The Mac platform today is getting converts because of all of those "features". It is what Windows is not, and should have been. That's pretty clear.
While this delay is manageable, it may, I say may, indicate that there might be further delays. Whenever a company delays a product by almost 5 months, there is some problem. It also means that the problem is not a trivial one. If it were, it would be delayed by weeks, as the ATv was. This isn't the tying up of some loose ends. That doesn't require a delay from June to October.
While it isn't a problem now, if Apple delays for several more months, it could become one.
By the way Vista wasn't delayed 5 years, while it was long enough, it was a bit over 2 1/2 years.
But we don't know that there's any problem with Leopard at all. This entire delay could be, and IMO is more likely, an underestimate on the planning of the iPhone. This is Apples new area and the more likely area for them to make planning mistakes, underestimate risk, etc. as it involves technology areas that are new to Apple. I think the key milestone is now the on-time launch of the iPhone because if it doesn't launch on time the resources will not be freed up and THEN they have the real mess to deal with. If it does launch on time then they've likely managed through the misstep in the initial planning.
I thought I was plenty clear despite the blizzard of sarcasm directed at MG. Apple does tout its currnt version of OS X, Tiger, to have all of those features today. I have written about this very point ad nauseum in many posts.
....... The OS X architecture and componentized update strategy completely precludes that kind of catastrophe.......
Once everyone in MAc and Wintel land understands this fundamental concept, all else follows. The quality of OS X is designed into it, not patched onto it. All the dopey ramblings of trolling Mac Evangelist bloggers and Wintel apologists can not change this immutable fact.
By the way Vista wasn't delayed 5 years, while it was long enough, it was a bit over 2 1/2 years.
I thought it was originally supposed to be shipping in late 2003. It didn't ship to consumers till this January so I make that at least 3 years late and almost 6 years between updates. And they only met that by jettisoning features and going back to Server2003's codebase.
So, Apple's entire update cycle for 10.4->10.5 is still less than just the delay on Vista and they've managed to squeeze in 9 service packs and a shift in architecture whilst also porting the OS to two new devices.
4-5 month delay - no problem. Kick back Apple developers, you've been delivering hard.
But we don't know that there's any problem with Leopard at all. This entire delay could be, and IMO is more likely, an underestimate on the planning of the iPhone. This is Apples new area and the more likely area for them to make planning mistakes, underestimate risk, etc. as it involves technology areas that are new to Apple. I think the key milestone is now the on-time launch of the iPhone because if it doesn't launch on time the resources will not be freed up and THEN they have the real mess to deal with. If it does launch on time then they've likely managed through the misstep in the initial planning.
With all of the bugs Leopard has exhibited in the last few developer builds, there is a problem.
In November 2001 Microsoft said that Longhorn would be released late 2002/early 2003.
In November 2002 the said late 2004/early 2005.
In May 2003 they said 2005.
In October 2004 thay said May 22, 2006.
In July 2005 they said late 2006.
Making the assumption that your undocumented dates are correct, that gives, at most 4 years, not 5. I don't remember any official dates that early though. It's like the one we see floating around that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007. I thought that one was real as well, but no can document it.
The late 2004 date is the first one that I remember as being official, not just some offhand musing.
I thought I was plenty clear despite the blizzard of sarcasm directed at MG. Apple does tout its currnt version of OS X, Tiger, to have all of those features today. I have written about this very point ad nauseum in many posts.
I've written about it as well. But, that's not the point here. The point is that Leopard is the first Mac version that the majority of the public will have heard of. It will be compared directly against Vista. Tiger is being compared only in an offhand way, since it;'s on the way out. That's the difference.
It's not what Tiger offers, it's what Leopard offers that will matter. And people will increasingly look to that release date.
Even though all of us here think that the delay is trivial, it's already being criticized in the PC press.
My point is that if the delay extends, there could be a perceptual problem. And that's what he's saying as well.
I thought it was originally supposed to be shipping in late 2003. It didn't ship to consumers till this January so I make that at least 3 years late and almost 6 years between updates. And they only met that by jettisoning features and going back to Server2003's codebase.
