating system. Right? And that is VERY plausible. Not to mention that many programs I run (Final Cut Studio) are 40+ GB. iLife rings in at about 10GB. And YES, core technologies will require 512 MB of GPU. Maybe not in two years, but probably in 3-5 years. For instance, my PowerMac G5 w/ a 64MB GPU (about three years old) did not have a good enough GPU to run Aperture. My Mac Pro does. Same thing will happen in the future. True core technologies are more "old machine friendly" in general, but consider this: many of OS X's core technologies are only available on the newer machines. This is why older computers don't have the dashboard ripple effect.
icfireball ... If we have a 1 TB drive surely the apps will not take over 300 GBs. Surely the Core technologies will not take over 512 MBs of GPU. I think you missed my point.
I tend to agree. Just because you have capacity does not mean that you will fill it. For more than a decade, I found a way to use all the space on my floppy disks, to exhaust my 40 MB hard drive, its 200 MB replacement, the 2 GB hard drive in my first Power Mac, and my 3 GB external drive. However, I am now the proud owner of a Power Mac G5 with a 150 GB hard drive. Owing to the constraints imposed by the 24 hour day, the seven day week, and other obligations for my money, I have no prospects of filling up my hard drive at home or my 250 GB hard drive at work. I am certain that others on this forum have higher storage capacity needs than I do, but all have a limit of some kind.
I currently have a 500 GB HD with a 3GB operating system. Double that and I should have a 6 GB operating system. Right? And that is VERY plausible. Not to mention that many programs I run (Final Cut Studio) are 40+ GB. iLife rings in at about 10GB. And YES, core technologies will require 512 MB of GPU. Maybe not in two years, but probably in 3-5 years. For instance, my PowerMac G5 w/ a 64MB GPU (about three years old) did not have a good enough GPU to run Aperture. My Mac Pro does. Same thing will happen in the future. True core technologies are more "old machine friendly" in general, but consider this: many of OS X's core technologies are only available on the newer machines. This is why older computers don't have the dashboard ripple effect.
And the only recent machine that could house a 512MB GPU is the Mac Pro, and all of the current and prior Macintosh revisions (with the exception of maybe the mini but that's a given) will be able the Core technologies of Leopard just fine. I don't expect Apple to continually come out with more and more and more and more eye candy and more and more and more and more Core technologies with every OS. This would be bloatware.
And the only recent machine that could house a 512MB GPU is the Mac Pro, and all of the current and prior Macintosh revisions (with the exception of maybe the mini but that's a given) will be able the Core technologies of Leopard just fine. I don't expect Apple to continually come out with more and more and more and more eye candy and more and more and more and more Core technologies with every OS. This would be bloatware.
No, I don't expect more and more and more and more core technologies in the sense that you are talking about. But look at history. OS X is quite a bit different from OS 6 to say the least, and most of the aspects of OS X are ones that no one would have anticipated during the time of OS 6. They didn't call these changes core *blank* like they do in Tiger (that is just marketing), but they are very real and do exist. Security has improved since then, graphics, User Interace, complexity of opperating systems, 3D Graphics and surround sound. Think about 3D graphics rendering the animations used in movies for special effects or movies like cars. They have signifficanty improved over time, and things continue to improve. So no, Leopard or the next OS release might only have one or two more core technologies each, but that is just marketing. The real evolution is in the science behind the marketing, and in technology espessially, that is always changing.
Comments
I don't think so. First of all, if it WAS planned out to any degree, virtually all of that would be different by the time of release. Why would they start planning of OS 11 now? My point was it is not in terms of OS 11. For OS Systems you have a large pool of technologies, features, and ideas you are working on in the labs, and you only have a road map for the next two (possibly three) operating systems.
No no no no no no no. To do good software development you have to plan into the future. Apple defiantly has a road map for where Mac OS is going. If they have no plans then the developers don't know what to work on.
No no no no no no no. To do good software development you have to plan into the future. Apple defiantly has a road map for where Mac OS is going. If they have no plans then the developers don't know what to work on.
