But, Steve said after Leopard's release that he wasn't happy with that long of a release cycle and wants to move back to an 18 - 24 month release cycle. That being said, I disagree with this preview of 10.6 at WWDC talk. I think it is more likely to be shown at MacWorld.
Also, someone above said Leopard was previewed at 2 WWDC's. I think the author meant MacWorld and then WWDC (2007 for both).
Okay people.
I'm surprised nobody here seems to be a developer or know (care?) enough to lay out the obvious facts:
Jobs told us developement-cycle would slow down, because they knew, they were going to Intel in Tigers lifetime and need time for that.
OBVIOUSLY Jobs couldn't spill the beans and say: Hey folks, we need more time for 10.5, because we're bringing 10.4 to Intel inbetween...
Now, the Intelswitch is done and the OS after this biggie is out (Leopard). Jobs comes out and tells people they are going back to their shorter developement cycle...
Com'on. Is'nt it obvious enough for the average person to figure out they needed more time because Tiger on Intel and the switch in general (Rosetta anyone?) were more complex than Steve wanted developers to think in 2004?
I know some folks overthere. Believe me, 10.6 is much closer than some newbees here seem to think
But, Steve said after Leopard's release that he wasn't happy with that long of a release cycle and wants to move back to an 18 - 24 month release cycle. That being said, I disagree with this preview of 10.6 at WWDC talk. I think it is more likely to be shown at MacWorld.
Also, someone above said Leopard was previewed at 2 WWDC's. I think the author meant MacWorld and then WWDC (2007 for both).
Well, the last release was delayed. We know that about a two year schedule was the intent. so it wouldn't be going back to a two year schedule, it would be sticking to it.
But if they move to a shorter one, the the releases would have to be smaller than they have become. There simply wouldn't be enough time in an 18 month, or shorter, schedule to do the really "big" things, or at least, more than one at a time.
And even though Apple denies it, you just know that they have an eye on MS's schedules as well. Leopard was supposed to come out about the time Vista did.
I think that Apple now has an eye on the release of Windows 7, due, likely in 2010, sometime.
If Apple has some really good new things planned, they might want to get them out just before 7 hits the market, and take some wind out of ts sails.
They also have to deliver a working version of the rez independent desktop they almost delivered so far this time.
I'm surprised nobody here seems to be a developer or know (care?) enough to lay out the obvious facts:
Jobs told us developement-cycle would slow down, because they knew, they were going to Intel in Tigers lifetime and need time for that.
OBVIOUSLY Jobs couldn't spill the beans and say: Hey folks, we need more time for 10.5, because we're bringing 10.4 to Intel inbetween...
Now, the Intelswitch is done and the OS after this biggie is out (Leopard). Jobs comes out and tells people they are going back to their shorter developement cycle...
Com'on. Is'nt it obvious enough for the average person to figure out they needed more time because Tiger on Intel and the switch in general (Rosetta anyone?) were more complex than Steve wanted developers to think in 2004?
I know some folks overthere. Believe me, 10.6 is much closer than some newbees here seem to think
He told us this right after Panther was delivered, not Tiger.
They knew by then they would switch to Intel and planned accordingly. Of course he said it after Panther.
The point is that while the extra time could have been needed for Tiger, because of the move, it wasn't needed for Leopard, because once the move was done, everything was back to normal.
And don't forget that Jobs said that they had kept the two development tracks about even in readiness, so moving to Intel wasn't that big of a deal once they decided to do it.
They knew by then they would switch to Intel and planned accordingly. Of course he said it after Panther.
Hindsight being 20/20 it's clear to see how Apple faced delays in shipping OS X. The move to Intel and Rosetta, the proliferation of OS X onto two new platforms (ATV and iPhone) and a move away from Carbon to Cocoa.
While we consumers certainly are thinking "I don't want to shell out another $129 bucks for an upgrade so soon" I'm sure developers are keen and seeing coca get feature parity or at least as close as possible with Carbon. Now that Carbon 64 has bit the dust this is imperative for larger applications.
Let's not forget...the architecture of OS X lends itself to rapid development. Apple will probably beef up tools to assist developers in taking legacy Carbon apps and moving them Cocoa with as least pain as possible.
Hopefully by the time 10.6 ships we'll have more LLVM support in Xcode and the beginnings of Clang (front end for LLVM)
10.6 may be the first OS in years that DOESN'T announce a new "Core" API.
