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.
The problem with this is what was released ended up not so much being Blackcomb but closer to the original Longhorn. No WinFS, etc.
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.
I say it because I'll bet that Apple will advertise this version of the OS as they never have before. I believe that the dev conf was set to kick off a major campaign that now will be much more muted.
This is the best shot Apple has had in a very long to kick MS's butt, and pick up substantial marketshare. Apple won't want to call attention to its delay, but you know that when the conf rolls around, there will be plenty of articles in the mainstream press about how Apple would have released the OS then, but had problems in its software development, and that like MS earlier, Apple was delaying the release. They will raise the question of whether Apple will delay it further, and whether it means that Apple has bitten off more than it can chew, etc.
This is already being said, but with all of the publicity of the dev conf, it will rise to much higher levels.
I know that you are being an optimist, and I am as well. But a boss I had many years ago, when I was still a kid said that we should "Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.". It's an old saying, but true.
Apple will receive a lot of bad publicity over this, esp if the iPhone as well has problems, and esp if the date for 10.5 is pushed back further.
We don't know if that will happen, but I am saying IF.
I'm already seeing articles that say: "Apple has always been on time with its OS X releases. This is the first major delay. Does this spell problems at Apple's software unit? We will see."
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.
Yes.
Quote:
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.
Mel, nobody is arguing the competence of individual engineers are Microsoft. This is not a question of whether everything promised for Longhorn can be done. It can. Just not in a timely fashion ?*and that's exactly where management had its blunders.
First, to turn Longhorn into a Blackcomb-/Cairo-esque monster release.
Second, the decision to incorporate vaporware like WinFS.
Third, reorganizations in the middle of the release cycle.
And, finally, throwing stuff like WinFS away again.
It was the managers who should have said "let's get this thing out and worry about the fancy advanced stuff the next time". They didn't, until it was too late.
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.
I think it's interesting that moving some people from Leopard work to the iPhone, which is also quite near to release, should cause at least a 4 month delay. That delay seems to be out of line with the apparently late movement of resources to the phone project. If everything were going well, a delay of a month or so would be more in line, particularly as those people will be MOVED BACK before the iPhone is released in June.
From what we've been seeing of the developer's releases, there are major problems. I don't believe that these problems are not being fixed because of that personnel movement. Slowed down a bit, yes, but by over 4 months?
And now that Job's statement that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007 was found, as a number of us remembered him saying, that means that leopard is being late by at least 9 months, if we say that early 2007 would have been January, when Vista made its consumer appearance.
This really does put things into a different light, wouldn't you say?
If we go by the "late 2006" date Jobs gave, we can even say that it's being delayed almost a year?assuming this October date holds.
This is getting into Vista territory, is it not?
It also makes Apple's story about a delay because of developer movement less likely, though, surely, that has made the situation even worse.
Don't think that news sources won't pick up on this, particularly the PC friendly press. Then Jobs will be asked to explain it.
The problem with this is what was released ended up not so much being Blackcomb but closer to the original Longhorn. No WinFS, etc.
That was because MS attempted to do what Apple attempted with Copeland.
MS failed like Apple failed.
MS dropped the original Longhorn (Blackcomb) code, because they simply couldn't get it to be sufficiently backwards compatible, among other problems. They then adopted Server 2003 as their codebase, and moved on from there. The problem was that that codebase was never designed to use the features that Longhorn was being written to integrate. Even though they tried, they simply couldn't do it. It took another 2 1/2 plus years to get it out the door with as much of the feature set as they could shoehorn into it.
Let's not forget, at least for those of us around long enough to remember Apple's search for a new OS, how many people desperately wanted Apple to buy the BE OS. One reason why it wasn't bought, so we were told at the time, was that it would take too long for Apple to get it ready.
When they bought NEXT, we were assured that the OS was almost ready. But it took several years, and a major rewrite, before it really was, and Apple dropped several major features along the way, such as the Yellow Box support. The first release, most admit, was not much better than a late beta.