So, Apple's entire update cycle for 10.4->10.5 is still less than just the delay on Vista and they've managed to squeeze in 9 service packs and a shift in architecture whilst also porting the OS to two new devices.
4-5 month delay - no problem. Kick back Apple developers, you've been delivering hard.
The first official release date I remember is the late 2004 one.
But, you know, it doesn't really matter. The public is fickle. Vista is out. It's here. People will forget about how long the delays was as it recedes into the past.
They will focus on what's happening now with Leopard.
It's like the one we see floating around that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007. I thought that one was real as well, but no can document it.
Those dates were given at the 2005 WWDC Keynote. Steve gave a quick rundown of Tiger (which had just been released a month or so prior IIRC), then charted the OSX releases vs. Windows releases. He then announced than the next version of OSX was to be called Leopard, and that even though they weren't talking about it at that conference, they would in the future and that they "intend to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007, right around the time when Microsoft is expected to release Longhorn."
Those dates were given at the 2005 WWDC Keynote. Steve gave a quick rundown of Tiger (which had just been released a month or so prior IIRC), then charted the OSX releases vs. Windows releases. He then announced than the next version of OSX was to be called Leopard, and that even though they weren't talking about it at that conference, they would in the future and that they "intend to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007, right around the time when Microsoft is expected to release Longhorn."
Then they dropped the Intel bomb
I refered to that as well. But then no one has actually found it.
Making the assumption that your undocumented dates are correct
That was unnecessary - don't require documentation when your own statement is undocumented. How about trusting each other?
But feel free to look up statements from MS and take a look at Winsupersite and their reports from WinHEC from those years.
Microsoft was supposed to release Blackcomb as the next Windows, but they delayed that and announced Longhorn as a stop gap version.
Longhorn was later made a client only version of Windows, and through the years they've been making so many changes to their strategy and product that it's very hard to keep up with them.
That was unnecessary - do we have to document everything we say in here? How about trusting each other?
But feel free to look up statements from MS and take a look at Winsupersite and their reports from WinHEC from those years.
Microsoft was supposed to release Blackcomb as the next Windows, but they delayed that and announced Longhorn as a stop gap version.
Longhorn was later made a client only version of Windows, and through the years they've been making so many changes to their strategy and product that it's very hard to keep up with them.
When I say something that I can't find a link to I get yelled at?if I'm lucky.
I remember lots of things I have no proof of, but people often demand it of me.
Officially announced release dates should be easy to find. Offhand remarks by Gates, Ballmer, and Jobs, often aren't.
I've been wrong before on these things, as have many others.
It's up to those presenting "facts" to present the evidence, or so I'm told. If it's just a general statement, then it's different, but something specific should be documentable. If we can't find it, that's fine, but some people will wonder.
On [July 25th, 2001], Microsoft publicly confirmed that [..] there will be a Windows release between Windows XP and Blackcomb [..] It was codenamed Longhorn and would ship in 2003, Microsoft said.
Quote:
Amusingly, the first Vista delay came in April 2002. At that time, Microsoft group vice president Jim Allchin revealed that Longhorn wouldn't ship until at least 2004.
Quote:
Later [in November 2002], a long-time informant began kicking out some serious insider news and I got my first peek at Microsoft's internal schedule for Longhorn. Here's what it looked like at the time:
M1 Release 12/7/2001
M2 Code-complete 7/26/2002
M2 Release 8/30/2002
Longhorn RI into MAIN 10/16/2002
M3 Release 11/13/2002
Beta 2003
RTM 2004
Quote:
The biggest sin, however, was that Microsoft, for the first time began actively promoting Longhorn [in April 2003].
Quote:
If you had told me then about the broken promises, dropped features, and utter lack of progress we would experience after that event, I'd never have believed it. At PDC 2003, we came, we saw, and we believed.
Quote:
According to this documentation, the typical PC of 2006--no doubt a slice of science fiction at the time--would include a 4-6 GHz microprocessor, 2+ GB of RAM, 1+ TB of disk space, graphics processing chips three times as powerful as what was available in early 2004, and 1 GB wired and 54 Mbps wireless networking.
