brace yourselves for 10.2

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
My close friend (in real life) was part of that thing a while ago where Apple asked PC to Mac convert users for feedback, and he's gone through an array of interviews and question/discussion sessions. The latest included quite a few crazy questions about different things (which if I even told you, I doubt you would believe--besides, Apple is just testing the waters and I doubt the harmless questions will amount to what they were leading up to.. and if they do, well.. :eek: ), as well as a good amount of off-the-record conversation. I don't want to divulge too much, but supposedly 10.2 (Jaguar) is going to be a huge improvement even over 10.1 in terms of speed. I don't even want to quote the exact conversation for fear he'll be reprimanded or not interviewed again in the future, but it's supposed to be a massive and shocking improvement to the speed of both the system and interface.



There are some other 10.2 threads about different things, but nothing with insider info like this, to my knowledge.



And I don't expect all of you to believe me. I'm caught between divulging too much info and not divulging enough for credibility. In any case, I have nothing to gain from pulling this out of my ass, I just wanted to give some of you guys the great news that I got.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    [quote]Originally Posted By bradbower:

    My close friend (in real life) was part of that thing a while ago where Apple asked PC to Mac convert users for feedback, and he's gone through an array of interviews and question/discussion sessions. The latest included quite a few crazy questions about different things (which if I even told you, I doubt you would believe--besides, Apple is just testing the waters and I doubt the harmless questions will amount to what they were leading up to.. and if they do, well.. ), as well as a good amount of off-the-record conversation. I don't want to divulge too much, but supposedly 10.2 (Jaguar) is going to be a huge improvement even over 10.1 in terms of speed. I don't even want to quote the exact conversation for fear he'll be reprimanded or not interviewed again in the future, but it's supposed to be a massive and shocking improvement to the speed of both the system and interface.



    There are some other 10.2 threads about different things, but nothing with insider info like this, to my knowledge.



    And I don't expect all of you to believe me. I'm caught between divulging too much info and not divulging enough for credibility. In any case, I have nothing to gain from pulling this out of my ass, I just wanted to give some of you guys the great news that I got.
    <hr></blockquote> I sure hope that your "friend" is correct. I have a feeling that Apple has something up their sleeve if they are hyping up the Jaguar release. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 2 of 32
    roborobo Posts: 469member
    [quote] I sure hope that your "friend" is correct. I have a feeling that Apple has something up their sleeve if they are hyping up the Jaguar release. <hr></blockquote>



    Didn't you learn anything from the last Macworld? Apple will hype anything and everything, whether or not it makes them look like shameless marketroids afterwards. They would hype an iMovie video of Phil Schiller reciting the recipe for Steve's third favorite vegan tofu casserole dish.



    Apple hype means nothing.





    -robo
  • Reply 3 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 4 of 32
    The time spent waiting for 10.2 does suggest some radical improvements over 10.1.



    Brad-Blower, your report dovetails with some info I've obtained as well. I heard from a Mac guru in the ITD department of my university about 10.2, and he has some ties to a few people at Apple (Apple hires MANY graduates from this particular University).



    I did not get ANY information on new features, only on performance enhancements. But the performance boost is said to be of a magnitude that could only be realized by the implementation of hardware acceleration. Basically, get ready for quartz to be as fast as Quickdraw, it's that good.



    Hopefully this is true, if so then my Sawtooth has many years of service left!
  • Reply 5 of 32
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Our CEO who has close ties with Apple and Steve Jobs has been hinting we should be expecting new software from him soon and it's big news. He keeps us privvy (the IT department) .
  • Reply 6 of 32
    A little birdy(in real life), a friend of mine, told me that 10.2 will make your Mac run faster than a 2.4GHz P4. My friend got this information from a new survey Apple is conducting to guage the protential of MacOS and Darwin for various orinthological species. Of course, the little birdy doesn't want to reveal his identity (oops, did I just give away he's male?).



