Like Steve would give a damn about OSX if one of his tech minions were to show him some new incredible OS. He would drop OSX like someone beat it with an ugly stick!
Yah, it's only his baby that he's been nurturing for 20 years. Besides, current research in new operating systems are either minimalist (like exokernel) or distributed. Neither really replaces unix as a desktop operating system and most have been known for a decade. Even WebOS has been around a decade...that's if you count it as a real operating system anyway.
Which means my old prof's research still holds in 2009. It takes about 10 years from the lab to mass market emergence.
So if there is somewhere down the line a radical upgrade to the GUI its still most likely going to to be OSX still then correct.
A new GUI would not necessarily require a brand new OS. An evolution in OSX, maybe. The rendering and windowing engines may change, but the base OS would not need to be totally junked.
We have ZFS here, so the file system is basically sorted.
The scheduling core, process priority and interrupt handing is, IMHO, rough right now, though that might be how people are using it, i.e. not enough multithreading, which is why I mentioned about the move to support highly concurrent applications. Besides, we have multi-core chips beyond the traditional old SMP ceilings (4/8) on the horizon and that power will be sucked up by fancy UIs, but those UIs will need to exploit those cores. Example - a desktop may have a lightweight thread for every button, scrollbar, icon, widget, pane. Not an interrupt, but an extant thread. Interrupts require co-ordination, getting in line, waiting their turn, synchronisation, which is why when I press a tab on Safari when it is faffing about with another page load it just does not react (that is annoying), or when I scroll the foreground pane it does not react until something in the background decides it will let go. Threads currently suck up resources and most Unix are limited to 2000~4000 simultaneous threads IIRC. The OS needs to think about supporting 100,000 threads or more with ease. Chrome has started this with its "each tab in a separate process" idea. It needs the OS to support far lighter threading and process creation just as Erlang does.
My gut feel is OSX will be evolved into this direction. That, or a new OS comes out with OSX in a sandbox on a seamless desktop. Apple has form. It may be that to truly support highly concurrent applications, the kernel would need too many changes, but I would not like to comment at this stage.
OS 8 was not a drastic departure from OS 7 and OS 9 was not a drastic departure from 8. There was a progression of capabilities to these OS's. OS X will move to OS XI when Apple runs out of numbers or decides that they have used up enough incremental steps and need to use the XI either for practical or marketing reasons, it would be hard to sell a 10.9.9.9 release when you last one was 10.9.9.8.9. We expect to pay for a point (10.5 and 10.6) release but not those in between (10.5.1). It would also take up a lot of space on the box that the design team would hate to deal with when they could have a "cool" roman numeral to work with.
I'm not interested in OSX anymore and I suspect neither does Apple.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple (beyond the work done on snow leapard) is working on their future operating system which what I would guess will be called OSXI. I'm wondering though what is the timetable on that operating system's release?
Does anyone know or can guess?
Do you all think the OS might have a 3D desktop GUI like in their recent patent?
And what hardware do you think they are developing that might support it? Perhaps they would have a special monitor that shows 3D or a system board with a totally proprietary design (besides the intel cpu).
I don't know.
Ideas anyone?
Hardwares....hardly any from Apple.....
Go with Pystar's Pro equipped with AMD Phenom II
We just playing guessing game dudes and when Steve Jobs read our post, he laughs frantically and immediately change our predictions....
Hmm I wondered:
Steve Jobs = Bill Gates
hmmmm.......Monopoly.....
I reckon OSXI could support touch screen, so most mac can be punch on the screen....Called it stress relieved HAHAHA
If the successor to "OSX" were to be called "OSXI" it would be released in 2011. But I think that after "OSX" comes "OSY". But "OSY" will also just be a stepping stone of course.
Subsequent "OSZ" (2020?) will involve a long distance wireless installation by neural programming, of the Braintop (the successor to the Desktop) and the Z/Finder into the frontal lobes. No hardware required anymore. Images, at Terapixel resolutions and 256Kfps, form directly in the central cortex and are completely thought controlled. Malleable ad infinitum. Sound as well, of course.