At least MS had another one of their own OS's to fall back on.
Imagine what would have happened to them if they DIDN'T!
That's a tiny bug list. Even when released, an operating system typically has thousands of bugs. I don't see a big issue that couldn't be fixed within weeks.
That was because MS attempted to do what Apple attempted with Copeland.
MS failed like Apple failed.
Correct.
Quote:
Let's not forget, at least for those of us around long enough to remember Apple's search for a new OS, how many people desperately wanted Apple to buy the BE OS. One reason why it wasn't bought, so we were told at the time, was that it would take too long for Apple to get it ready.
When they bought NEXT, we were assured that the OS was almost ready. But it took several years, and a major rewrite, before it really was, and Apple dropped several major features along the way, such as the Yellow Box support. The first release, most admit, was not much better than a late beta.
The difference between NeXTstep and BeOS is, quite simply, that BeOS is a bunch of nice ideas cobbled together into a system that actually accomplishes little at all, and not just because of lacking third-party software. Wheras NeXTstep was a proven platform with equally proven underpinnings (much from Mach, UNIX, GNU and BSD). BeOS's POSIX support? Appalling. NeXT's? Supreme.
Yes, it took many years and a number of architectural changes (such as adding Carbon), but Apple did get there. With BeOS, much more would have been missing.
Mel, nobody is arguing the competence of individual engineers are Microsoft. This is not a question of whether everything promised for Longhorn can be done. It can. Just not in a timely fashion ?*and that's exactly where management had its blunders.
First, to turn Longhorn into a Blackcomb-/Cairo-esque monster release.
Second, the decision to incorporate vaporware like WinFS.
Third, reorganizations in the middle of the release cycle.
And, finally, throwing stuff like WinFS away again.
It was the managers who should have said "let's get this thing out and worry about the fancy advanced stuff the next time". They didn't, until it was too late.
I agree with all of that..
The managers were rather high up, though.
Moving from Allchin who was charge of the project, to Ballmer and Gates, who surely knew, in great detail, exactly where things stood at each step of the way.
The fault lies with those three.
What's the situation here at Apple now? Have project managers said, in meetings, that there were problems, but Jobs insisted that all the features be included? I would love to know. What happened to Quartz in 10.4? We were promised that feature, but, it still hasn't arrived. Too Vista-like for me. I hope the same thing won't happen here.
Perhaps that's the real reason why we never heard about all of the secret features.
The difference between NeXTstep and BeOS is, quite simply, that BeOS is a bunch of nice ideas cobbled together into a system that actually accomplishes little at all, and not just because of lacking third-party software. Wheras NeXTstep was a proven platform with equally proven underpinnings (much from Mach, UNIX, GNU and BSD). BeOS's POSIX support? Appalling. NeXT's? Supreme.
Yes, it took many years and a number of architectural changes (such as adding Carbon), but Apple did get there. With BeOS, much more would have been missing.
It's hard to say, really. BE OS had far better multimedia support. It was a realtime OS, and had (still has) much better metadata support, much better multi processor support, etc.
As far as the software goes, that's dicey. Every Mac developer had to rewrite all of their software anyway, many left the platform because of it. NEXT was a dying platform when Apple bought it. That was pretty clear. The $400 million Apple paid was roundly criticized as being far more than the company was worth.
We don't know what would have happened if BE was chosen.
That's a tiny bug list. Even when released, an operating system typically has thousands of bugs. I don't see a big issue that couldn't be fixed within weeks.
Attempting to fix one issue can--and will--cause a rippling effect of other issues throughout the entire system. The issues that were reported on AI aren't the only issues in 9A410, they are just the major ones causing severe instability. Hell, I can find 20 issues in 10.4.9.
I think the October release date is a little later than Apple expects. I am expecting Apple to "pleasantly surprise" use wih an August-September release date.