    And I don't expect all of you to believe me. I'm caught between divulging too much info and not divulging enough for credibility. In any case, I have nothing to gain from pulling this out of my ass, I just wanted to give some of you guys the great news that I got.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:

    <strong>I don't even want to quote the exact conversation for fear he'll be reprimanded or not interviewed again in the future, but it's supposed to be a massive and shocking improvement to the speed of both the system and interface.



    There are some other 10.2 threads about different things, but nothing with insider info like this, to my knowledge.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Except there really *isn't* any insider information in your post. Can you provide anything more specific? For instance, how are they planning to make such a dramatic speed-up, when the conventional wisdom among educated programmer-types in these (and other) forums is that Apple's done about 80% of what it can do in terms of optimization (at least)? Short of dropping Aqua altogether, I just don't see what can possibly lead to the kinds of speed-ups you're hinting at.



    More detail, please, if you can *possibly* find some way to share it. Thanks.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    [quote]Originally posted by CommonSense:

    <strong>



    Except there really *isn't* any insider information in your post. Can you provide anything more specific? For instance, how are they planning to make such a dramatic speed-up, when the conventional wisdom among educated programmer-types in these (and other) forums is that Apple's done about 80% of what it can do in terms of optimization (at least)? Short of dropping Aqua altogether, I just don't see what can possibly lead to the kinds of speed-ups you're hinting at.



    More detail, please, if you can *possibly* find some way to share it. Thanks.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, the consensus among the programmer-types who should know is that there's enough room in the current version for another OS 10.1-style speedup, give or take.



    That's without bringing hardware into the equation.



    What caught my eye is this:



    [quote]Originally posted by bradbower:



    The latest included quite a few crazy questions about different things (which if I even told you, I doubt you would believe--besides, Apple is just testing the waters and I doubt the harmless questions will amount to what they were leading up to.. and if they do, well.. :eek: )<hr></blockquote>



    Now, in the context of Apple talking to PC users, the first thing I thought was "OS X on x86." However, since I have no idea how Apple would pull that off, my next thought was "Yellow Box." Now that would rule.



    But I could be 100% off base. There are a lot of very surprising things that Apple could do with OS X...



    [ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 32
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 10 of 32
    jethrojethro Posts: 34member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>



    Now, in the context of Apple talking to PC users, the first thing I thought was "OS X on x86." However, since I have no idea how Apple would pull that off, my next thought was "Yellow Box." Now that would rule.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't see how that would do anything other than subsidize a handful of Cocoa-only developers. How does it help Apple at all? Where's the payoff? I just don't see how they could justify the expense.



    At least OS X on x86 would generate revenue, though it'd be a pretty big gamble to make.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:

    <strong>Now, in the context of Apple talking to PC users, the first thing I thought was "OS X on x86." However, since I have no idea how Apple would pull that off, my next thought was "Yellow Box." Now that would rule.



    But I could be 100% off base. There are a lot of very surprising things that Apple could do with OS X...



    [ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I would congratulate you on how astute you must have been to guess that, but I guess it's fairly obvious with how I pointed out he was a PC to Mac convert and that's where Apple's interest in him was. Still, it so happens that that was one of the topics he shared with me that they (he and Apple) discussed.



    I believe there was a question, first, about what he thought of Microsoft... And while he may use Windows, he's definitely a linuxhead who hates Micro$oft when it boils down to it. You can imagine his reply. Then it came down to if he used Microsoft software or had any vested interest in them. He was asked what he would think of the ability to run Mac OS X applications on Windows or *nix, and he thought that would be nifty (it's of interesting note that he doesn't know much about NeXT, OpenStep, WebObjects, or Yellow Box.. or at least, he didn't, until we had a conversation about it after he told me this). The big one was when they asked him about a version of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server that would run on a PC, and he didn't share with me what he replied (I'll ask) but he did say it blew him away and he wasn't expecting it at all, and he had seen and heard about all of the people who wanted such a thing and rumored such a product and even made petitions to get Apple's attention aimed at producing OS X for x86/Intel. He asked a few questions, something about the future of Microsoft products and some rumor he had heard about Gates/Jobs getting in a tiff after Apple mentioned/showed Netscape in an ad in some magazine about OS X's UNIX core, and apparently the consensus at this portion of Apple (whose job it is to know what's going on) is that Apple is near the point of 180° change in attitude towards Microsoft. I don't want to say too much, I think this was off-the-record banter. But I'll say that things are going to get interesting around here, tout de suite.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    [quote]Originally posted by jethro:

