1. Microsoft has already declared that your Vista License does not allow virtualization (yeah, like who cares?)
2. XP will run all the applications anyway!
3. If someone is itching for new GUI experiences, Leopard appears far better that Vista even in beta!
4. The source has its head firmly stuffed up somewhere not known for a commanding view!!!
5. Apple knows that a lot of us are waiting for the next machines and their Leopards -- and they want to sell hardware!
Actually, Vista will allow you to run on a virtual system if you pay up for the "Ultimate" experience.
But, yes, I think Digitimes, or whatever they're called, is full of it on this one. I can't imagine anyone walking into Jobs' office and saying: "We have this great idea to delay the new OSX for two to three months--you know the one you promised the whole world be ready this spring--so that we can let people run our competitor's OS--you know the one we make fun of all the time--on the same system even better than it currently does."
Delaying Leopard for Vista is insane. Vista's been out for a while, let alone the dev releases. The only reason Apple would delay Leopard would be for internal reasons, either its not ready or they're waiting on new key hardware.
That said, I don't see why it wouldn't ship. CS3 will like it. Final Cut Pro will like it. iApps (work and life) will like it. Just ship it!
The only shocker was that Apple TV didn't ship with Leopard, but I'm sure they wanted to get it out the door and didn't want it to wait for Leopard either.
Gartenberg spoke with Apple about this rumor. Leopard is still scheduled to ship "this spring" and once again Digitimes appears to be wrong.
Didn't Apple say in mid February that the rumors were wrong and that the aTV would ship at the end of February. And then have to latter admit that the rumors of a mid March shipment were indeed correct?
While Tiger is great to manage/fulfill my Life and Office needs, I still desperately need Vista as Autodesk Inventor only runs on Vista/XP. So, I am actually eagerly awaiting the Leopard release as it will get rid of the Bootcamp Beta label!
So, my Vista experience is gonna be limited to using Inventor and listening to Sasha's dj sets that appears not to work on my mac (ASF/ASX? music files).
The only shocker was that Apple TV didn't ship with Leopard, but I'm sure they wanted to get it out the door and didn't want it to wait for Leopard either.
Why is that a 'shocker'? There's really so little to the AppleTV, why burden it with a in-progress bug-riddled OS, when you could go with something that's been tested and isn't being changed weekly?
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.
N is external as of a few days ago. AppleTV runs 8Nnnn, which incidentally is turning into a nice little box now that peopl have managed to get ssh, ard and afp running on it and put bigger hard disks in. Give it a few weeks for someone to hack the USB port and people will have it running as a full computer instead of just it's intended purpose.
I wonder what M and O were though? Airport Extreme and the iPhone (providing it doesn't actually need Leopard)?
I think Vista functionality has been slightly overvalued. Despite reports that it would only take a very small patch to fix the drivers for Vista in Boot Camp, you have to remember that if somebody is looking into a Mac for the first time, they've probably had enough of Windows altogether. When Leopard comes out, if you stood outside the main Apple Stores in New York, London and California and interviewed everybody who came out with a new Mac, how many of them do you think would say they bought a Mac because it can run Vista? If Vista's that important then you just buy a £300 Vista box from PC World. Boot Camp is, at best, a bonus for switchers. It's a handy little service. But I'd be surprised if Apple would delay the release (and look foolish as a result, considering all the times they taunted Windows for pushing back Vista) sheerly to accomodate these people who won't buy a Mac if it can't run Vista like a charm, because I'm not sure if those people actually exist.
This is definatley FUD and it pisses me off that Mac-Centric sites are helping to spread it. What makes you think for one iota that Apple is going to hold up its product because it does not play nice with someoneelses' especially M$? Think people and shame on you AI for even reporting this! Look back at intel launch did Apple wait for a single developer? Think people PLEASE.........
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.
-and cut
Sebastian
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 is builds with "top secret features". Presumably, the "top secret features" builds have additional bugs associated with said features.