You've been reading the same articles, and release notes, that I've been reading. We've all commented upon them.
We've even agreed about the progress. What's changed?
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
You think that a delay fron "late 2006, early 2007" to October doesn't indicate problems?
What happened to Quartz in 10.4? We were promised that feature, but, it still hasn't arrived.
[He's referring to Quartz 2D Extreme, now renamed Quartz GL.]
I can only assume that:
1) they overestimated their ability to ship it in 10.4.0 on time.
2) they tried to add it in a point release.
3) they eventually agreed that, even without the feature, people were sufficiently satisfied with the release, so it wasn't a high priority to add it. It was therefore moved to 10.5.
I'm not happy with that decision, but I can certainly live with it. There are no pressing performance issues with Quartz drawing in regular us. It only makes a difference in select performance-critical applications.
Quote:
Perhaps that's the real reason why we never heard about all of the secret features.
I suppose it contributed to it, yes. Apple would obviously much rather surprise and overwhelm people than preannounce, fail to deliver, and underwhelm. With Q2DE/QGL, they unfortunately did the latter, but with most features where they weren't sure whether they could ship them on time, they instead opted to keep quiet on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
Any modern OS will do for the average Joe, once you patch it up a little. Apple will bring out Leopard because Leopard will make the platform more attractive under the hood, thus attracting more software developers. Apple can not sit still, they are in a good position now, and MS isn't likely to catch up soon short of a miracle, but if they want added revenue they have to be substantially better than the competition to be able to tell prospective clients the cost of switching is worth it.
Luckily for Apple, the costs of switching are going down with the move towards platform-independent apps and virtualisation.
There is only one main reason why we'll see Leopard though. It'll make the company lots of money. And making money is the fundamental reason why companies exist, generally speaking.
I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
New OSes come out when the previous OS is the most stable. There is no reason to get Leopard unless there you want/need the features that come with it. For me, a stable Leopard release can't come son enough as there are aspect to it that I seriously need.
[He's referring to Quartz 2D Extreme, now renamed Quartz GL.]
I can only assume that:
1) they overestimated their ability to ship it in 10.4.0 on time.
2) they tried to add it in a point release.
3) they eventually agreed that, even without the feature, people were sufficiently satisfied with the release, so it wasn't a high priority to add it. It was therefore moved to 10.5.
I'm not happy with that decision, but I can certainly live with it. There are no pressing performance issues with Quartz drawing in regular us. It only makes a difference in select performance-critical applications.
I suppose it contributed to it, yes. Apple would obviously much rather surprise and overwhelm people than preannounce, fail to deliver, and underwhelm. With Q2DE/QGL, they unfortunately did the latter, but with most features where they weren't sure whether they could ship them on time, they instead opted to keep quiet on them.
What I'm concerned about it that Apple may be having the same problem with 10.5, and its new features, that they had with quartz in 10.4.
Many people here were SO sure that it would arrive in a point release, and an early one. It's now been two years. Sure, perhaps they decided it could wait. But, Jobs talked it up in his speech. He thought it was major enough for that, and I agree. It would have been a major upgrade to drawing and compositing. I wonder if it is now one of the secret new features of Leopard.
I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
I meant to reply to this part as well.
Do you consider an on-time release to be a rush?
If Tiger had major problems of its own, then it, too, should have been delayed. There is simply NO excuse to release an OS, or any other program for that matter, if it has major issues. Even numerous minor issues should hold it back.
If Tiger did have major issues, and thankfully, it didn't, then IT should have been fixed, quickly, and the developer teams moved to it without consideration of the release of the next version, which, at that time, had no definite release date anyway.
Comments
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.
The problem with this is what was released ended up not so much being Blackcomb but closer to the original Longhorn. No WinFS, etc.
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.
I say it because I'll bet that Apple will advertise this version of the OS as they never have before. I believe that the dev conf was set to kick off a major campaign that now will be much more muted.