    <strong>



    I don't see how that would do anything other than subsidize a handful of Cocoa-only developers. How does it help Apple at all? Where's the payoff? I just don't see how they could justify the expense.



    At least OS X on x86 would generate revenue, though it'd be a pretty big gamble to make.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I didn't really want this thread to get to be about this, but..



    I don't necessarily agree with YB, but there is certainly a chunk of revenue in it. Again, I'm not saying these payoffs are worth trading for the negative effect that it may have, but he does have a point.



    [code]

    + $1000 for the license of Yellow Box

    - $20 for the CDs

    - $20 for a manual

    - $10 for the packaging (hey, it's Apple)

    - $0-50 for support charges that may incur

    ---------------

    $900-950 profit on one sale, that's 90-95% profit margins</pre><hr></blockquote>



    But who knows how much this will cost, really. Maybe it won't be nearly as much. Still, even 20 or 25% is a decent margin.



    Take into consideration the time and stress that using obj-c will save developers. Take into consideration of being able to develop an application and deploy it on almost every semi-current mainstream computer that you're targetting. Take into consideration how many big corporations and institutions will use this for in-house applications. Take into consideration how many developers will bundle this API with their applications.



    I think, with the possibly huge margins, even though very few apps may end up becoming cross-platform and we'll probably not see that much of an effect, it'll be well worth Apple's while.



    And the same goes for a version of Mac OS X Server for x86.. though there are more severe repercussions there like a bunch of rumormongers killing new sales by broadcasting that any day now Apple will go completely x86, "so don't waste your money on the outdated slowass PowerPC Macs!"
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Wow. Hmm.



    To be totally honest, this sounds a lot like the kind of story we'd get from a JYD drunken/drugged interrogation of AI past.



    Funny that he should post in this thread and not mention his own exploits... oh, wait...
  • Reply 14 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Well, having only tested LAME compiled with Apple gcc-934.3 (version 2.95.2) and Apple gcc-1042 (version 3.1,) I can say that there was a nominal boost in mp3 encode time. I got a 5% speed boost from 2.95.2 to 3.1.



    For 2.95.2 I used:

    [code]setenv CC "cc -mcpu=750 -mtune=750"</pre><hr></blockquote>



    For 3.1 I used:

    [code]setenv CC "cc -mcpu=7450 -mtune=7450 -mdynamic-no-pic"</pre><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 15 of 32
    But even a few bug fixes can make a big difference.... I've been developing using a patch from AAPL that should have been in 10.1.4 and makes a huge difference to CoreAudio on older machines... (Dont ask, I cant tell you...) maybe they just needed time to iron stuff out and 10.2 is when they are gonna show us what X can really do
  • Reply 16 of 32
    wwworkwwwork Posts: 140member
    Apple would make more money putting windows on PowerPC than OS X on intel.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    wfzellewfzelle Posts: 137member
    [quote][code]

    + $1000 for the license of Yellow Box

    - $20 for the CDs

    - $20 for a manual

    - $10 for the packaging (hey, it's Apple)

    - $0-50 for support charges that may incur

    ---------------

    $900-950 profit on one sale, that's 90-95% profit margins</pre><hr></blockquote>



    But who knows how much this will cost, really. Maybe it won't be nearly as much. Still, even 20 or 25% is a decent margin.<hr></blockquote>



    Your calculation seems to ignore the development costs. That's actually the biggest cost you have to make. Reimplementing an entire API is not a one man task.