Hindsight being 20/20 it's clear to see how Apple faced delays in shipping OS X. The move to Intel and Rosetta, the proliferation of OS X onto two new platforms (ATV and iPhone) and a move away from Carbon to Cocoa.
While we consumers certainly are thinking "I don't want to shell out another $129 bucks for an upgrade so soon" I'm sure developers are keen and seeing coca get feature parity or at least as close as possible with Carbon. Now that Carbon 64 has bit the dust this is imperative for larger applications.
Let's not forget...the architecture of OS X lends itself to rapid development. Apple will probably beef up tools to assist developers in taking legacy Carbon apps and moving them Cocoa with as least pain as possible.
Hopefully by the time 10.6 ships we'll have more LLVM support in Xcode and the beginnings of Clang (front end for LLVM)
10.6 may be the first OS in years that DOESN'T announce a new "Core" API.
True.
But, Apple is in this one upsmanship war with MS these days. They'll have to show something big that will be the talk of the town. Now that Apple is taking serious marketshare again, they can't rest.
Leopard is pretty good and I actually hope that Apple will slow down development a bit. Though I look forward to 10.5.3, I scratch my head at what whiz-bang features Apple can come up with to sell us on 10.6.
I'd like Apple to instead focus more on the next major revisions of their supporting applications (i.e. Safari, Mail, iLife, iWork, etc). Mail is good but could be better as with all of Apple's products.
I like to see Apple create their own financial package add-on to Numbers and maybe even a project management application to tie into iCal. iPhoto needs a big brother to combo with Aperture.
Apple's success hinges on development of ideas most of us have not figured out yet. I think that Apple develops ideas while companies less creative make variations of existing ideas. I agree that Apple's suite of applications, especially Mail, are not well thought out and or developed yet.
As the market share grows competition for application dollars will improve application performance. I think Apple has a stronger under pinning for applications to run on when compared to Microsoft's OS products. My opinion is based on the current reactions to VISTA by the business market. Microsoft will improve their current situation and we, the consumers, will have better computing experiences as a result.
And don't forget that Jobs said that they had kept the two development tracks about even in readiness, so moving to Intel wasn't that big of a deal once they decided to do it.
Yeah, thats what he said. It should look easy and singlehanded to developers.
It may very well be the case that they had a working Intel-OS X over there (will ask next time I can...). But after the decision to move to Intel (shortly before Jobs' talk about longer dev-cycle, 2003) there had to be made sure 3rd party developers get the tools to get over as smoothly as possible. Rosetta was added very late in the game too and needed huge loads of work.
Yeah, thats what he said. It should look easy and singlehanded to developers.
It may very well be the case that they had a working Intel-OS X over there (will ask next time I can...). But after the decision to move to Intel (shortly before Jobs' talk about longer dev-cycle, 2003) there had to be made sure 3rd party developers get the tools to get over as smoothly as possible. Rosetta was added very late in the game too and needed huge loads of work.
I don't see how this affected Leopard though. That was a ways after.
Tiger had enough new developments so that it certainly didn't look to be an interim release just intended to get to Intel. If that were true, to let developers get used to it, then those features would have been pushed to Leopard. But while Leopard has its own feature set, there's nothing about it that would indicate that it was put off just so developers could get a handle on tiger for Intel.
It could be, if Apple does shorten the release schedule, that most of the feature set for OS X is about here. That could mean a tapering off of development, until what? OS II?
But I don't think so.
Also, as it appears that Apple may finally be making a push towards corporate and government, the cycles shouldn't get shorter, because those customers don't like short development cycles. It costs them too much.
I don't see how this affected Leopard though. That was a ways after.
Tiger had enough new developments so that it certainly didn't look to be an interim release just intended to get to Intel. If that were true, to let developers get used to it, then those features would have been pushed to Leopard. But while Leopard has its own feature set, there's nothing about it that would indicate that it was put off just so developers could get a handle on tiger for Intel.
I'm not saying Tiger was an interim-release. But remember: Tiger was first released on PPC. Tiger on Intel came half a year later. They didn't start work on Leopard right after Tiger was done.
The Intelswitch was not a trivial task and pushed Leopard out quite a bit. And there was also OS X on Apple TV. THATs what I would call 'interim'. Apple TVs OS X is basically Tiger with parts of Leopard. Apples OS-Dev-Team is actually not that big. The people working on Apple TV OS X weren't working on Leopard.
And then, there was this lovely little project called the iPhone. A herculean task to get OS X onto a tiny little low power device with a whole new interface.