This is the best shot Apple has had in a very long to kick MS's butt, and pick up substantial marketshare. Apple won't want to call attention to its delay, but you know that when the conf rolls around, there will be plenty of articles in the mainstream press about how Apple would have released the OS then, but had problems in its software development, and that like MS earlier, Apple was delaying the release. They will raise the question of whether Apple will delay it further, and whether it means that Apple has bitten off more than it can chew, etc.
This is already being said, but with all of the publicity of the dev conf, it will rise to much higher levels.
I know that you are being an optimist, and I am as well. But a boss I had many years ago, when I was still a kid said that we should "Hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.". It's an old saying, but true.
Apple will receive a lot of bad publicity over this, esp if the iPhone as well has problems, and esp if the date for 10.5 is pushed back further.
We don't know if that will happen, but I am saying IF.
I'm already seeing articles that say: "Apple has always been on time with its OS X releases. This is the first major delay. Does this spell problems at Apple's software unit? We will see."
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.
Yes.
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.
Mel, nobody is arguing the competence of individual engineers are Microsoft. This is not a question of whether everything promised for Longhorn can be done. It can. Just not in a timely fashion ?*and that's exactly where management had its blunders.
First, to turn Longhorn into a Blackcomb-/Cairo-esque monster release.
Second, the decision to incorporate vaporware like WinFS.
Third, reorganizations in the middle of the release cycle.
And, finally, throwing stuff like WinFS away again.
It was the managers who should have said "let's get this thing out and worry about the fancy advanced stuff the next time". They didn't, until it was too late.
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.
I think it's interesting that moving some people from Leopard work to the iPhone, which is also quite near to release, should cause at least a 4 month delay. That delay seems to be out of line with the apparently late movement of resources to the phone project. If everything were going well, a delay of a month or so would be more in line, particularly as those people will be MOVED BACK before the iPhone is released in June.
From what we've been seeing of the developer's releases, there are major problems. I don't believe that these problems are not being fixed because of that personnel movement. Slowed down a bit, yes, but by over 4 months?
And now that Job's statement that Leopard was due in late 2006, early 2007 was found, as a number of us remembered him saying, that means that leopard is being late by at least 9 months, if we say that early 2007 would have been January, when Vista made its consumer appearance.
This really does put things into a different light, wouldn't you say?
If we go by the "late 2006" date Jobs gave, we can even say that it's being delayed almost a year?assuming this October date holds.
This is getting into Vista territory, is it not?
It also makes Apple's story about a delay because of developer movement less likely, though, surely, that has made the situation even worse.
Don't think that news sources won't pick up on this, particularly the PC friendly press. Then Jobs will be asked to explain it.
From what we've been seeing of the developer's releases, there are major problems.
Can you point one out?
Can you point one out?
Take your pick: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._bug_list.html
The problem with this is what was released ended up not so much being Blackcomb but closer to the original Longhorn. No WinFS, etc.
That was because MS attempted to do what Apple attempted with Copeland.
MS failed like Apple failed.
MS dropped the original Longhorn (Blackcomb) code, because they simply couldn't get it to be sufficiently backwards compatible, among other problems. They then adopted Server 2003 as their codebase, and moved on from there. The problem was that that codebase was never designed to use the features that Longhorn was being written to integrate. Even though they tried, they simply couldn't do it. It took another 2 1/2 plus years to get it out the door with as much of the feature set as they could shoehorn into it.
Let's not forget, at least for those of us around long enough to remember Apple's search for a new OS, how many people desperately wanted Apple to buy the BE OS. One reason why it wasn't bought, so we were told at the time, was that it would take too long for Apple to get it ready.
When they bought NEXT, we were assured that the OS was almost ready. But it took several years, and a major rewrite, before it really was, and Apple dropped several major features along the way, such as the Yellow Box support. The first release, most admit, was not much better than a late beta.