You're right, some testing is being done by developers, but only features developers will be looking at. Example, Developers need to make Apps Time Machine compatible, use Core Animation if they want to, and get familiar with Xcode 3. But let's say Preview was to get this really "cool" feature where it could make a Picture sparkle (this is just a stupid example) like it's covered in glitter and save it like that. Developers wouldn't need that feature at all in their builds. The only way it would make it into Developer builds is if Apple decided it wasn't worth taking out just to keep it a secret.
The only thing that matters for Developers are the Tools and the Frameworks in the new OS that will be used by Developers. Sparkling Glittering Images in Preview isn't quallified for either, hence the reason Apple dubbed them Developer Previews instead of Betas.
Besides that, you just squashed the world of Alphas and Release Canidates. They can also have letters and Pre 1.0 version numbers (OK, RCs would just add RC x to it but oh well)
iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. We can?t wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is. However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price ? we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned. While Leopard's features will be complete by then, we cannot deliver the quality release that we and our customers expect from us. We now plan to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones. [Apr 12, 2007]
Comments
1. Microsoft has already declared that your Vista License does not allow virtualization (yeah, like who cares?)
2. XP will run all the applications anyway!
3. If someone is itching for new GUI experiences, Leopard appears far better that Vista even in beta!
4. The source has its head firmly stuffed up somewhere not known for a commanding view!!!
5. Apple knows that a lot of us are waiting for the next machines and their Leopards -- and they want to sell hardware!
This announcement has to be B$%^ S@#$ because:
1. Microsoft has already declared that your Vista License does not allow virtualization (yeah, like who cares?)
Boot Camp isn't virtualisation. Some versions (the expensive ones) of Vista are allowed to be run on a virtualised machine, can't remember which ones.
This announcement has to be bullshit because it comes from Digitimes.
This announcement has to be B$%^ S@#$ because:
1. Microsoft has already declared that your Vista License does not allow virtualization (yeah, like who cares?)
2. XP will run all the applications anyway!
3. If someone is itching for new GUI experiences, Leopard appears far better that Vista even in beta!
4. The source has its head firmly stuffed up somewhere not known for a commanding view!!!
5. Apple knows that a lot of us are waiting for the next machines and their Leopards -- and they want to sell hardware!
Actually, Vista will allow you to run on a virtual system if you pay up for the "Ultimate" experience.
But, yes, I think Digitimes, or whatever they're called, is full of it on this one. I can't imagine anyone walking into Jobs' office and saying: "We have this great idea to delay the new OSX for two to three months--you know the one you promised the whole world be ready this spring--so that we can let people run our competitor's OS--you know the one we make fun of all the time--on the same system even better than it currently does."
Oh yeah, that'll fly alright.
Does Apple expect users to pay $200 more to put Vista on their boxes?
This rumor doesn't make sense.
That said, I don't see why it wouldn't ship. CS3 will like it. Final Cut Pro will like it. iApps (work and life) will like it. Just ship it!
The only shocker was that Apple TV didn't ship with Leopard, but I'm sure they wanted to get it out the door and didn't want it to wait for Leopard either.
Gartenberg spoke with Apple about this rumor. Leopard is still scheduled to ship "this spring" and once again Digitimes appears to be wrong.
Didn't Apple say in mid February that the rumors were wrong and that the aTV would ship at the end of February. And then have to latter admit that the rumors of a mid March shipment were indeed correct?
If the OS is so great, why support another?
While Tiger is great to manage/fulfill my Life and Office needs, I still desperately need Vista as Autodesk Inventor only runs on Vista/XP. So, I am actually eagerly awaiting the Leopard release as it will get rid of the Bootcamp Beta label!
So, my Vista experience is gonna be limited to using Inventor and listening to Sasha's dj sets that appears not to work on my mac (ASF/ASX? music files).
