OS X 10.6 will probably incorporate touch in a BIG way. I just don't see that right now until Apple can also get the hardware ready.
Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.
Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.
Apple has already incorporated Touch in some of their Macs in a smart way. They are using the touchpad to allow for more advanced and complex maneuvers. And it doesn't require an awkward touching of the monitor to do it.
Even as a PPC user I say bring it on. Part of what has kept the Mac OS lean throughout all these years is the cutting of legacy baggage. So I'll have to buy a new Mac in order to upgrade... I've gotten 6 years out of it and I'm content. Though I already can't run Leopard, my computer isn't obsolete! The thing making it obsolete is it's Garage Band performance!!!
Edits one track at a time... I have to lock all others... snooooooooze.
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Hell with Apple's involvement in LLVM and Clang supporting other processors becomes even easier. In fact I read that Xcode 3.1 with iPhone support has LLVM. I'm not sure if LLVM is used to deliver iPhone optimized code or not but a couple more OS X generations and Apple should be able to target popular hardware with vastly improved development tools.
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Nah they could never compete with intel, they bought up the talent.
Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.
For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).
Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.
For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).
With all the advances in OS X, especially with things like Core Animation that they would have updated their software. IT can't be an issue with users as there are many more users than before and even a higher percentage of users than the pre-OS X days despite the a growing number of PC users.
I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?
Yeah, dropping PowerPC seems a bit early!
And the rumour says it won't be a major update, focussing instead on the 64bit Intel platform. Hardly an enticing reason to upgrade unless it's a significant performance jump for 64 bit intel machines.
So, as you say - could there be a compelling reason to upgrade?
Could it be that 10.6 is taking Macs in a new direction, in some way?
If it was, only being available for new Macs would make sense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiMiC
Also, i'd suspect that Apple will include some touch features and possibly voice as the platform is now ready and has the power, which could be why non-Intel machines won't be included. <snip>
I do hope voice is included as this would enable us to work out of reach of our systems, but i imagine that touch in more important to the creative side, so that will be first and foremost.
If Apple was to make a new touch-based OS, then it'd only work on New Macs. Naturally enough, there's no reason to support PowerPC or 32-bit. In fact, no reason to support computers released even in the last 6 months, just computers with multi-touch-based screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I am not buying it. Security and stability should be addressed with each point update. Plus, i don't see how Apple can market spending $129 for a new OS that only adds security and stability but rules out all 32-bit and PPC versions of the OS.
If 10.6 is introduced next week I would expect that bells and whistles to be shown to entice the audience. I don't see how Apple—who best attribute is arguably their marketing—would try to sell a new OS that had no new features to lure us.
Yeah. AI compare it to 10.1.... which was a FREE release.
If free then sure people will upgrade... and 10.5 will continue to be fixed and refined too.
If it costs - then once again what new features could lure us in.
* touch screens
* voice control??
* system self-reinstall (I mean - it deletes itself, reinstalls OSX from online, installs your apps from online, and restores documents/music/movies from your TImeMachine, Online backup, Previous Purchases, and iPod syncs
* seamless Xgrid - speed up every computer on your network by sharing processing power.
* user mobility - log in to any Mac and get your own desktop (including documents/apps/music/etc)
And a final thought - is it possible that Apple is toying with the idea of a subscription based OSX combined with .Mac? $10/mth for the OS plus unlimited .Mac usage for online backups and user mobility.
If they drop PPC support I would be a bit surprised but not shocked.
If they drop x32 Intel support, I would be pissed since I own a CD MBP. But I don't see that happening just yet.
If they release 10.6 and it is not ground breaking stuff, so what? Buy it or not. But they cannot afford to not release an OS at or around the same time as W7 at a time when they are starting to get traction selling actual computers. It just isn't something they can afford to do from a perception point of view (right or wrong).
Give me back my 10.4 firewall as an option and I will be happy.
I know someone who still runs Mac OS 8.5 on a PPC 603 (I don't remember the exact model). And I still keep my OS 9.2 Wallstreet. Time to see if it can boot again.
And the rumour says it won't be a major update, focussing instead on the 64bit Intel platform. Hardly an enticing reason to upgrade unless it's a significant performance jump for 64 bit intel machines.
So we´re not currently getting the most out our 64 bit platform with the current OS?!? Kind of dodgy if the OS doesn´t utilise all that the hardware is capable of.
The primary change would be a complete transition to an Intel-only, 64-bit platform that drops PowerPC support, pushing developers to code only for the x86 architecture at the heart of all Macs released from 2006 onwards.
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS4 (which they announced as 32bit only on the Mac)
Final Cut Studio
Any application using Carbon...
Sorry, this is the most rediculous rumour I've heard in ages.
Comments
OS X 10.6 will probably incorporate touch in a BIG way. I just don't see that right now until Apple can also get the hardware ready.
Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.
Yep, with microsoft already showing off windows 7 and its [lame attempt to copy apple's] multi touch interface, apple will most likely release their next OS with multi-touch capability, alongside a whole collection of new hardware.
Apple has already incorporated Touch in some of their Macs in a smart way. They are using the touchpad to allow for more advanced and complex maneuvers. And it doesn't require an awkward touching of the monitor to do it.
Is Leopard compatible with OS9 apps?
Nope, or with Intel-based Macs.
Edits one track at a time... I have to lock all others... snooooooooze.
-Clive
In other words Mac touch will run 10.6, and 10.6 will be a free software update for intel Macs.
Is Leopard compatible with OS9 apps?
Don't tell me you're still on OS 9, are you?
I said don't tell me!
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Hell with Apple's involvement in LLVM and Clang supporting other processors becomes even easier. In fact I read that Xcode 3.1 with iPhone support has LLVM. I'm not sure if LLVM is used to deliver iPhone optimized code or not but a couple more OS X generations and Apple should be able to target popular hardware with vastly improved development tools.