Others can be allowed or denied wireless access to any part of your thought projections at hyper real sound and image quality levels through ToCom protocols (Total Communication, successor to IPv7). Instant access to everything, past & present, through the MoFi network. Range 500,000 kilometers (311,000 miles). Convenient, because it includes the moon colonies, where I plan to retire in a HoViRe AS cubicle (Holographic Virtual Reality All Senses) at a senior citizens home called 'Blue Earth Vistas', and watch fully immersive porn 24/7.
And by 2040 the capacities of our physical external senses – vision, hearing, smell, touch – will start to degrade noticeably, as they are never used anymore. Like wisdom teeth. Inevitable evolution.
(I mean, while we're at it, we might as well give Steve and the whizkids in Cupertino some food for thought, imo)
We just playing guessing game dudes and when Steve Jobs read our post, he laughs frantically and immediately change our predictions....
Hmm I wondered:
Steve Jobs = Bill Gates
hmmmm.......Monopoly.....
I reckon OSXI could support touch screen, so most mac can be punch on the screen....Called it stress relieved HAHAHA
While I suspect several of the regulars to this forum are probably Apple employees, I doubt the master and emperor of all things Apple reads any apple forums. He doesn't care what we think.
I think OS XI is a ways away. 2016 at the earliest IMO
Before I even want to entertain the idea of whizzbang 3D interface I want the basics of today's 2D interface to improve.
Every piece of content I add to my applications within an OS should be reusable at my whim.
SmartScript. Almost everything the deals with UI and applications should be scriptable. I should be able to automate the OS to the nth degree. Scripts should be static as well as dynamic with the ability to spawn and make connections and then quiesce when needed. They should be extensible and a translator should be created to export basic scripting and import other scripting methods for use.
I imagine by the time OS XI ships the lines between the web and OS will be so blurry it'll be hard to tell when you're accessing content from the web versus local with 100Mbit connections and efficient caching.
By OS XI we'll have the vestiges of Artificial Intelligence helping with the creation and management of metadata. Everything
will be "smart" and the user will simply ok transactions. The OS will track the percentage of "yes" vs "no" and constantly modify its AI system to achieve %90 hit rates in accuracy. The user will be able to set minimum percentages for accuracy ..low hit rates will automatically disable the AI for a specific function unless the user stipulates otherwise.
The Help System will be replaced by audio/video systems that will literally allow you to view the content demoed in a window or take control of the host computer to show how tasks are accomplished with a users particular set up. This is dubbed SmartHelp.
Smart Presence will revolutionize data access via superior location services. Think of it as push tailored for the individual. In 7 years the average computing consumer will have no less than 4 net enabled devices. Smart presence takes antiquated technology like IMAP and push notification and turbocharges it. With it your emails will be able to follow your presence. Rather than pushing to your smartphone or webnet device your presence will be tracked and the email will smartly know within minutes the last device you engaged and smartly send the email to that device. Of course it will be configurable but the goal is to make retrieving data feel like your data is intelligently chasing you down with magic.
Core OS will be delivered. It's simply the ability to get on any computing resource and virtualize your current OS on approved devices. For instance at work I hop on my PC and access my Core OS ...suddenly I'm accessing a virtualize representation of my entire OS on the local computer. It will use JIT technologies to adapt to the hardware difference and translate different data types. I will have Core OS profiles so that I can have a profile for smartphones, webnet devices or full on workstation/laptops. In the future people won't ask "can I borrow your phone to make a quick phone call" they will borrow your phone to do computing.