At least MS had another one of their own OS's to fall back on.
Imagine what would have happened to them if they DIDN'T!
Take your pick: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._bug_list.html
That's a tiny bug list. Even when released, an operating system typically has thousands of bugs. I don't see a big issue that couldn't be fixed within weeks.
That was because MS attempted to do what Apple attempted with Copeland.
MS failed like Apple failed.
Correct.
Let's not forget, at least for those of us around long enough to remember Apple's search for a new OS, how many people desperately wanted Apple to buy the BE OS. One reason why it wasn't bought, so we were told at the time, was that it would take too long for Apple to get it ready.
When they bought NEXT, we were assured that the OS was almost ready. But it took several years, and a major rewrite, before it really was, and Apple dropped several major features along the way, such as the Yellow Box support. The first release, most admit, was not much better than a late beta.
The difference between NeXTstep and BeOS is, quite simply, that BeOS is a bunch of nice ideas cobbled together into a system that actually accomplishes little at all, and not just because of lacking third-party software. Wheras NeXTstep was a proven platform with equally proven underpinnings (much from Mach, UNIX, GNU and BSD). BeOS's POSIX support? Appalling. NeXT's? Supreme.
Yes, it took many years and a number of architectural changes (such as adding Carbon), but Apple did get there. With BeOS, much more would have been missing.
Yes.
Mel, nobody is arguing the competence of individual engineers are Microsoft. This is not a question of whether everything promised for Longhorn can be done. It can. Just not in a timely fashion ?*and that's exactly where management had its blunders.
First, to turn Longhorn into a Blackcomb-/Cairo-esque monster release.
Second, the decision to incorporate vaporware like WinFS.
Third, reorganizations in the middle of the release cycle.
And, finally, throwing stuff like WinFS away again.
It was the managers who should have said "let's get this thing out and worry about the fancy advanced stuff the next time". They didn't, until it was too late.
I agree with all of that..
The managers were rather high up, though.
Moving from Allchin who was charge of the project, to Ballmer and Gates, who surely knew, in great detail, exactly where things stood at each step of the way.
The fault lies with those three.
What's the situation here at Apple now? Have project managers said, in meetings, that there were problems, but Jobs insisted that all the features be included? I would love to know. What happened to Quartz in 10.4? We were promised that feature, but, it still hasn't arrived. Too Vista-like for me. I hope the same thing won't happen here.
Perhaps that's the real reason why we never heard about all of the secret features.
Can you point one out?
You've been reading the same articles, and release notes, that I've been reading. We've all commented upon them.
We've even agreed about the progress. What's changed?
Correct.
The difference between NeXTstep and BeOS is, quite simply, that BeOS is a bunch of nice ideas cobbled together into a system that actually accomplishes little at all, and not just because of lacking third-party software. Wheras NeXTstep was a proven platform with equally proven underpinnings (much from Mach, UNIX, GNU and BSD). BeOS's POSIX support? Appalling. NeXT's? Supreme.
Yes, it took many years and a number of architectural changes (such as adding Carbon), but Apple did get there. With BeOS, much more would have been missing.
It's hard to say, really. BE OS had far better multimedia support. It was a realtime OS, and had (still has) much better metadata support, much better multi processor support, etc.
As far as the software goes, that's dicey. Every Mac developer had to rewrite all of their software anyway, many left the platform because of it. NEXT was a dying platform when Apple bought it. That was pretty clear. The $400 million Apple paid was roundly criticized as being far more than the company was worth.
We don't know what would have happened if BE was chosen.
That's a tiny bug list. Even when released, an operating system typically has thousands of bugs. I don't see a big issue that couldn't be fixed within weeks.
Attempting to fix one issue can--and will--cause a rippling effect of other issues throughout the entire system. The issues that were reported on AI aren't the only issues in 9A410, they are just the major ones causing severe instability. Hell, I can find 20 issues in 10.4.9.
