I think that the delay due to bootcamp/vista is a bit of smoke screening to put a semi-plausible excuse/reason out with which form the basis of a delay in the Leopard release date.
Its probably being taken to the extreme by many news sites and speculated upon to make it look bad, but behind it all, there are some plausible lines of thought behind it.
The other OS threads have shown that in its current releases of builds, the Leopard build numbers ( when compared to the Tiger build numbers ) are tracking such that Leopard wouldn't make April. This also combined with a good few discussions that of those developer builds being released, some developers feel that there are some obvious gaps and that those gaps are not likely to be closed in time for April either.
So if Apple were to come out with the statement that Leopard was to be delayed ( in relation to a previous conjectured date of April release ) then its not unreasonable to use a comment along the lines of making it work with other OS's.
I also dont think it would be unlike Apple to say:
" It could take upto Oct to complete "
Then a month or so down the line:
" The reality distortion field has fast forwarded time itself and now we will be releasing in a month to bring it out in June / July "
Bad news now, Good news later.
Plus, isn't Santa Rosa, one of the the next Intel platforms tracking for a release beyond April anyhow? Why not push out Leopard to align with a new platform for a newmac mini + iMac release.
Announce the 8-core Mac Pro along with Adobe CS3 mid April ( perhaps saying you'll be able to order mid-summer ), show a little bit more of Leopard with perhaps 1 sneek at an OSX secret feature and comment that in order to implement it and a few others, its going to take a little longer than expected, then release the whole lot a couple of months later.
Keeps the community sweet and then throw a huge release mid-summer.
All new mac minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, and a new OS to tie them all together.
The adobe preview of (Creative Suite) CS3 is next week; so we might see some hints of Leopard or even new hardware then. So far Adobe has only said their new products will not require Leopard, but that they run faster on Intel Macs than on PPCs.
I'm sure Leopard's release date will stretch "spring" to its very limit, but Digitimes' stated reason for the delay makes no effing sense.
Updating Boot Camp to work with Vista is not *that* difficult, and by no stretch of imagination would it create a delay of several months for a major OS release like this one. There's even already a couple of hacks out there that will allow you to do it.
The other OS threads have shown that in its current releases of builds, the Leopard build numbers ( when compared to the Tiger build numbers ) are tracking such that Leopard wouldn't make April. This also combined with a good few discussions that of those developer builds being released, some developers feel that there are some obvious gaps and that those gaps are not likely to be closed in time for April either.
So if Apple were to come out with the statement that Leopard was to be delayed ( in relation to a previous conjectured date of April release ) then its not unreasonable to use a comment along the lines of making it work with other OS's.
I also dont think it would be unlike Apple to say:
" It could take upto Oct to complete "
Then a month or so down the line:
" The reality distortion field has fast forwarded time itself and now we will be releasing in a month to bring it out in June / July "
Apple never said Leopard would be ready by April. They said "Spring", which is anytime between two days ago and June 20th. If they release it prior to June 20th, there's no delay.
Why even bother wasting the bandwith posting these nonsense stories from Digi? Post the link and route the stories to them....AppleInsider can't be desperate enough to use these headlines to garner more hits?
Why would any sane company delay an OS product launch on the premis that a small feature won't work well with a crappy product (at best) from Microsoft? What next, delay the next iMac product launch because MS Office Universal Binary is not ready either?
Most if not all sane users of MS OSs are not migrating to Vista in huge numbers anyways. They (Apple) will release 10.5 on schedule or after with "valid" reasons, not because they want to capitalize on the Vista boot. Come on....even the morons at Digi would realize this if they read their story more than once.
For the last time, Developer Builds are not Beta Builds.
You like saying that, don't you? Do you know what betas are? Just because Apple doesn't call them betas, doesn't mean that they are not.
It works like this: OS X is in a continual state of development. Moving to major new versions, with several major new features and significant "under the hood" changes unsurprisingly brings with it lots of bugs, some of them serious. So you can't just realease that to the public. The OS is continually worked on, and the OS recompiled often. Each new recompile is given a number that is sequentially higher than the previous build.
The numbering system is made up of three parts: a number, a letter, and then another number. Each part works as follows:
The first number: represents major milestones. Panther was 7, Tiger is 8 and Leopard is 9.