What will precipitate these radical changes will be
1. Ubiquitous internet access. Even rural consumers will have access to 4.5G technology
2. A move from sending whole files around to sending delta change data.
3. Seamless compression technology (faster than realtime decompression)
4. Metadata that survives travelling through many different networks and filesystem.
I think OS XI is a ways away. 2016 at the earliest IMO
If Apple continues with a point release at an average of 18 months between releases then 10.9 will hit in roughly 5 years putting then end of major point releases possible for OS X in 2013. I think for marketing reasons they won't go past that and may well move to XI earlier. I don't think any of the previous versions of the OS went much past X.6 releases. The one possible reason that they would not do so is if they divorce the name from the release number for marketing purposes, which might be a good thing. If this is the case then they may never move to XI as long as the brand of OS X is working.
OS 8 was not a drastic departure from OS 7 and OS 9 was not a drastic departure from 8.
OS X is not like OS 8 or OS 7 or any of the old releases. OS X is like Mac OS, which went from version 1 to version 9. Mac OS X started at 10.0 so that the parts of the system that depended on OS version number would not get confused, but it was really the 1.0 of a new platform. It will go all the way to 11 (OS X 11.0) and beyond.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Apple has de-emphasized version numbers almost altogether in favor of years (iWork, iLife) and names (Tiger, Leopard, etc.). This has allowed them to use a more developer-driven and less marketing-driven approach to versioning than you saw especially with later releases of Mac OS. It also means they can release, for example, OS X 10.12.27, because people won't know it by as the 27th point release of OS X 10.12, they'll know it as the latest version of OS X Maine Coon, or whatever Apple is pleased to call it.
I don't think Apple's retirement of "OS X" will have anything to do with what version number they end up on. They'll retire it in order to signal a brand new direction and a whole new-from-the-bottom-up operating system to go with it.
The thing is that barring a significant change in the computational model assumed by the hardware, I'm not sure when they'll actually need to do that. They've been ruthless about keeping the system lean and groomed and modular, which will keep it viable as long as CPUs look and act more or less the way they act now. Almost everything else—the filesystem, the GUI, and even the application development APIs—can be swapped in and out, overhauled, added to, and reinvented without replacing the underlying OS.
So, to answer the original question, the hardware that goes with it might be, I don't know, a quantum computer? Something that implements a radical departure from a Von Neumann architecture (there are already significant departures beginning to appear)?
If Apple continues with a point release at an average of 18 months between releases then 10.9 will hit in roughly 5 years putting then end of major point releases possible for OS X in 2013.
They can go as far as they like. The release after Mac OS X 10.9 could be Mac OS X 10.10
Comments
Like Steve would give a damn about OSX if one of his tech minions were to show him some new incredible OS. He would drop OSX like someone beat it with an ugly stick!
Yah, it's only his baby that he's been nurturing for 20 years. Besides, current research in new operating systems are either minimalist (like exokernel) or distributed. Neither really replaces unix as a desktop operating system and most have been known for a decade. Even WebOS has been around a decade...that's if you count it as a real operating system anyway.
Which means my old prof's research still holds in 2009. It takes about 10 years from the lab to mass market emergence.
So if there is somewhere down the line a radical upgrade to the GUI its still most likely going to to be OSX still then correct.
A new GUI would not necessarily require a brand new OS. An evolution in OSX, maybe. The rendering and windowing engines may change, but the base OS would not need to be totally junked.
We have ZFS here, so the file system is basically sorted.
The scheduling core, process priority and interrupt handing is, IMHO, rough right now, though that might be how people are using it, i.e. not enough multithreading, which is why I mentioned about the move to support highly concurrent applications. Besides, we have multi-core chips beyond the traditional old SMP ceilings (4/8) on the horizon and that power will be sucked up by fancy UIs, but those UIs will need to exploit those cores. Example - a desktop may have a lightweight thread for every button, scrollbar, icon, widget, pane. Not an interrupt, but an extant thread. Interrupts require co-ordination, getting in line, waiting their turn, synchronisation, which is why when I press a tab on Safari when it is faffing about with another page load it just does not react (that is annoying), or when I scroll the foreground pane it does not react until something in the background decides it will let go. Threads currently suck up resources and most Unix are limited to 2000~4000 simultaneous threads IIRC. The OS needs to think about supporting 100,000 threads or more with ease. Chrome has started this with its "each tab in a separate process" idea. It needs the OS to support far lighter threading and process creation just as Erlang does.