You may be right but I can guarantee you that the team working on this roadmap is very, very small, in a basement room, with the words "R&D" scratched on the door.
OS X is much more modular than Mac OS 1-9 ever was. As consequence, I really doubt OS X will be replaced anytime soon since Apple can rip out entire modules and replace them with other, more modern, modules.
The need for a brand new OS will arise from a paradigm shift in computing...when OS X will simply be inadequate for future technologies. I don't think we'll see such a shift for another 7-10 years at a minimum.
I don't think we'll see such a shift for another 7-10 years at a minimum.
7 years, pretty close to OS 11 given the 16-18+ month releases of new OS's
7 years, pretty close to OS 11 given the 16-18+ month releases of new OS's
When it was released, Steve Jobs said that MacOS X will be the basis of Apple's OS for the next 20 years. We've got more than a decade yet to go.
When it was released, Steve Jobs said that MacOS X will be the basis of Apple's OS for the next 20 years. We've got more than a decade yet to go.
Mac 10.0 public beta released 9/2000
This is 2006 looking at a 2007 release of Tiger
add 7+ years... 14+ years. Then it no longer is the basis for the new OS as we move to OS 11
The timeline fits.
Now what?
What do you think we will see then?
Mac 10.0 public beta released 9/2000
This is 2006 looking at a 2007 release of Tiger
add 7+ years... 14+ years. Then it no longer is the basis for the new OS as we move to OS 11
The timeline fits.
Now what?
What do you think we will see then?
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
Mac 10.0 public beta released 9/2000
This is 2006 looking at a 2007 release of Tiger
add 7+ years... 14+ years. Then it no longer is the basis for the new OS as we move to OS 11
...
Now what?
What do you think we will see then?
Y2000 + 20 years is Y2020. Predictions about what any OS will look like in Y2020 are not speculation; they are wild-@$$ guesses.
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
This is the idealistic idea of technology and computers. The truth is, everything evolves equally or you will have a melt down. This is known as the Rubber Band Theory: As various aspects of something evolves at significantly different rates, there is stress on the system just like there is stress on a rubber band when one end is pulled faster than the other end is catching up (the stretching of a rubber band).
This being said, as technology evolves, the speed of getting certain tasks done (i.e. Video Editing, etc.) will increase due to more efficient workflows, software, etc. On the other hand, as the software gets more and more complex and there are new uses for computers, the demands on the technology will become greater. Generally in the technology industry, we see software and concepts preceding the technology which will support the ideas. And this is the exact reason why when Aperture came out, you needed a top of the line computer to run it. If I were to run OS 7 on my Mac Pro, it would be BLAZING fast. But think about how much more useful OS X is in terms of user interface, features, applications and technology it supports, the internet, appearance, etc. And that is why I use OS X over OS 7.
Now do you see where I am coming from when I say you can't plan a road map of OS 11 to any significant extent right now?
This is the idealistic idea of technology and computers. The truth is, everything evolves equally or you will have a melt down. This is known as the Rubber Band Theory: As various aspects of something evolves at significantly different rates, there is stress on the system just like there is stress on a rubber band when one end is pulled faster than the other end is catching up (the stretching of a rubber band).
This being said, as technology evolves, the speed of getting certain tasks done (i.e. Video Editing, etc.) will increase due to more efficient workflows, software, etc. On the other hand, as the software gets more and more complex and there are new uses for computers, the demands on the technology will become greater. Generally in the technology industry, we see software and concepts preceding the technology which will support the ideas. And this is the exact reason why when Aperture came out, you needed a top of the line computer to run it. If I were to run OS 7 on my Mac Pro, it would be BLAZING fast. But think about how much more useful OS X is in terms of user interface, features, applications and technology it supports, the internet, appearance, etc. And that is why I use OS X over OS 7.
Now do you see where I am coming from when I say you can't plan a road map of OS 11 to any significant extent right now?