The letter: major new versions (i.e. an increment of the first number) start at "A" and this is incremented when significant, but not major changes are made - e.g. they always increment from one 10.x.x to 10.x.x+1 movement (e.g. 10.4.1 was build 8B15, and 10.4.2 was 8C46), and sometimes increment in-between those releases never to see the light of day. This happened with the 10.4.8 to 10.4.9 move - PPC 10.4.8 was build 8L127, PPC 10.4.9 is build 8P135 - M, N and O were all internal.
The second number: represents the number of times that version has been built. No functional changes are made between these builds, it's all about squashing bugs. Any functional changes will result in the letter being incremented. e.g. build 8L started at 8L1, and had that had no problems, would have been released. However, various bits of code had to be corrected, then the OS rebuilt, then everything tested. With 8L, this process happened 126 times to result in 8L127, which was released to the public. Some intermediate builds between 8L1 and 8L127 were released to developers.
Now, what is the point of me saying all this? It is that, whether you like it or not, and whether Apple calls them such or not, any build numbered above a previous release, and below the next release, is a beta. Changes are made from the last release, and these are tested. Most are tested internal to Apple, some are also released to developers to test. Apple uses feedback from internal testing and from developers to determine whether the latest build is ready for release or not. If it is not, corrections (as opposed to functional changes) are made to the code to correct bugs, and a new build with higher "third number" results.
This is definitely what happens when there is a single development train. The question is what about those "top secret features"? Those are presumably being worked on separately, but one has to expect that the foundation of builds with "top secret features" are the builds also being released to developers. i.e., all the problems that we see in developer builds also exist in builds with "top secret features". Presumably, the "top secret features" builds have additional bugs associated with said features.
In pre-market trading it had aapl down more than a buck, but it seems investors are starting to pick FUD out and discard it far better as of late because the stock recovered.
I am not sure if anyone has seen the cramer video- he explains how he'd mess with aapl by releasing bad news to dumb sources who love to regurgitate it .
Anyways- apple opens it's stock up to this kind of stuff due to their secretive approach to their products.
That's why I hope the stock doesn't split- nothing worse than making a stock cheaper to open it up to more manipulation.
I'm doubtful that a split somehow opens up a stock to more manipulation. Sure it costs less, but there are more shares to absorb effects. I would guess it's just a wash.
Some features and applications that Apple has released without ANY public testing, even by developers:
GarageBand
iPhoto
iTunes
Pages
Backup
Keynote
iMovie
Aperture
iWeb
Photo Booth
The list goes on. Many of these are major applications that never saw the light of day until their 1.0 was unveiled.
Why does everyone assume that Apple has to run Leopard's secret features past developers before revealing them?
History proves just the opposite. When Apple has something really juicy to reveal, they keep it hidden until they release it. And then they release a 1.0.1 and so on to address anything that the public discovers after the release.
How about fixing the grammar in the FIRST sentence. I didn't even bother reading the post because of that.
you read enough to be bothered to post a pointless reply.
Quote:
Apple never said Leopard would be ready by April. They said "Spring", which is anytime between two days ago and June 20th. If they release it prior to June 20th, there's no delay.
Thats fair enough ... my comments on April were based on the conjecture that people were wishing that the next big Apple announcement would be related to Leopard.
Apple MIGHT do some kind of virtualized "Boot" Camp someday, at a strategic moment--two OS's running at ONCE (if that's what "integrated" means) is very nice--but they sure as heck wouldn't delay their own OS for it. They'd add it later.
I don't understand why some folks on rumor sites are hung up on the term "integrated", as used in the report. It simply means Boot Camp will ship as a part of the (Intel version of the) OS, rather than being a beta you have to download. Apple's been using that term for a year now..
Of course it does. A cheaper stock is more accessible to the little guy investors- the ones most prone to FUD.
A wash? Nay, my friend. The amount of outstanding shares in any given company do little to absorb market impacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdj21ya
I'm doubtful that a split somehow opens up a stock to more manipulation. Sure it costs less, but there are more shares to absorb effects. I would guess it's just a wash.
Comments
I think that the delay due to bootcamp/vista is a bit of smoke screening to put a semi-plausible excuse/reason out with which form the basis of a delay in the Leopard release date.
Its probably being taken to the extreme by many news sites and speculated upon to make it look bad, but behind it all, there are some plausible lines of thought behind it.