Again: People doing the iPhone OS were not working on Leopard. Of course, some code was reused, but you get the idea...
So, inbetween Tiger and Leopard were HUGE projekts occupying the developers who should also be working on Leopard:
-- Intelswitch
-- Apple TV
-- iPhone OS X
I think it's pretty obvious why Leopard needed a little longer
Quote:
Also, as it appears that Apple may finally be making a push towards corporate and government, the cycles shouldn't get shorter, because those customers don't like short development cycles. It costs them too much.
I don't think Apple cares about that regarding their release-dates
I'm not saying Tiger was an interim-release. But remember: Tiger was first released on PPC. Tiger on Intel came half a year later. They didn't start work on Leopard right after Tiger was done.
The Intelswitch was not a trivial task and pushed Leopard out quite a bit. And there was also OS X on Apple TV. THATs what I would call 'interim'. Apple TVs OS X is basically Tiger with parts of Leopard. Apples OS-Dev-Team is actually not that big. The people working on Apple TV OS X weren't working on Leopard.
And then, there was this lovely little project called the iPhone. A herculean task to get OS X onto a tiny little low power device with a whole new interface.
Again: People doing the iPhone OS were not working on Leopard. Of course, some code was reused, but you get the idea...
So, inbetween Tiger and Leopard were HUGE projekts occupying the developers who should also be working on Leopard:
-- Intelswitch
-- Apple TV
-- iPhone OS X
I think it's pretty obvious why Leopard needed a little longer
I don't think Apple cares about that regarding their release-dates
Apple won't be wrapping up 10.5 for a good 18 or more months from now. They just have a lot of bugs to quash.
Thank you, melgross, for using the word 'quash'. In addition to being tech savvie, you're also literate. I cringe when people use 'squash' inappropriately.
Thank you, melgross, for using the word 'quash'. In addition to being tech savvie, you're also literate. I cringe when people use 'squash' inappropriately.
Careful now you, have a misspelling in your post.
Thank you for pointing this out sequitur because I know for a fact that I have stated "Bugs to squash" on numerous occasions and honestly quash is so much more of a cooler word.
What word is misspelled? If you mean savvie, it can be spelled either way - savvie or savvy. Check this line from Amazon.com :
So you'd like to...be a linux-savvie from a newbie.
'
The origin of the word, savvy or savvie, is pidgin English imitating Spanish 'Sabe usted' - 'You know'. I can't imagine anyone saying their way of spelling it is THE correct way - it's a made up word.
That being said, I do make spelling and grammar errors in these posts. It's not because I don't know better. I teach English grammar at a local college. I just don't always proofread my posts. However, in an informal medium like AI, I don't think it's important. I won't point out the errors in your sentence above.
I pounced on 'quash' because squash is a pet peeve as is irregardless. Quash means to suppress while squash means to crush or squeeze. I must admit though that squash, through common usage, has become legitimate as a synonym for quash. I still don't like it.
What word is misspelled? If you mean savvie, it can be spelled either way - savvie or savvy. Check this line from Amazon.com :
So you'd like to...be a linux-savvie from a newbie.
'
The origin of the word, savvy or savvie, is pidgin English imitating Spanish 'Sabe usted' - 'You know'. I can't imagine anyone saying their way of spelling it is THE correct way - it's a made up word.
That being said, I do make spelling and grammar errors in these posts. It's not because I don't know better. I teach English grammar at a local college. I just don't always proofread my posts. However, in an informal medium like AI, I don't think it's important. I won't point out the errors in your sentence above.
I pounced on 'quash' because squash is a pet peeve as is irregardless.
I see no evidence that savvie is and alternative spelling of savvy. The only time I see an ie added is with a suffix included.
As for squash, that is an alternative spelling of quash that has been in the lexicon since the 16th century. Unless you are a Highlander I don't see a reason to be peeved by a 500 year old spelling.
Comments
Also, someone above said Leopard was previewed at 2 WWDC's. I think the author meant MacWorld and then WWDC (2007 for both).
Leopard had a teaser at WWDC 2006 too:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/07/l...-jobs-keynote/
But, Steve said after Leopard's release that he wasn't happy with that long of a release cycle and wants to move back to an 18 - 24 month release cycle. That being said, I disagree with this preview of 10.6 at WWDC talk. I think it is more likely to be shown at MacWorld.
Also, someone above said Leopard was previewed at 2 WWDC's. I think the author meant MacWorld and then WWDC (2007 for both).
Okay people.