    [quote]Take into consideration the time and stress that using obj-c will save developers.<hr></blockquote>



    Or Java. WebObjects 5 is 100% Java and it already contains Foundation (Cocoa's base libraries). A yellow box that maps Cocoa graphic calls to custom Swing components could run everywhere. It would probably be a bit slow though and limited to Java.



    [quote]Take into consideration of being able to develop an application and deploy it on almost every semi-current mainstream computer that you're targetting. Take into consideration how many big corporations and institutions will use this for in-house applications. Take into consideration how many developers will bundle this API with their applications.<hr></blockquote>



    If they can get it right. Designing+implementing a good cross-platform API is not easy or another company would have succeeded (and they tried: Qt, SDL, XUL). Creating a new yellow box may be very hard given all the new interface components/features in OS X that aren't available in Windows.



    [quote]I think, with the possibly huge margins, even though very few apps may end up becoming cross-platform and we'll probably not see that much of an effect, it'll be well worth Apple's while.<hr></blockquote>



    It's not worth their while if they only sell a few copies. The programmers that work on the yellow box will get pulled of MacOS X development. Is that a price you are willing to pay? Would you rather have extra features in OS X or an option to run OmniWeb in Windows?



    [quote]And the same goes for a version of Mac OS X Server for x86.. though there are more severe repercussions there like a bunch of rumormongers killing new sales by broadcasting that any day now Apple will go completely x86, "so don't waste your money on the outdated slowass PowerPC Macs!" <hr></blockquote>



    This is stupid. Low-range servers need to be small and efficient (you need to fit as many as possible in a 19" rack). The G4 is the perfect processor for this. You don't want to run a server on a stove (Athlon or PIV). I'm awaiting Apple's new rack-mounted servers with great interest, they should rock.



    [ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: wfzelle ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 32
    zozo Posts: 3,115member
    all I know is that 10.2 better deliver... otherwise this wonderful, yet totally underpowered, iBook gets cast onto the selling block. And it better come out by at LEAST MWNY before this thing devalues more.



    PS. Dont you think that some deleopers see sort of 'stripped' down versions of MacOS X which, seeing there is less load, seem much faster? Then when it gets towards shipping time, Apple has to add this and that, and also this other... and all the gains from an optimized OS go out the door because of other swanky components? Or am I totally off? I have no clue about software dev... especially not an OS.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    [quote]<strong>[code]

    + $1000 for the license of Yellow Box

    - $20 for the CDs

    - $20 for a manual

    - $10 for the packaging (hey, it's Apple)

    - $0-50 for support charges that may incur

    ---------------

    $900-950 profit on one sale, that's 90-95% profit margins</pre><hr></blockquote>



    Profit margins are meaning-less. You neglect a few things, such as the expensive team of programmers needed, the support staff (they have to be there and be paid whether or not someone calls), other staff such as accounting, executive, etc, R&D costs, buying shiny new computers, furniture, office supplies, and oh say, rent, making sure the electric company doesn't shut off power, and more. You know, little things.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 20 of 32
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    [quote]<strong>It's not worth their while if they only sell a few copies. The programmers that work on the yellow box will get pulled of MacOS X development. Is that a price you are willing to pay? Would you rather have extra features in OS X or an option to run OmniWeb in Windows?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Did I not say that I don't agree with it? I think it's a waste of time, myself. All of your issues with it are genuine issues (or questions) that I'm sure Apple are asking themselves right now, if they don't have genuine solutions to match. In any case, I also said that there's no guarantee ANY of this will happen, because my friend was only being polled to see (a) what he thought of it, (b) how he thought it would affect him, and (c) if he was in the market for this kind of a product. Not everything that goes to a focus group comes to fruition.



    But you better believe that an up-to-date version of Yellow Box (Cocoa for Windows) does indeed exist, with all the frameworks and goodies, and as I see it, Apple is more than ready to do something with it right now. Steve's done it before, he'll do it again.
Sign In or Register to comment.