I think the October release date is a little later than Apple expects. I am expecting Apple to "pleasantly surprise" use wih an August-September release date.
You've been reading the same articles, and release notes, that I've been reading. We've all commented upon them.
We've even agreed about the progress. What's changed?
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
You think that a delay fron "late 2006, early 2007" to October doesn't indicate problems?
What happened to Quartz in 10.4? We were promised that feature, but, it still hasn't arrived.
[He's referring to Quartz 2D Extreme, now renamed Quartz GL.]
I can only assume that:
1) they overestimated their ability to ship it in 10.4.0 on time.
2) they tried to add it in a point release.
3) they eventually agreed that, even without the feature, people were sufficiently satisfied with the release, so it wasn't a high priority to add it. It was therefore moved to 10.5.
I'm not happy with that decision, but I can certainly live with it. There are no pressing performance issues with Quartz drawing in regular us. It only makes a difference in select performance-critical applications.
Perhaps that's the real reason why we never heard about all of the secret features.
I suppose it contributed to it, yes. Apple would obviously much rather surprise and overwhelm people than preannounce, fail to deliver, and underwhelm. With Q2DE/QGL, they unfortunately did the latter, but with most features where they weren't sure whether they could ship them on time, they instead opted to keep quiet on them.
I simply don't agree with your assertion that Leopard has major problems, unless you refine what you mean by that. Further, I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
Any modern OS will do for the average Joe, once you patch it up a little. Apple will bring out Leopard because Leopard will make the platform more attractive under the hood, thus attracting more software developers. Apple can not sit still, they are in a good position now, and MS isn't likely to catch up soon short of a miracle, but if they want added revenue they have to be substantially better than the competition to be able to tell prospective clients the cost of switching is worth it.
Luckily for Apple, the costs of switching are going down with the move towards platform-independent apps and virtualisation.
There is only one main reason why we'll see Leopard though. It'll make the company lots of money. And making money is the fundamental reason why companies exist, generally speaking.
I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
New OSes come out when the previous OS is the most stable. There is no reason to get Leopard unless there you want/need the features that come with it. For me, a stable Leopard release can't come son enough as there are aspect to it that I seriously need.
[He's referring to Quartz 2D Extreme, now renamed Quartz GL.]
I can only assume that:
1) they overestimated their ability to ship it in 10.4.0 on time.
2) they tried to add it in a point release.
3) they eventually agreed that, even without the feature, people were sufficiently satisfied with the release, so it wasn't a high priority to add it. It was therefore moved to 10.5.
I'm not happy with that decision, but I can certainly live with it. There are no pressing performance issues with Quartz drawing in regular us. It only makes a difference in select performance-critical applications.
I suppose it contributed to it, yes. Apple would obviously much rather surprise and overwhelm people than preannounce, fail to deliver, and underwhelm. With Q2DE/QGL, they unfortunately did the latter, but with most features where they weren't sure whether they could ship them on time, they instead opted to keep quiet on them.
What I'm concerned about it that Apple may be having the same problem with 10.5, and its new features, that they had with quartz in 10.4.
Many people here were SO sure that it would arrive in a point release, and an early one. It's now been two years. Sure, perhaps they decided it could wait. But, Jobs talked it up in his speech. He thought it was major enough for that, and I agree. It would have been a major upgrade to drawing and compositing. I wonder if it is now one of the secret new features of Leopard.
I also don't feel that Tiger has any alarming issues that should make Apple rush out a new OS.
I meant to reply to this part as well.
Do you consider an on-time release to be a rush?
If Tiger had major problems of its own, then it, too, should have been delayed. There is simply NO excuse to release an OS, or any other program for that matter, if it has major issues. Even numerous minor issues should hold it back.
If Tiger did have major issues, and thankfully, it didn't, then IT should have been fixed, quickly, and the developer teams moved to it without consideration of the release of the next version, which, at that time, had no definite release date anyway.