Quote:
Microsoft then expected to ship the so-called M7.2 (for "Milestone 7.2") Longhorn update in the second quarter of 2004. This version of the product would be developer-oriented, like the PDC 2003 build, and would include the WinFS Data Model and Avalon 3D.
In mid-April [of 2004], stories began circulating that Microsoft had bitten off more than it could chew and would be scaling back the Longhorn feature-set.
Quote:
In early May, Microsoft unveiled Longhorn 4074 at its Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in Seattle. We didn't realize it at the time, but this would be the last Longhorn build that Microsoft would ship publicly for a year. It would also be the final external build in the old Longhorn build tree.
Quote:
At TechEd that year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that Longhorn was a "long slog." "We've put it a little bit lower priority in order to get out Windows XP Service Pack 2 to really respond on some security issues," he added.
Quote:
"Microsoft is now finalizing plans for how and when to deliver Longhorn," a Microsoft representative told me on August 27. "As a result, the company announced today it is now targeting 2006 for Longhorn to be broadly available. Longhorn will deliver major improvements in user productivity, important new capabilities for software developers and significant enhancements in security, deployment and reliability."
I've written about it as well. But, that's not the point here. The point is that Leopard is the first Mac version that the majority of the public will have heard of. It will be compared directly against Vista. Tiger is being compared only in an offhand way, since it;'s on the way out. That's the difference.
It's not what Tiger offers, it's what Leopard offers that will matter. And people will increasingly look to that release date.
Even though all of us here think that the delay is trivial, it's already being criticized in the PC press.
My point is that if the delay extends, there could be a perceptual problem. And that's what he's saying as well.
Why do you say this?????? Its certainly not true in the 'public' that I know, especially those that aren't already Mac users. 'My public' has no idea about Panther, Leopard, Tiger.... To my recollection ( and I freely admit holes in the recollection) Apple has never advertised a specific build beyond their own retail stores. Maybe at CompUSA but never in the more generic media.
OTH the comparisons I have seen between Vista and Tiger have not be very favorable to ... Vista... I personally don't think the 'switcher' campaign depends at all on Leopard (or Tiger) but on OS X and iLife.
Right now, for the people that I'm helping to switch, the delay of Leopard has sped up their buying decision as they want to move away from Window's now. They were only waiting to save the $129 (whatever it is ). Since that's moved off they'll buy now and upgrade later.
With all of the bugs Leopard has exhibited in the last few developer builds, there is a problem.
But is there? If we accept as true Apple's statement that resources were diverted to iPhone and this would cause a 4 month delay in Leopard then Leopard is now 5-6 months from its 'planned' release (delay caused by conscious decision to divert resources). If it's 5-6 months from its 'planned' release then are the number and progression of bugs really out of line. I don't get the developer releases so I don't have specifics but from what I read I couldn't conclude there are any problems beyond normal development and the delays introduced by the resource diversion.
And, of course, none of us will know the progress, content, and difficulty of the 'secret' features until June so that's also just guesses.
Perhaps so. But if you will look at what was said. At the time, Longhoen was to be a "minor" release.
so, sure, a release in late 2003 could have been attained.
but once they changed that to make Longhorn the release that Blackcomb would be, things changed. The release date of the FULL release, Blackcomb, which was now a name change back to Longhorn, was not schedualed for release until late 2004.
After that, all of the delays have been well documented.
I see where the confusion arises over that very early date.
It's as though Apple chose to make a point release such as 10.4 5 available at a certain time, and then renamed 10.5 as 10.4.5, claimed to add all of the features that 10.5 would have, and THEN it came out late.
Comments
The Mac platform today is getting converts because of all of those "features". It is what Windows is not, and should have been. That's pretty clear.
While this delay is manageable, it may, I say may, indicate that there might be further delays. Whenever a company delays a product by almost 5 months, there is some problem. It also means that the problem is not a trivial one. If it were, it would be delayed by weeks, as the ATv was. This isn't the tying up of some loose ends. That doesn't require a delay from June to October.