My gut feel is OSX will be evolved into this direction. That, or a new OS comes out with OSX in a sandbox on a seamless desktop. Apple has form. It may be that to truly support highly concurrent applications, the kernel would need too many changes, but I would not like to comment at this stage.
I'm not interested in OSX anymore and I suspect neither does Apple.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple (beyond the work done on snow leapard) is working on their future operating system which what I would guess will be called OSXI. I'm wondering though what is the timetable on that operating system's release?
Does anyone know or can guess?
Do you all think the OS might have a 3D desktop GUI like in their recent patent?
And what hardware do you think they are developing that might support it? Perhaps they would have a special monitor that shows 3D or a system board with a totally proprietary design (besides the intel cpu).
I don't know.
Ideas anyone?
Hardwares....hardly any from Apple.....
Go with Pystar's Pro equipped with AMD Phenom II
We just playing guessing game dudes and when Steve Jobs read our post, he laughs frantically and immediately change our predictions....
Hmm I wondered:
Steve Jobs = Bill Gates
hmmmm.......Monopoly.....
I reckon OSXI could support touch screen, so most mac can be punch on the screen....Called it stress relieved HAHAHA
Subsequent "OSZ" (2020?) will involve a long distance wireless installation by neural programming, of the Braintop (the successor to the Desktop) and the Z/Finder into the frontal lobes. No hardware required anymore. Images, at Terapixel resolutions and 256Kfps, form directly in the central cortex and are completely thought controlled. Malleable ad infinitum. Sound as well, of course.
Others can be allowed or denied wireless access to any part of your thought projections at hyper real sound and image quality levels through ToCom protocols (Total Communication, successor to IPv7). Instant access to everything, past & present, through the MoFi network. Range 500,000 kilometers (311,000 miles). Convenient, because it includes the moon colonies, where I plan to retire in a HoViRe AS cubicle (Holographic Virtual Reality All Senses) at a senior citizens home called 'Blue Earth Vistas', and watch fully immersive porn 24/7.
And by 2040 the capacities of our physical external senses – vision, hearing, smell, touch – will start to degrade noticeably, as they are never used anymore. Like wisdom teeth. Inevitable evolution.
(I mean, while we're at it, we might as well give Steve and the whizkids in Cupertino some food for thought, imo)
Hardwares....hardly any from Apple.....
Go with Pystar's Pro equipped with AMD Phenom II
We just playing guessing game dudes and when Steve Jobs read our post, he laughs frantically and immediately change our predictions....
Hmm I wondered:
Steve Jobs = Bill Gates
hmmmm.......Monopoly.....
I reckon OSXI could support touch screen, so most mac can be punch on the screen....Called it stress relieved HAHAHA
While I suspect several of the regulars to this forum are probably Apple employees, I doubt the master and emperor of all things Apple reads any apple forums. He doesn't care what we think.
Before I even want to entertain the idea of whizzbang 3D interface I want the basics of today's 2D interface to improve.
Every piece of content I add to my applications within an OS should be reusable at my whim.
SmartScript. Almost everything the deals with UI and applications should be scriptable. I should be able to automate the OS to the nth degree. Scripts should be static as well as dynamic with the ability to spawn and make connections and then quiesce when needed. They should be extensible and a translator should be created to export basic scripting and import other scripting methods for use.
I imagine by the time OS XI ships the lines between the web and OS will be so blurry it'll be hard to tell when you're accessing content from the web versus local with 100Mbit connections and efficient caching.
By OS XI we'll have the vestiges of Artificial Intelligence helping with the creation and management of metadata. Everything
will be "smart" and the user will simply ok transactions. The OS will track the percentage of "yes" vs "no" and constantly modify its AI system to achieve %90 hit rates in accuracy. The user will be able to set minimum percentages for accuracy ..low hit rates will automatically disable the AI for a specific function unless the user stipulates otherwise.