Of technology? Yes. Of computers? No. Given the fact that a select number of GPU's are already up to 512MBs and we can currently buy a 750 GB drive, I don't see how a hard drive of over 1 TB and a GPU over 1 GB shipping in the iMac (or whatever the consumer machine will be) in seven to ten years is being idealistic.
Y2000 + 20 years is Y2020. Predictions about what any OS will look like in Y2020 are not speculation; they are wild-@$$ guesses.
Actually, I (in a twist of fate) just watched the introduction video on Youtube today.
Mac OS X is only supposed to last for 10 years, meaning we'll probably only have one more major update to it in 2008 or 2009, and OS 11 in 2010.
Of technology? Yes. Of computers? No. Given the fact that a select number of GPU's are already up to 512MBs and we can currently buy a 750 GB drive, I don't see how a hard drive of over 1 TB and a GPU over 1 GB shipping in the iMac (or whatever the consumer machine will be) in seven to ten years is being idealistic.
You ENTIRELY missed the point of my post.
My point was, as the hardware becomes better, the demands on the hardware become greater. I think we will see 750 GB HDs and 512MB GPU in iMacs and computers in just two years. But by that time, programs will be MORE GPU intensive, take up MORE hard drive space, and be MORE CPU intensive. This is why OS X is about 3 GB where as OS 6 was less than 100 MB. By the same token, programs back then ran on 32 MB of RAM whereas many programs now run on 1-2GB of RAM. This is why you find yourself buying a new computer ever few years! Because your computer can no longer run the current OS or Software, because the software as evolved past your computer. Let's look at what you said closely.
Originally Posted by Feynman
By the time Mac OS 11 comes out desktops will well have hard drives with over 1 TB of hard drive space where as laptops will be a couple hundred GBs behind. With that being said, I think the OS size could be upwards of 10 GBs (Mac OS 10.4 weighs at 3 GBs, 4 GBs if you install the Developer Tools). It's hard to explain my thoughts but I think we will see some kind of multidimensional OS based around the user experience. Think of the Core technologies.
Precisly! As hard drives get larger, the OS systems and programs that run on them get equally larger. Therefore, you will never have hard drives that are proportionally much larger than the requirements of the time they are being used.
Next I think Snapiness will no longer be in question. iMacs will have a graphics card upwards to 1 GB in memory and all of the Core technologies (that require graphics anyway) and Quartz will be completely unleashed to the GPU with room to spare for everything else. Spinning Beach of Death will no longer be in question.
Again, as the hardware increases in performance, the demand on that hardware also increase. Software speeds will be just the same proportionally to the apps and programs being developed for it. True the newer computer will run the same program doing the same task faster than the older computer would, but the point of the newer computer is to use the new software, and the point of the newer software is UI, features, taking advantage of new technology, infrastructure, and hardware, and streamlining work flow.
I think the real revolutionary features will just be using the OS as you would expect things to happen rather than waiting for the task to complete itself. First there was Aqua in the sense of eye candy and next will be Aqua II in the sense of things will just flow smoothly without hiccup.
I am not going to even repeat myself here. I should think I have already made myself clear on what I believe about this. At any rate, "flowing smoothly without a hiccup" is more about eye candy than you may think. Two things with the same user interface, one ugly, one attractive, and the attractive one will look and feel easier to use. Thats part of human nature - we tend to favor things based on cultural ideals, patterns in nature (i.e. the Golden Ratio), and genetic/biological ideals. And by the way, UI is not graphics/visual. It is how you interact with the device. The graphics is just the shell slapped on to the user interface to make it more appealing.
A final word: Yes technology and computers evolves as a whole, eliminating some problems, making certain tasks progressively faster as they evolve, but new problems, uses, and tasks result causing further evolution.
This is why OS X is about 3 GB where as OS 6 was less than 100 MB.
System 6 was less than about 1.3 MB. It fit on a floppy!
System 6 was less than about 1.3 MB. It fit on a floppy!
Actually, System 6 was much smaller than that. Back in the day, software developers typically shipped their applications with a fully usuable copy of System 6 on a single 800 KB floppy. For about a year, I booted my Mac SE and ran WriteNow, Canvas 2.0, and Expressionist all from a single 800 KB floppy.