The other OS threads have shown that in its current releases of builds, the Leopard build numbers ( when compared to the Tiger build numbers ) are tracking such that Leopard wouldn't make April. This also combined with a good few discussions that of those developer builds being released, some developers feel that there are some obvious gaps and that those gaps are not likely to be closed in time for April either.
So if Apple were to come out with the statement that Leopard was to be delayed ( in relation to a previous conjectured date of April release ) then its not unreasonable to use a comment along the lines of making it work with other OS's.
I also dont think it would be unlike Apple to say:
" It could take upto Oct to complete "
Then a month or so down the line:
" The reality distortion field has fast forwarded time itself and now we will be releasing in a month to bring it out in June / July "
Bad news now, Good news later.
Plus, isn't Santa Rosa, one of the the next Intel platforms tracking for a release beyond April anyhow? Why not push out Leopard to align with a new platform for a newmac mini + iMac release.
Announce the 8-core Mac Pro along with Adobe CS3 mid April ( perhaps saying you'll be able to order mid-summer ), show a little bit more of Leopard with perhaps 1 sneek at an OSX secret feature and comment that in order to implement it and a few others, its going to take a little longer than expected, then release the whole lot a couple of months later.
Keeps the community sweet and then throw a huge release mid-summer.
All new mac minis, iMacs, Mac Pros, and a new OS to tie them all together.
I'm sure Leopard's release date will stretch "spring" to its very limit, but Digitimes' stated reason for the delay makes no effing sense.
Updating Boot Camp to work with Vista is not *that* difficult, and by no stretch of imagination would it create a delay of several months for a major OS release like this one. There's even already a couple of hacks out there that will allow you to do it.
I'll rephrase my original post a bit.
The other OS threads have shown that in its current releases of builds, the Leopard build numbers ( when compared to the Tiger build numbers ) are tracking such that Leopard wouldn't make April. This also combined with a good few discussions that of those developer builds being released, some developers feel that there are some obvious gaps and that those gaps are not likely to be closed in time for April either.
So if Apple were to come out with the statement that Leopard was to be delayed ( in relation to a previous conjectured date of April release ) then its not unreasonable to use a comment along the lines of making it work with other OS's.
I also dont think it would be unlike Apple to say:
" It could take upto Oct to complete "
Then a month or so down the line:
" The reality distortion field has fast forwarded time itself and now we will be releasing in a month to bring it out in June / July "
Apple never said Leopard would be ready by April. They said "Spring", which is anytime between two days ago and June 20th. If they release it prior to June 20th, there's no delay.
Why would any sane company delay an OS product launch on the premis that a small feature won't work well with a crappy product (at best) from Microsoft? What next, delay the next iMac product launch because MS Office Universal Binary is not ready either?
Most if not all sane users of MS OSs are not migrating to Vista in huge numbers anyways. They (Apple) will release 10.5 on schedule or after with "valid" reasons, not because they want to capitalize on the Vista boot. Come on....even the morons at Digi would realize this if they read their story more than once.
then they better come out with a mac that uses lower cost ram then FB-DIMMS as there will need a lot of RAM at least 1-2 gb just for vista.
Emmmm... All Xeon class workstations use FB-DIMMS. Way to be somewhat OOC and misinformed. It's part of the Mobo specs.
Those RAM prices are dropping pretty fast as it is. 2gig for $300 is current best price. Which is very low for Workstation class rams.
For the last time, Developer Builds are not Beta Builds.
You like saying that, don't you? Do you know what betas are? Just because Apple doesn't call them betas, doesn't mean that they are not.
It works like this: OS X is in a continual state of development. Moving to major new versions, with several major new features and significant "under the hood" changes unsurprisingly brings with it lots of bugs, some of them serious. So you can't just realease that to the public. The OS is continually worked on, and the OS recompiled often. Each new recompile is given a number that is sequentially higher than the previous build.
The numbering system is made up of three parts: a number, a letter, and then another number. Each part works as follows:
The first number: represents major milestones. Panther was 7, Tiger is 8 and Leopard is 9.