While it isn't a problem now, if Apple delays for several more months, it could become one.
By the way Vista wasn't delayed 5 years, while it was long enough, it was a bit over 2 1/2 years.
But we don't know that there's any problem with Leopard at all. This entire delay could be, and IMO is more likely, an underestimate on the planning of the iPhone. This is Apples new area and the more likely area for them to make planning mistakes, underestimate risk, etc. as it involves technology areas that are new to Apple. I think the key milestone is now the on-time launch of the iPhone because if it doesn't launch on time the resources will not be freed up and THEN they have the real mess to deal with. If it does launch on time then they've likely managed through the misstep in the initial planning.
By the way Vista wasn't delayed 5 years, while it was long enough, it was a bit over 2 1/2 years.
In November 2001 Microsoft said that Longhorn would be released late 2002/early 2003.
In November 2002 the said late 2004/early 2005.
In May 2003 they said 2005.
In October 2004 thay said May 22, 2006.
In July 2005 they said late 2006.
....... The OS X architecture and componentized update strategy completely precludes that kind of catastrophe.......
Once everyone in MAc and Wintel land understands this fundamental concept, all else follows. The quality of OS X is designed into it, not patched onto it. All the dopey ramblings of trolling Mac Evangelist bloggers and Wintel apologists can not change this immutable fact.
By the way Vista wasn't delayed 5 years, while it was long enough, it was a bit over 2 1/2 years.
I thought it was originally supposed to be shipping in late 2003. It didn't ship to consumers till this January so I make that at least 3 years late and almost 6 years between updates. And they only met that by jettisoning features and going back to Server2003's codebase.
So, Apple's entire update cycle for 10.4->10.5 is still less than just the delay on Vista and they've managed to squeeze in 9 service packs and a shift in architecture whilst also porting the OS to two new devices.
4-5 month delay - no problem. Kick back Apple developers, you've been delivering hard.
But we don't know that there's any problem with Leopard at all. This entire delay could be, and IMO is more likely, an underestimate on the planning of the iPhone. This is Apples new area and the more likely area for them to make planning mistakes, underestimate risk, etc. as it involves technology areas that are new to Apple. I think the key milestone is now the on-time launch of the iPhone because if it doesn't launch on time the resources will not be freed up and THEN they have the real mess to deal with. If it does launch on time then they've likely managed through the misstep in the initial planning.
With all of the bugs Leopard has exhibited in the last few developer builds, there is a problem.
In November 2001 Microsoft said that Longhorn would be released late 2002/early 2003.
In November 2002 the said late 2004/early 2005.
In May 2003 they said 2005.
In October 2004 thay said May 22, 2006.
In July 2005 they said late 2006.
Making the assumption that your undocumented dates are correct, that gives, at most 4 years, not 5. I don't remember any official dates that early though. It's like the one we see floating around that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007. I thought that one was real as well, but no can document it.
The late 2004 date is the first one that I remember as being official, not just some offhand musing.
I thought I was plenty clear despite the blizzard of sarcasm directed at MG. Apple does tout its currnt version of OS X, Tiger, to have all of those features today. I have written about this very point ad nauseum in many posts.
I've written about it as well. But, that's not the point here. The point is that Leopard is the first Mac version that the majority of the public will have heard of. It will be compared directly against Vista. Tiger is being compared only in an offhand way, since it;'s on the way out. That's the difference.
It's not what Tiger offers, it's what Leopard offers that will matter. And people will increasingly look to that release date.
Even though all of us here think that the delay is trivial, it's already being criticized in the PC press.
My point is that if the delay extends, there could be a perceptual problem. And that's what he's saying as well.
I thought it was originally supposed to be shipping in late 2003. It didn't ship to consumers till this January so I make that at least 3 years late and almost 6 years between updates. And they only met that by jettisoning features and going back to Server2003's codebase.
So, Apple's entire update cycle for 10.4->10.5 is still less than just the delay on Vista and they've managed to squeeze in 9 service packs and a shift in architecture whilst also porting the OS to two new devices.
4-5 month delay - no problem. Kick back Apple developers, you've been delivering hard.