Remember also that according to Gordon Moore & Ray Kurzweil between 2020—2045 there may be a technological singularity, including human level artificial intelligence... that should give many people the willies...
icfireball Thank you for disecting my post but I am not talking about programs or software speeds, etc. I am talking about the OS. If we have a 1 TB drive surely the apps will not take over 300 GBs. Surely the Core technologies will not take over 512 MBs of GPU. I think you missed my point.
I currently have a 500 GB HD with a 3GB operating system. Double that and I should have a 6 GB operating system. Right? And that is VERY plausible. Not to mention that many programs I run (Final Cut Studio) are 40+ GB. iLife rings in at about 10GB. And YES, core technologies will require 512 MB of GPU. Maybe not in two years, but probably in 3-5 years. For instance, my PowerMac G5 w/ a 64MB GPU (about three years old) did not have a good enough GPU to run Aperture. My Mac Pro does. Same thing will happen in the future. True core technologies are more "old machine friendly" in general, but consider this: many of OS X's core technologies are only available on the newer machines. This is why older computers don't have the dashboard ripple effect.
icfireball ... If we have a 1 TB drive surely the apps will not take over 300 GBs. Surely the Core technologies will not take over 512 MBs of GPU. I think you missed my point.
I tend to agree. Just because you have capacity does not mean that you will fill it. For more than a decade, I found a way to use all the space on my floppy disks, to exhaust my 40 MB hard drive, its 200 MB replacement, the 2 GB hard drive in my first Power Mac, and my 3 GB external drive. However, I am now the proud owner of a Power Mac G5 with a 150 GB hard drive. Owing to the constraints imposed by the 24 hour day, the seven day week, and other obligations for my money, I have no prospects of filling up my hard drive at home or my 250 GB hard drive at work. I am certain that others on this forum have higher storage capacity needs than I do, but all have a limit of some kind.
I currently have a 500 GB HD with a 3GB operating system. Double that and I should have a 6 GB operating system. Right? And that is VERY plausible. Not to mention that many programs I run (Final Cut Studio) are 40+ GB. iLife rings in at about 10GB. And YES, core technologies will require 512 MB of GPU. Maybe not in two years, but probably in 3-5 years. For instance, my PowerMac G5 w/ a 64MB GPU (about three years old) did not have a good enough GPU to run Aperture. My Mac Pro does. Same thing will happen in the future. True core technologies are more "old machine friendly" in general, but consider this: many of OS X's core technologies are only available on the newer machines. This is why older computers don't have the dashboard ripple effect.
And the only recent machine that could house a 512MB GPU is the Mac Pro, and all of the current and prior Macintosh revisions (with the exception of maybe the mini but that's a given) will be able the Core technologies of Leopard just fine. I don't expect Apple to continually come out with more and more and more and more eye candy and more and more and more and more Core technologies with every OS. This would be bloatware.
And the only recent machine that could house a 512MB GPU is the Mac Pro, and all of the current and prior Macintosh revisions (with the exception of maybe the mini but that's a given) will be able the Core technologies of Leopard just fine. I don't expect Apple to continually come out with more and more and more and more eye candy and more and more and more and more Core technologies with every OS. This would be bloatware.
No, I don't expect more and more and more and more core technologies in the sense that you are talking about. But look at history. OS X is quite a bit different from OS 6 to say the least, and most of the aspects of OS X are ones that no one would have anticipated during the time of OS 6. They didn't call these changes core *blank* like they do in Tiger (that is just marketing), but they are very real and do exist. Security has improved since then, graphics, User Interace, complexity of opperating systems, 3D Graphics and surround sound. Think about 3D graphics rendering the animations used in movies for special effects or movies like cars. They have signifficanty improved over time, and things continue to improve. So no, Leopard or the next OS release might only have one or two more core technologies each, but that is just marketing. The real evolution is in the science behind the marketing, and in technology espessially, that is always changing.