The letter: major new versions (i.e. an increment of the first number) start at "A" and this is incremented when significant, but not major changes are made - e.g. they always increment from one 10.x.x to 10.x.x+1 movement (e.g. 10.4.1 was build 8B15, and 10.4.2 was 8C46), and sometimes increment in-between those releases never to see the light of day. This happened with the 10.4.8 to 10.4.9 move - PPC 10.4.8 was build 8L127, PPC 10.4.9 is build 8P135 - M, N and O were all internal.
The second number: represents the number of times that version has been built. No functional changes are made between these builds, it's all about squashing bugs. Any functional changes will result in the letter being incremented. e.g. build 8L started at 8L1, and had that had no problems, would have been released. However, various bits of code had to be corrected, then the OS rebuilt, then everything tested. With 8L, this process happened 126 times to result in 8L127, which was released to the public. Some intermediate builds between 8L1 and 8L127 were released to developers.
Now, what is the point of me saying all this? It is that, whether you like it or not, and whether Apple calls them such or not, any build numbered above a previous release, and below the next release, is a beta. Changes are made from the last release, and these are tested. Most are tested internal to Apple, some are also released to developers to test. Apple uses feedback from internal testing and from developers to determine whether the latest build is ready for release or not. If it is not, corrections (as opposed to functional changes) are made to the code to correct bugs, and a new build with higher "third number" results.
This is definitely what happens when there is a single development train. The question is what about those "top secret features"? Those are presumably being worked on separately, but one has to expect that the foundation of builds with "top secret features" are the builds also being released to developers. i.e., all the problems that we see in developer builds also exist in builds with "top secret features". Presumably, the "top secret features" builds have additional bugs associated with said features.
This was one of two FUD pieces to come out today.
In pre-market trading it had aapl down more than a buck, but it seems investors are starting to pick FUD out and discard it far better as of late because the stock recovered.
I am not sure if anyone has seen the cramer video- he explains how he'd mess with aapl by releasing bad news to dumb sources who love to regurgitate it
http://youtube.com/watch?v=B7VUBPwIhHs
Anyways- apple opens it's stock up to this kind of stuff due to their secretive approach to their products.
That's why I hope the stock doesn't split- nothing worse than making a stock cheaper to open it up to more manipulation.
I'm doubtful that a split somehow opens up a stock to more manipulation. Sure it costs less, but there are more shares to absorb effects. I would guess it's just a wash.
- GarageBand
- iPhoto
- iTunes
- Pages
- Backup
- Keynote
- iMovie
- Aperture
- iWeb
- Photo Booth
The list goes on. Many of these are major applications that never saw the light of day until their 1.0 was unveiled.Why does everyone assume that Apple has to run Leopard's secret features past developers before revealing them?
History proves just the opposite. When Apple has something really juicy to reveal, they keep it hidden until they release it. And then they release a 1.0.1 and so on to address anything that the public discovers after the release.
How about fixing the grammar in the FIRST sentence. I didn't even bother reading the post because of that.
you read enough to be bothered to post a pointless reply.
Apple never said Leopard would be ready by April. They said "Spring", which is anytime between two days ago and June 20th. If they release it prior to June 20th, there's no delay.
Thats fair enough ... my comments on April were based on the conjecture that people were wishing that the next big Apple announcement would be related to Leopard.
Why does everyone assume that Apple has to run Leopard's secret features past developers before revealing them?
They don't. Or at least, I don't. What I was pointing out is that builds that are released to developers are betas.
Apple MIGHT do some kind of virtualized "Boot" Camp someday, at a strategic moment--two OS's running at ONCE (if that's what "integrated" means) is very nice--but they sure as heck wouldn't delay their own OS for it. They'd add it later.
I don't understand why some folks on rumor sites are hung up on the term "integrated", as used in the report. It simply means Boot Camp will ship as a part of the (Intel version of the) OS, rather than being a beta you have to download. Apple's been using that term for a year now..
A wash? Nay, my friend. The amount of outstanding shares in any given company do little to absorb market impacts.
I'm doubtful that a split somehow opens up a stock to more manipulation. Sure it costs less, but there are more shares to absorb effects. I would guess it's just a wash.
Wasn't it stated by Apple that BootCamp would not be intergrated into Leopard....I think this rumor is a little far fetched.
No. It was stated by Apple that they weren't going to integrate virtualisation - that they'd leave that to Parallels and VMware.
The first paragraph on Apple's Boot Camp page clearly states that Boot Camp will be included in Leopard.