The first official release date I remember is the late 2004 one.
But, you know, it doesn't really matter. The public is fickle. Vista is out. It's here. People will forget about how long the delays was as it recedes into the past.
They will focus on what's happening now with Leopard.
It's like the one we see floating around that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007. I thought that one was real as well, but no can document it.
Those dates were given at the 2005 WWDC Keynote. Steve gave a quick rundown of Tiger (which had just been released a month or so prior IIRC), then charted the OSX releases vs. Windows releases. He then announced than the next version of OSX was to be called Leopard, and that even though they weren't talking about it at that conference, they would in the future and that they "intend to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007, right around the time when Microsoft is expected to release Longhorn."
Then they dropped the Intel bomb
Those dates were given at the 2005 WWDC Keynote. Steve gave a quick rundown of Tiger (which had just been released a month or so prior IIRC), then charted the OSX releases vs. Windows releases. He then announced than the next version of OSX was to be called Leopard, and that even though they weren't talking about it at that conference, they would in the future and that they "intend to release Leopard at the end of 2006 or early 2007, right around the time when Microsoft is expected to release Longhorn."
Then they dropped the Intel bomb
I refered to that as well. But then no one has actually found it.
Making the assumption that your undocumented dates are correct
That was unnecessary - don't require documentation when your own statement is undocumented. How about trusting each other?
But feel free to look up statements from MS and take a look at Winsupersite and their reports from WinHEC from those years.
Microsoft was supposed to release Blackcomb as the next Windows, but they delayed that and announced Longhorn as a stop gap version.
Longhorn was later made a client only version of Windows, and through the years they've been making so many changes to their strategy and product that it's very hard to keep up with them.
I refered to that as well. But then no one has actually found it.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...date/index.php
http://live.macobserver.com/article/..._keynote.shtml
That was unnecessary - do we have to document everything we say in here? How about trusting each other?
But feel free to look up statements from MS and take a look at Winsupersite and their reports from WinHEC from those years.
Microsoft was supposed to release Blackcomb as the next Windows, but they delayed that and announced Longhorn as a stop gap version.
Longhorn was later made a client only version of Windows, and through the years they've been making so many changes to their strategy and product that it's very hard to keep up with them.
When I say something that I can't find a link to I get yelled at?if I'm lucky.
I remember lots of things I have no proof of, but people often demand it of me.
Officially announced release dates should be easy to find. Offhand remarks by Gates, Ballmer, and Jobs, often aren't.
I've been wrong before on these things, as have many others.
It's up to those presenting "facts" to present the evidence, or so I'm told. If it's just a general statement, then it's different, but something specific should be documentable. If we can't find it, that's fine, but some people will wonder.
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06...date/index.php
http://live.macobserver.com/article/..._keynote.shtml
Ok, that's good, I thought I saw it as well, but couldn't find it again.
So why complain in your previous post?
Now, all we need is for someone to find the MS 2003 announcement.
Ok, that's good, I thought I saw it as well, but couldn't find it again.
So why complain in your previous post?
Now, all we need is for someone to find the MS 2003 announcement.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...dtogold_01.asp
On [July 25th, 2001], Microsoft publicly confirmed that [..] there will be a Windows release between Windows XP and Blackcomb [..] It was codenamed Longhorn and would ship in 2003, Microsoft said.
Amusingly, the first Vista delay came in April 2002. At that time, Microsoft group vice president Jim Allchin revealed that Longhorn wouldn't ship until at least 2004.
Later [in November 2002], a long-time informant began kicking out some serious insider news and I got my first peek at Microsoft's internal schedule for Longhorn. Here's what it looked like at the time:
M1 Release 12/7/2001
M2 Code-complete 7/26/2002
M2 Release 8/30/2002
Longhorn RI into MAIN 10/16/2002
M3 Release 11/13/2002
Beta 2003
RTM 2004
The biggest sin, however, was that Microsoft, for the first time began actively promoting Longhorn [in April 2003].
If you had told me then about the broken promises, dropped features, and utter lack of progress we would experience after that event, I'd never have believed it. At PDC 2003, we came, we saw, and we believed.