I'm surprised nobody here seems to be a developer or know (care?) enough to lay out the obvious facts:
Jobs told us developement-cycle would slow down, because they knew, they were going to Intel in Tigers lifetime and need time for that.
OBVIOUSLY Jobs couldn't spill the beans and say: Hey folks, we need more time for 10.5, because we're bringing 10.4 to Intel inbetween...
Now, the Intelswitch is done and the OS after this biggie is out (Leopard). Jobs comes out and tells people they are going back to their shorter developement cycle...
Com'on. Is'nt it obvious enough for the average person to figure out they needed more time because Tiger on Intel and the switch in general (Rosetta anyone?) were more complex than Steve wanted developers to think in 2004?
I know some folks overthere. Believe me, 10.6 is much closer than some newbees here seem to think
Re: 10.6
The most logical thing for Apple to do is this.
1. Christen OS X 10.6 with a name (Lion, Ocelot, Big Fucking Cat ...whatever)
2. For WWDC focus on the APIs that developers need to know are changing the most (i.e the today's most problematic.
3. Divulge at least One knew API that gets the properllerheads whirring.
4. Macworld SF 2009- hype 10.6 with additional "marketable features" ...Sparta List II (300 features).
WWDC 2009 go indepth for the new features announced and API improvements.
This is provided Apple will do another fall delivery.
That's probably along the lines of what they're going to do.
But, Steve said after Leopard's release that he wasn't happy with that long of a release cycle and wants to move back to an 18 - 24 month release cycle. That being said, I disagree with this preview of 10.6 at WWDC talk. I think it is more likely to be shown at MacWorld.
Also, someone above said Leopard was previewed at 2 WWDC's. I think the author meant MacWorld and then WWDC (2007 for both).
Well, the last release was delayed. We know that about a two year schedule was the intent. so it wouldn't be going back to a two year schedule, it would be sticking to it.
But if they move to a shorter one, the the releases would have to be smaller than they have become. There simply wouldn't be enough time in an 18 month, or shorter, schedule to do the really "big" things, or at least, more than one at a time.
And even though Apple denies it, you just know that they have an eye on MS's schedules as well. Leopard was supposed to come out about the time Vista did.
I think that Apple now has an eye on the release of Windows 7, due, likely in 2010, sometime.
If Apple has some really good new things planned, they might want to get them out just before 7 hits the market, and take some wind out of ts sails.
They also have to deliver a working version of the rez independent desktop they almost delivered so far this time.
Okay people.
I'm surprised nobody here seems to be a developer or know (care?) enough to lay out the obvious facts:
Jobs told us developement-cycle would slow down, because they knew, they were going to Intel in Tigers lifetime and need time for that.
OBVIOUSLY Jobs couldn't spill the beans and say: Hey folks, we need more time for 10.5, because we're bringing 10.4 to Intel inbetween...
Now, the Intelswitch is done and the OS after this biggie is out (Leopard). Jobs comes out and tells people they are going back to their shorter developement cycle...
Com'on. Is'nt it obvious enough for the average person to figure out they needed more time because Tiger on Intel and the switch in general (Rosetta anyone?) were more complex than Steve wanted developers to think in 2004?
I know some folks overthere. Believe me, 10.6 is much closer than some newbees here seem to think
He told us this right after Panther was delivered, not Tiger.
He told us this right after Panther was delivered, not Tiger.
Exactly.
They knew by then they would switch to Intel and planned accordingly. Of course he said it after Panther.
Exactly.
They knew by then they would switch to Intel and planned accordingly. Of course he said it after Panther.
The point is that while the extra time could have been needed for Tiger, because of the move, it wasn't needed for Leopard, because once the move was done, everything was back to normal.
And don't forget that Jobs said that they had kept the two development tracks about even in readiness, so moving to Intel wasn't that big of a deal once they decided to do it.
Exactly.
They knew by then they would switch to Intel and planned accordingly. Of course he said it after Panther.
Hindsight being 20/20 it's clear to see how Apple faced delays in shipping OS X. The move to Intel and Rosetta, the proliferation of OS X onto two new platforms (ATV and iPhone) and a move away from Carbon to Cocoa.
While we consumers certainly are thinking "I don't want to shell out another $129 bucks for an upgrade so soon" I'm sure developers are keen and seeing coca get feature parity or at least as close as possible with Carbon. Now that Carbon 64 has bit the dust this is imperative for larger applications.
Let's not forget...the architecture of OS X lends itself to rapid development. Apple will probably beef up tools to assist developers in taking legacy Carbon apps and moving them Cocoa with as least pain as possible.