:O
The only shocker was that Apple TV didn't ship with Leopard, but I'm sure they wanted to get it out the door and didn't want it to wait for Leopard either.
Why is that a 'shocker'? There's really so little to the AppleTV, why burden it with a in-progress bug-riddled OS, when you could go with something that's been tested and isn't being changed weekly?
I guess your G4 is infected, LOL.
The old ways are so easily lost on the new crowd.
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.
N is external as of a few days ago. AppleTV runs 8Nnnn, which incidentally is turning into a nice little box now that peopl have managed to get ssh, ard and afp running on it and put bigger hard disks in. Give it a few weeks for someone to hack the USB port and people will have it running as a full computer instead of just it's intended purpose.
I wonder what M and O were though? Airport Extreme and the iPhone (providing it doesn't actually need Leopard)?
I wonder what M and O were though? Airport Extreme and the iPhone (providing it doesn't actually need Leopard)?
10.4.9 was under development for a long time. I think under normal circumstances, M would have been 10.4.9 and what we've got now would be 10.4.12
I think Vista functionality has been slightly overvalued. Despite reports that it would only take a very small patch to fix the drivers for Vista in Boot Camp, you have to remember that if somebody is looking into a Mac for the first time, they've probably had enough of Windows altogether. When Leopard comes out, if you stood outside the main Apple Stores in New York, London and California and interviewed everybody who came out with a new Mac, how many of them do you think would say they bought a Mac because it can run Vista? If Vista's that important then you just buy a £300 Vista box from PC World. Boot Camp is, at best, a bonus for switchers. It's a handy little service. But I'd be surprised if Apple would delay the release (and look foolish as a result, considering all the times they taunted Windows for pushing back Vista) sheerly to accomodate these people who won't buy a Mac if it can't run Vista like a charm, because I'm not sure if those people actually exist.
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.
-and cut
Sebastian
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 is builds with "top secret features". Presumably, the "top secret features" builds have additional bugs associated with said features.
You're right, some testing is being done by developers, but only features developers will be looking at. Example, Developers need to make Apps Time Machine compatible, use Core Animation if they want to, and get familiar with Xcode 3. But let's say Preview was to get this really "cool" feature where it could make a Picture sparkle (this is just a stupid example) like it's covered in glitter and save it like that. Developers wouldn't need that feature at all in their builds. The only way it would make it into Developer builds is if Apple decided it wasn't worth taking out just to keep it a secret.
The only thing that matters for Developers are the Tools and the Frameworks in the new OS that will be used by Developers. Sparkling Glittering Images in Preview isn't quallified for either, hence the reason Apple dubbed them Developer Previews instead of Betas.
Besides that, you just squashed the world of Alphas and Release Canidates. They can also have letters and Pre 1.0 version numbers (OK, RCs would just add RC x to it but oh well)
Sebastian
If the OS is so great, why support another?
Does Apple expect users to pay $200 more to put Vista on their boxes?
This rumor doesn't make sense.
In Order:
Marketing reasons for people who have never used Mac OS X
No, it's just a selling point to people who a) Require for so and so a reason and b) People who never used it
No it doesn't... at all.
Sebastian
If the OS is so great, why support another?
Does Apple expect users to pay $200 more to put Vista on their boxes?
This rumor doesn't make sense.
Couldn't say it better!
It would appear that Digi aren't the only people to think Leopard will be released in October.
Source: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/
Apple Statement
iPhone has already passed several of its required certification tests and is on schedule to ship in late June as planned. We can?t wait until customers get their hands (and fingers) on it and experience what a revolutionary and magical product it is. However, iPhone contains the most sophisticated software ever shipped on a mobile device, and finishing it on time has not come without a price ? we had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned. While Leopard's features will be complete by then, we cannot deliver the quality release that we and our customers expect from us. We now plan to show our developers a near final version of Leopard at the conference, give them a beta copy to take home so they can do their final testing, and ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones. [Apr 12, 2007]