According to this documentation, the typical PC of 2006--no doubt a slice of science fiction at the time--would include a 4-6 GHz microprocessor, 2+ GB of RAM, 1+ TB of disk space, graphics processing chips three times as powerful as what was available in early 2004, and 1 GB wired and 54 Mbps wireless networking.
Microsoft then expected to ship the so-called M7.2 (for "Milestone 7.2") Longhorn update in the second quarter of 2004. This version of the product would be developer-oriented, like the PDC 2003 build, and would include the WinFS Data Model and Avalon 3D.
In mid-April [of 2004], stories began circulating that Microsoft had bitten off more than it could chew and would be scaling back the Longhorn feature-set.
In early May, Microsoft unveiled Longhorn 4074 at its Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in Seattle. We didn't realize it at the time, but this would be the last Longhorn build that Microsoft would ship publicly for a year. It would also be the final external build in the old Longhorn build tree.
At TechEd that year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that Longhorn was a "long slog." "We've put it a little bit lower priority in order to get out Windows XP Service Pack 2 to really respond on some security issues," he added.
"Microsoft is now finalizing plans for how and when to deliver Longhorn," a Microsoft representative told me on August 27. "As a result, the company announced today it is now targeting 2006 for Longhorn to be broadly available. Longhorn will deliver major improvements in user productivity, important new capabilities for software developers and significant enhancements in security, deployment and reliability."
And so on.
I've written about it as well. But, that's not the point here. The point is that Leopard is the first Mac version that the majority of the public will have heard of. It will be compared directly against Vista. Tiger is being compared only in an offhand way, since it;'s on the way out. That's the difference.
It's not what Tiger offers, it's what Leopard offers that will matter. And people will increasingly look to that release date.
Even though all of us here think that the delay is trivial, it's already being criticized in the PC press.
My point is that if the delay extends, there could be a perceptual problem. And that's what he's saying as well.
Why do you say this?????? Its certainly not true in the 'public' that I know, especially those that aren't already Mac users. 'My public' has no idea about Panther, Leopard, Tiger.... To my recollection ( and I freely admit holes in the recollection) Apple has never advertised a specific build beyond their own retail stores. Maybe at CompUSA but never in the more generic media.
OTH the comparisons I have seen between Vista and Tiger have not be very favorable to ... Vista... I personally don't think the 'switcher' campaign depends at all on Leopard (or Tiger) but on OS X and iLife.
Right now, for the people that I'm helping to switch, the delay of Leopard has sped up their buying decision as they want to move away from Window's now. They were only waiting to save the $129 (whatever it is ). Since that's moved off they'll buy now and upgrade later.
With all of the bugs Leopard has exhibited in the last few developer builds, there is a problem.
But is there? If we accept as true Apple's statement that resources were diverted to iPhone and this would cause a 4 month delay in Leopard then Leopard is now 5-6 months from its 'planned' release (delay caused by conscious decision to divert resources). If it's 5-6 months from its 'planned' release then are the number and progression of bugs really out of line. I don't get the developer releases so I don't have specifics but from what I read I couldn't conclude there are any problems beyond normal development and the delays introduced by the resource diversion.
And, of course, none of us will know the progress, content, and difficulty of the 'secret' features until June so that's also just guesses.
The last few versions of the build do seem to be a considerable distance from being a final product in terms of working towards the spring release.
Given the date is now put back, then on the face of it, then the state of the builds are more in line with the delayed release date.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase...dtogold_01.asp
Perhaps so. But if you will look at what was said. At the time, Longhoen was to be a "minor" release.
so, sure, a release in late 2003 could have been attained.
but once they changed that to make Longhorn the release that Blackcomb would be, things changed. The release date of the FULL release, Blackcomb, which was now a name change back to Longhorn, was not schedualed for release until late 2004.
After that, all of the delays have been well documented.
I see where the confusion arises over that very early date.
It's as though Apple chose to make a point release such as 10.4 5 available at a certain time, and then renamed 10.5 as 10.4.5, claimed to add all of the features that 10.5 would have, and THEN it came out late.