Hopefully by the time 10.6 ships we'll have more LLVM support in Xcode and the beginnings of Clang (front end for LLVM)
10.6 may be the first OS in years that DOESN'T announce a new "Core" API.
Yeah, he could be president, or something.
President NOT SURE?
Classic movie!
Hindsight being 20/20 it's clear to see how Apple faced delays in shipping OS X. The move to Intel and Rosetta, the proliferation of OS X onto two new platforms (ATV and iPhone) and a move away from Carbon to Cocoa.
While we consumers certainly are thinking "I don't want to shell out another $129 bucks for an upgrade so soon" I'm sure developers are keen and seeing coca get feature parity or at least as close as possible with Carbon. Now that Carbon 64 has bit the dust this is imperative for larger applications.
Let's not forget...the architecture of OS X lends itself to rapid development. Apple will probably beef up tools to assist developers in taking legacy Carbon apps and moving them Cocoa with as least pain as possible.
Hopefully by the time 10.6 ships we'll have more LLVM support in Xcode and the beginnings of Clang (front end for LLVM)
10.6 may be the first OS in years that DOESN'T announce a new "Core" API.
True.
But, Apple is in this one upsmanship war with MS these days. They'll have to show something big that will be the talk of the town. Now that Apple is taking serious marketshare again, they can't rest.
Leopard is pretty good and I actually hope that Apple will slow down development a bit. Though I look forward to 10.5.3, I scratch my head at what whiz-bang features Apple can come up with to sell us on 10.6.
I'd like Apple to instead focus more on the next major revisions of their supporting applications (i.e. Safari, Mail, iLife, iWork, etc). Mail is good but could be better as with all of Apple's products.
I like to see Apple create their own financial package add-on to Numbers and maybe even a project management application to tie into iCal. iPhoto needs a big brother to combo with Aperture.
Apple's success hinges on development of ideas most of us have not figured out yet. I think that Apple develops ideas while companies less creative make variations of existing ideas. I agree that Apple's suite of applications, especially Mail, are not well thought out and or developed yet.
As the market share grows competition for application dollars will improve application performance. I think Apple has a stronger under pinning for applications to run on when compared to Microsoft's OS products. My opinion is based on the current reactions to VISTA by the business market. Microsoft will improve their current situation and we, the consumers, will have better computing experiences as a result.
Jim
And don't forget that Jobs said that they had kept the two development tracks about even in readiness, so moving to Intel wasn't that big of a deal once they decided to do it.
Yeah, thats what he said. It should look easy and singlehanded to developers.
It may very well be the case that they had a working Intel-OS X over there (will ask next time I can...). But after the decision to move to Intel (shortly before Jobs' talk about longer dev-cycle, 2003) there had to be made sure 3rd party developers get the tools to get over as smoothly as possible. Rosetta was added very late in the game too and needed huge loads of work.
Yeah, thats what he said. It should look easy and singlehanded to developers.
It may very well be the case that they had a working Intel-OS X over there (will ask next time I can...). But after the decision to move to Intel (shortly before Jobs' talk about longer dev-cycle, 2003) there had to be made sure 3rd party developers get the tools to get over as smoothly as possible. Rosetta was added very late in the game too and needed huge loads of work.
I don't see how this affected Leopard though. That was a ways after.
Tiger had enough new developments so that it certainly didn't look to be an interim release just intended to get to Intel. If that were true, to let developers get used to it, then those features would have been pushed to Leopard. But while Leopard has its own feature set, there's nothing about it that would indicate that it was put off just so developers could get a handle on tiger for Intel.
It could be, if Apple does shorten the release schedule, that most of the feature set for OS X is about here. That could mean a tapering off of development, until what? OS II?
But I don't think so.
Also, as it appears that Apple may finally be making a push towards corporate and government, the cycles shouldn't get shorter, because those customers don't like short development cycles. It costs them too much.
I don't see how this affected Leopard though. That was a ways after.
Tiger had enough new developments so that it certainly didn't look to be an interim release just intended to get to Intel. If that were true, to let developers get used to it, then those features would have been pushed to Leopard. But while Leopard has its own feature set, there's nothing about it that would indicate that it was put off just so developers could get a handle on tiger for Intel.
I'm not saying Tiger was an interim-release. But remember: Tiger was first released on PPC. Tiger on Intel came half a year later. They didn't start work on Leopard right after Tiger was done.