The Help System will be replaced by audio/video systems that will literally allow you to view the content demoed in a window or take control of the host computer to show how tasks are accomplished with a users particular set up. This is dubbed SmartHelp.
Smart Presence will revolutionize data access via superior location services. Think of it as push tailored for the individual. In 7 years the average computing consumer will have no less than 4 net enabled devices. Smart presence takes antiquated technology like IMAP and push notification and turbocharges it. With it your emails will be able to follow your presence. Rather than pushing to your smartphone or webnet device your presence will be tracked and the email will smartly know within minutes the last device you engaged and smartly send the email to that device. Of course it will be configurable but the goal is to make retrieving data feel like your data is intelligently chasing you down with magic.
Core OS will be delivered. It's simply the ability to get on any computing resource and virtualize your current OS on approved devices. For instance at work I hop on my PC and access my Core OS ...suddenly I'm accessing a virtualize representation of my entire OS on the local computer. It will use JIT technologies to adapt to the hardware difference and translate different data types. I will have Core OS profiles so that I can have a profile for smartphones, webnet devices or full on workstation/laptops. In the future people won't ask "can I borrow your phone to make a quick phone call" they will borrow your phone to do computing.
What will precipitate these radical changes will be
I think OS XI is a ways away. 2016 at the earliest IMO
If Apple continues with a point release at an average of 18 months between releases then 10.9 will hit in roughly 5 years putting then end of major point releases possible for OS X in 2013. I think for marketing reasons they won't go past that and may well move to XI earlier. I don't think any of the previous versions of the OS went much past X.6 releases. The one possible reason that they would not do so is if they divorce the name from the release number for marketing purposes, which might be a good thing. If this is the case then they may never move to XI as long as the brand of OS X is working.
OS 8 was not a drastic departure from OS 7 and OS 9 was not a drastic departure from 8.
OS X is not like OS 8 or OS 7 or any of the old releases. OS X is like Mac OS, which went from version 1 to version 9. Mac OS X started at 10.0 so that the parts of the system that depended on OS version number would not get confused, but it was really the 1.0 of a new platform. It will go all the way to 11 (OS X 11.0) and beyond.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Apple has de-emphasized version numbers almost altogether in favor of years (iWork, iLife) and names (Tiger, Leopard, etc.). This has allowed them to use a more developer-driven and less marketing-driven approach to versioning than you saw especially with later releases of Mac OS. It also means they can release, for example, OS X 10.12.27, because people won't know it by as the 27th point release of OS X 10.12, they'll know it as the latest version of OS X Maine Coon, or whatever Apple is pleased to call it.
I don't think Apple's retirement of "OS X" will have anything to do with what version number they end up on. They'll retire it in order to signal a brand new direction and a whole new-from-the-bottom-up operating system to go with it.
The thing is that barring a significant change in the computational model assumed by the hardware, I'm not sure when they'll actually need to do that. They've been ruthless about keeping the system lean and groomed and modular, which will keep it viable as long as CPUs look and act more or less the way they act now. Almost everything else—the filesystem, the GUI, and even the application development APIs—can be swapped in and out, overhauled, added to, and reinvented without replacing the underlying OS.
So, to answer the original question, the hardware that goes with it might be, I don't know, a quantum computer? Something that implements a radical departure from a Von Neumann architecture (there are already significant departures beginning to appear)?
If Apple continues with a point release at an average of 18 months between releases then 10.9 will hit in roughly 5 years putting then end of major point releases possible for OS X in 2013.
They can go as far as they like. The release after Mac OS X 10.9 could be Mac OS X 10.10
I suppose that it never dawned on you that Apple's current OS is "Mac-Oh-Es Ten Ten-Point-Five."
I've always read version numbers as:
"Ten dot whatever" (dot, not point)
Just like how the periods/decimal-points in IP addresses aren't part of a decimal number. Hence the new terminology that has developed, "dot".