<strong>You won't see 10.2, you'll see 10.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Today Steve Jobs annonced:
[quote]
<strong>``With Mac OS X taking center stage, it's a very exciting time to be a Mac developer,'' said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. ``To get our developers even more excited, we'll be giving them a sneak peak at the next release of Mac OS X, code named Jaguar.''</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Puma isn't anymore and they just directly to Jaguar???
So Notradamus and Applenut can be right. And that's mean we'll get a better update than teh 10.2 planned
me can't wait :cool:
but does that mean we have to wait a few more months?
[quote] Well, the OS X Server branches tend to get their own codenames as well. Throws some folks into a tizzy thinking there's something new coming when it's just parallel for Server. <hr></blockquote>
Which brings up another thought that's been rolling around in my head... If MacOS X and MacOS X Server are built on the same core, then why haven't they relagated the Server version to "add-on" status by now? It seems to me that applying the Server software as a simple set of administration tools to an existing MacOS X system would have been the logical next step. Am I missing some important difference between the two here?
Unless there's some pretty exciting new features we haven't heard about, I'll be disappointed if Apple decides to christen this release "10.5".
From the features that have been leaked so far, this does *not* sound like a .5 upgrade. It sounds like a .1 upgrade, and not worth paying more than $50.
It COULD be the fact that 7.6 was the buggiest, most unstable OS Apple had released in years. That, coupled with the fact that MacOS 8 was already being touted as THE upgrade to get, 7.6 just wasn't worth the $119.99 it cost. Apple's point-update to that OS fixed most of the bugs and stability issues, but by that time, 8 was near release.
new handicap features (will never use), some diskcopy crap? will never use.
SMB Browser? well yes, that would be good, but not for CAN$50.
The only thing I would pay for is DRAMATICALLY improved classic handling, or classic apps running *gasp* native. Smoother keyboard navigation would be nice too. And a customizeable apple menu and menu bar.
new handicap features (will never use), some diskcopy crap? will never use.
SMB Browser? well yes, that would be good, but not for CAN$50.
The only thing I would pay for is DRAMATICALLY improved classic handling, or classic apps running *gasp* native. Smoother keyboard navigation would be nice too. And a customizeable apple menu and menu bar.
[quote] The only thing I would pay for is... a customizeable apple menu and menu bar. <hr></blockquote>
I don't mean to harp, but why do people seem to complain about the apple menu. The dock is more customizable than the apple menu. I have folders in my dock for apps, in that folder I break it down into folders of types of apps, etc. I also have a folder for my clients, and my network folders. As soon as they let you have spring loaded folders for the dock folders, it will be perfect. I always put my dock on the right, centered and hidden. It's easy to just drag to the side a drop a file on a program or folder.
I think OS X works so much easier when you try to work the way it was designed, not try to make it work like OS 9. I have found when you use it the way it was designed, it's better than OS 9.
"I don't mean to harp, but why do people seem to complain about the apple menu. The dock is more customizable than the apple menu. I have folders in my dock for apps, in that folder I break it down into folders of types of apps, etc. I also have a folder for my clients, and my network folders. As soon as they let you have spring loaded folders for the dock folders, it will be perfect. I always put my dock on the right, centered and hidden. It's easy to just drag to the side a drop a file on a program or folder.
I think OS X works so much easier when you try to work the way it was designed, not try to make it work like OS 9. I have found when you use it the way it was designed, it's better than OS 9. "
I think that's the smartest comment I've heard somebody say on these boards regarding 'X'.
Comments
<strong>You won't see 10.2, you'll see 10.5.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Today Steve Jobs annonced:
[quote]
<strong>``With Mac OS X taking center stage, it's a very exciting time to be a Mac developer,'' said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. ``To get our developers even more excited, we'll be giving them a sneak peak at the next release of Mac OS X, code named Jaguar.''</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Puma isn't anymore and they just directly to Jaguar???
So Notradamus and Applenut can be right. And that's mean we'll get a better update than teh 10.2 planned
me can't wait :cool:
but does that mean we have to wait a few more months?
i hope not...
[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: Rasti- ]</p>
<strong>
So Puma isn't anymore and they just directly to Jaguar???
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wasn't Puma 10.1?
At any rate, since we'll have a demo of Jaguar at WWDC I assume that'll put it in our hot little hands somewhere around MWNY.
Damn this forthrightness by Apple. Where's the fun in actually knowing that Jaguar will be previewed?
<strong>cool
[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: G-Dog ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
So, this are at least three new versions
of MacOSX?
<strong>So, this are at least three new versions
of MacOSX?</strong><hr></blockquote>Why would you say that? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
At most, there would be two. One in the 10.1.x branch and one in the 10.2.x branch.
10.1=Puma
10.2=Jaguar
Funny how the fastest cat was the slowest version of OS X. I suppose OS X won't totally scream until "Fat Tabby" is done.
Which brings up another thought that's been rolling around in my head... If MacOS X and MacOS X Server are built on the same core, then why haven't they relagated the Server version to "add-on" status by now? It seems to me that applying the Server software as a simple set of administration tools to an existing MacOS X system would have been the logical next step. Am I missing some important difference between the two here?
<strong>One of the main reasons we went from 7.5.5 to 8.0 was OS versions were part of the clone contracts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you mean 7.6.1 -> 8.0.
From the features that have been leaked so far, this does *not* sound like a .5 upgrade. It sounds like a .1 upgrade, and not worth paying more than $50.
And knowing Jobs' canny business strategies, this means that 10.2 will probably be $49.95....?
The price you pay for being a fan.
Darn tiger.
new handicap features (will never use), some diskcopy crap? will never use.
SMB Browser? well yes, that would be good, but not for CAN$50.
The only thing I would pay for is DRAMATICALLY improved classic handling, or classic apps running *gasp* native. Smoother keyboard navigation would be nice too. And a customizeable apple menu and menu bar.
Pres
<strong>10.2 is going to suck...
new handicap features (will never use), some diskcopy crap? will never use.
SMB Browser? well yes, that would be good, but not for CAN$50.
The only thing I would pay for is DRAMATICALLY improved classic handling, or classic apps running *gasp* native. Smoother keyboard navigation would be nice too. And a customizeable apple menu and menu bar.
Pres</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't get where that came from.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
I don't mean to harp, but why do people seem to complain about the apple menu. The dock is more customizable than the apple menu. I have folders in my dock for apps, in that folder I break it down into folders of types of apps, etc. I also have a folder for my clients, and my network folders. As soon as they let you have spring loaded folders for the dock folders, it will be perfect. I always put my dock on the right, centered and hidden. It's easy to just drag to the side a drop a file on a program or folder.
I think OS X works so much easier when you try to work the way it was designed, not try to make it work like OS 9. I have found when you use it the way it was designed, it's better than OS 9.
I think OS X works so much easier when you try to work the way it was designed, not try to make it work like OS 9. I have found when you use it the way it was designed, it's better than OS 9. "
I think that's the smartest comment I've heard somebody say on these boards regarding 'X'.
It's a new way of working.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>I think that's the smartest comment I've heard somebody say on these boards regarding 'X'.
It's a new way of working.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No offense to Man-at-Arms, but that's been said once or twice before.