The Intelswitch was not a trivial task and pushed Leopard out quite a bit. And there was also OS X on Apple TV. THATs what I would call 'interim'. Apple TVs OS X is basically Tiger with parts of Leopard. Apples OS-Dev-Team is actually not that big. The people working on Apple TV OS X weren't working on Leopard.
And then, there was this lovely little project called the iPhone. A herculean task to get OS X onto a tiny little low power device with a whole new interface.
Again: People doing the iPhone OS were not working on Leopard. Of course, some code was reused, but you get the idea...
So, inbetween Tiger and Leopard were HUGE projekts occupying the developers who should also be working on Leopard:
-- Intelswitch
-- Apple TV
-- iPhone OS X
I think it's pretty obvious why Leopard needed a little longer
Also, as it appears that Apple may finally be making a push towards corporate and government, the cycles shouldn't get shorter, because those customers don't like short development cycles. It costs them too much.
I don't think Apple cares about that regarding their release-dates
I'm not saying Tiger was an interim-release. But remember: Tiger was first released on PPC. Tiger on Intel came half a year later. They didn't start work on Leopard right after Tiger was done.
The Intelswitch was not a trivial task and pushed Leopard out quite a bit. And there was also OS X on Apple TV. THATs what I would call 'interim'. Apple TVs OS X is basically Tiger with parts of Leopard. Apples OS-Dev-Team is actually not that big. The people working on Apple TV OS X weren't working on Leopard.
And then, there was this lovely little project called the iPhone. A herculean task to get OS X onto a tiny little low power device with a whole new interface.
Again: People doing the iPhone OS were not working on Leopard. Of course, some code was reused, but you get the idea...
So, inbetween Tiger and Leopard were HUGE projekts occupying the developers who should also be working on Leopard:
-- Intelswitch
-- Apple TV
-- iPhone OS X
I think it's pretty obvious why Leopard needed a little longer
I don't think Apple cares about that regarding their release-dates
Well, we'll just have to disagree about this.
Apple won't be wrapping up 10.5 for a good 18 or more months from now. They just have a lot of bugs to quash.
Thank you, melgross, for using the word 'quash'. In addition to being tech savvie, you're also literate. I cringe when people use 'squash' inappropriately.
Thank you, melgross, for using the word 'quash'. In addition to being tech savvie, you're also literate. I cringe when people use 'squash' inappropriately.
Careful now you, have a misspelling in your post.
Thank you for pointing this out sequitur because I know for a fact that I have stated "Bugs to squash" on numerous occasions and honestly quash is so much more of a cooler word.
Careful now you, have a misspelling in your post.
What word is misspelled? If you mean savvie, it can be spelled either way - savvie or savvy. Check this line from Amazon.com :
So you'd like to...be a linux-savvie from a newbie.
'
The origin of the word, savvy or savvie, is pidgin English imitating Spanish 'Sabe usted' - 'You know'. I can't imagine anyone saying their way of spelling it is THE correct way - it's a made up word.
That being said, I do make spelling and grammar errors in these posts. It's not because I don't know better. I teach English grammar at a local college. I just don't always proofread my posts. However, in an informal medium like AI, I don't think it's important. I won't point out the errors in your sentence above.
I pounced on 'quash' because squash is a pet peeve as is irregardless. Quash means to suppress while squash means to crush or squeeze. I must admit though that squash, through common usage, has become legitimate as a synonym for quash. I still don't like it.
What word is misspelled? If you mean savvie, it can be spelled either way - savvie or savvy. Check this line from Amazon.com :
So you'd like to...be a linux-savvie from a newbie.
'
The origin of the word, savvy or savvie, is pidgin English imitating Spanish 'Sabe usted' - 'You know'. I can't imagine anyone saying their way of spelling it is THE correct way - it's a made up word.
That being said, I do make spelling and grammar errors in these posts. It's not because I don't know better. I teach English grammar at a local college. I just don't always proofread my posts. However, in an informal medium like AI, I don't think it's important. I won't point out the errors in your sentence above.
I pounced on 'quash' because squash is a pet peeve as is irregardless.
I see no evidence that savvie is and alternative spelling of savvy. The only time I see an ie added is with a suffix included.
As for squash, that is an alternative spelling of quash that has been in the lexicon since the 16th century. Unless you are a Highlander I don't see a reason to be peeved by a 500 year old spelling.
As for squash, that is an alternative spelling of quash
I agree that "quash" is a "cooler" word, but "squash" is somewhat more relevant/suitable when talking about getting rid of "bugs".