Now that Apple has bought a chip designer based on PPC, and remembering how surprised everyone was that Apple had a secret build of their OS running on Intel years before they announced it, I wonder if they have other builds running secretly. Apple has proven they are not stuck on Intel, by choosing to use it. If their own chip design proves a viable alternative, they could switch us again just as quickly. If clones and hacks proliferate in the Mac OS space, I can see Apple moving away from Intel technologies.
It just speculation, but it does keep alternative routes open, and not just have Apple on a path paved by Intel. As cloud computing progresses, the chip behind everything commoditizes as well. It becomes irrelevant.
Pete
Nah they could never compete with intel, they bought up the talent.
Don't tell me you're still on OS 9, are you?
I said don't tell me!
Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.
For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).
Don't be so smug, Mr I.! More likely the problem is that some software companies stopped Mac support at OS9.
For instance, I still have to fire up 'Classic' to use CambridgeSoft's ChemOffice - the standard and easily the best professional chemistry drawing software. Chemdraw is OSX but the powerful Chem-3D component of ChemOffice is still only on OS9. I've complained several times, as I'm sure have hundreds or thousands of other users: ChemDrw was originally developed for the Mac and many (maybe most) research chemists use the Mac (and won't have any truck with butt-ugly obscenities like the Microstinky Windblows version of ChemOffice).
With all the advances in OS X, especially with things like Core Animation that they would have updated their software. IT can't be an issue with users as there are many more users than before and even a higher percentage of users than the pre-OS X days despite the a growing number of PC users.
I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?
Yeah, dropping PowerPC seems a bit early!
And the rumour says it won't be a major update, focussing instead on the 64bit Intel platform. Hardly an enticing reason to upgrade unless it's a significant performance jump for 64 bit intel machines.
So, as you say - could there be a compelling reason to upgrade?
Could it be that 10.6 is taking Macs in a new direction, in some way?
If it was, only being available for new Macs would make sense...
Also, i'd suspect that Apple will include some touch features and possibly voice as the platform is now ready and has the power, which could be why non-Intel machines won't be included. <snip>
I do hope voice is included as this would enable us to work out of reach of our systems, but i imagine that touch in more important to the creative side, so that will be first and foremost.
If Apple was to make a new touch-based OS, then it'd only work on New Macs. Naturally enough, there's no reason to support PowerPC or 32-bit. In fact, no reason to support computers released even in the last 6 months, just computers with multi-touch-based screens.
I am not buying it. Security and stability should be addressed with each point update. Plus, i don't see how Apple can market spending $129 for a new OS that only adds security and stability but rules out all 32-bit and PPC versions of the OS.
If 10.6 is introduced next week I would expect that bells and whistles to be shown to entice the audience. I don't see how Apple—who best attribute is arguably their marketing—would try to sell a new OS that had no new features to lure us.
Yeah. AI compare it to 10.1.... which was a FREE release.
If free then sure people will upgrade... and 10.5 will continue to be fixed and refined too.
If it costs - then once again what new features could lure us in.
* touch screens
* voice control??
* system self-reinstall (I mean - it deletes itself, reinstalls OSX from online, installs your apps from online, and restores documents/music/movies from your TImeMachine, Online backup, Previous Purchases, and iPod syncs
* seamless Xgrid - speed up every computer on your network by sharing processing power.
* user mobility - log in to any Mac and get your own desktop (including documents/apps/music/etc)
And a final thought - is it possible that Apple is toying with the idea of a subscription based OSX combined with .Mac? $10/mth for the OS plus unlimited .Mac usage for online backups and user mobility.
It will be delayed by the launch of the iToilet and not be released until 2011.
Hey, maybe they could use the iToilet on the space-shuttle! I mean, they could use a new one right now.
If they drop x32 Intel support, I would be pissed since I own a CD MBP.
If they release 10.6 and it is not ground breaking stuff, so what? Buy it or not. But they cannot afford to not release an OS at or around the same time as W7 at a time when they are starting to get traction selling actual computers. It just isn't something they can afford to do from a perception point of view (right or wrong).
Give me back my 10.4 firewall as an option and I will be happy.
Don't tell me you're still on OS 9, are you?
I said don't tell me!
I know someone who still runs Mac OS 8.5 on a PPC 603 (I don't remember the exact model). And I still keep my OS 9.2 Wallstreet. Time to see if it can boot again.
Didn't Apple promise 5yrs of PPC support? Cutting PPC off from 10.6 would seem to go against this.
Support does not equal new software.
/Adrian
Yeah, dropping PowerPC seems a bit early!
And the rumour says it won't be a major update, focussing instead on the 64bit Intel platform. Hardly an enticing reason to upgrade unless it's a significant performance jump for 64 bit intel machines.
So we´re not currently getting the most out our 64 bit platform with the current OS?!? Kind of dodgy if the OS doesn´t utilise all that the hardware is capable of.
64-bit doesn't help performance.
On PPC it doesn't, but on x86 it does. 64 bit x86 has twice as many processor registers as 32 bit x86 and this can really help speed up some software.
we´re ... doesn´t
Is there any particular reason why you're using an acute accent character instead of an apostrophe? (not a flame, I'm genuinely curious)
The primary change would be a complete transition to an Intel-only, 64-bit platform that drops PowerPC support, pushing developers to code only for the x86 architecture at the heart of all Macs released from 2006 onwards.
They'd be nuts to do that. The following apps would not work...
Microsoft Office 2008 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS3 and prior
Adobe Creative Suite CS4 (which they announced as 32bit only on the Mac)
Final Cut Studio
Any application using Carbon...
Sorry, this is the most rediculous rumour I've heard in ages.