But technology moves so quickly, you have to wonder if Mac OS X will be able to keep up. Who knows what is going to happen in the next 10? Mac OS X is really good at handling online (the whole Web 2.0 shizzle) though. And how many big cats are left? Surely not enough to make it to Mac OS X 10.10?
Nah...hardware is generally never held back by software...it's the other way around in 99% of the cases.
Nah...hardware is generally never held back by software...it's the other way around in 99% of the cases.
Software development is a long ways behind hardware development as many apps still only support one core when machines now have up to 8, and soon to be more. When programmers learn to take advantage of multiple cores (which they soon all will if they want to continue to be efficient programmers), Hardware may start to be held back as once people learn 2 cores, how hard would 4, 8, or 16 be?
Software development is a long ways behind hardware development as many apps still only support one core when machines now have up to 8, and soon to be more. When programmers learn to take advantage of multiple cores (which they soon all will if they want to continue to be efficient programmers), Hardware may start to be held back as once people learn 2 cores, how hard would 4, 8, or 16 be?
Also, it will be called Ocelot
Not at all...many apps make full use of all processors available...and even moreso with the new NSOperations and CoreAnimation.
As I said, there's no limit with software...you'll always find people pushing hardware to its very limits (games mostly)...we'll always be bound by the physical hardware.
You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of people optimizing their software to eek out every little bit of performance out of hardware. You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of game developers that had to cut features out because the hardware couldn't handle it at the point in time or because it would restrict their market to people with the highest-end hardware.
Since Apple did not hesitate to license the cartoon "Mighty Mouse" name for their terrible computer mouse, I predict the next Mac OS will simply be called... Garfield®.
Not at all...many apps make full use of all processors available...and even moreso with the new NSOperations and CoreAnimation.
As I said, there's no limit with software...you'll always find people pushing hardware to its very limits (games mostly)...we'll always be bound by the physical hardware.
You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of people optimizing their software to eek out every little bit of performance out of hardware. You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of game developers that had to cut features out because the hardware couldn't handle it at the point in time or because it would restrict their market to people with the highest-end hardware.
I guess in my OP I should have said: 'some' at the beginning. I realize that the better developers can optimize almost anything they get thrown. Some of the more small-time ones that haven't updated their software majorly in a while are still behind (a lot of free apps, which I tend to use). It would have helped if I had taken the time read *and* understand what you said originally.(laxity=) I was also for some reason confusing the place of hw and sw in your argument which led to falsities and confusion. My bad.
But at the end, you come close to contradicting yourself. At this point, I think very very little software could be held back with the octo-core mac-pros with maxed ram, graphics, etc. You say it would restrict their market which has little to do with the hardware's capabilities, but more-so with it's practicality for most people and them making $$.
Ok, so basically I screwed up my OP and this was somewhat supposed to fix it, but basically I messed up so disregard the first paragraph of my previous post. The Ocelot comment is still valid.
As I have said all along Leopard is an evolution of Tiger not a revolution. There are many things that Apple has to consider when developing a next generation OS..first it has to be compatable with all Macs (Power PC/Intel) plus a wealth of third party programs. I believe that at some point in time Apple is going to release two types of new OS..one for Intel Mac's and one for Power PC Mac's.
They will never release separate OS's for Intel and PowerPC. Right now would be the time for that if they were going to do it and it would make no sense to do so and certainly not cost effective. They have phased out the PowerPC chips and hardware. The next generation OS will focus on Intel chipsets and probably not support PowerPC's at all. This OS is probably 3 years down the road.
Look ... there are so many new developments the current Mac OS X wouldn't support. Holographic displays, new ways of connectivity. Scientists even want to be able to connect computers to human brains by the end of this decade!
Look ... there are so many new developments the current Mac OS X wouldn't support. Holographic displays, new ways of connectivity. Scientists even want to be able to connect computers to human brains by the end of this decade!
Dude, you watch/read too much science fiction. Sure, one day all that will be possible, but I think you really overestimate the speed of technological change people are willing to accept.
Bear in mind that Apple only makes a substantial update to Mac OS X every two or three years at the current rate. They can keep going a number of years at this rate - in fact, since Mac OS X is making it into all of the iPods, the AppleTV, and the iPhone, I'd say the era of Mac OS X is less than halfway over. Apple's been going through many transitions lately - Mac OS X, Intel, and now Mac OS X on all of their portable devices - and expect the next big update to involve the interoperability between all of these things.
Since Apple did not hesitate to license the cartoon "Mighty Mouse" name for their terrible computer mouse, I predict the next Mac OS will simply be called... Garfield®.
more like Sylvester.
the next gen mouse will be referred to as a bunny.
Dude, you watch/read too much science fiction. Sure, one day all that will be possible, but I think you really overestimate the speed of technological change people are willing to accept.
A couple of decades ago, Arthur Clark, scientist and sci-fi author, wrote a book called "Profiles of the Future".
He described what he thought would be in use in, I believe, 2020. He covered areas like Medicine, electronics, transportation, etc. Even using his expertise, he erred on the low side, in most or all those areas. They have already come to pass in the immediate past. Maybe it was a failure of imagination or possibly seeing just a mathematical progression. In any case, he missed the exponential rise of those areas - which have already come to fruition. When scientists build new science upon current science, the change rises drastically. I hesitate to say what will be in 5 or 10 years. We all may have a failure of imagination. For those of you who are older than dirt, look back a few decades. Did you (outside of Sci-Fi) dream of, for example, the evolvement of the computer from Eniac to the Mac Pro? A $5.00 hand held calculator probably has more computing power than that monstrous Eniac.
... We all may have a failure of imagination. For those of you who are older than dirt, look back a few decades. Did you (outside of Sci-Fi) dream of, for example, the evolvement of the computer from Eniac to the Mac Pro? ...
But you can't take science fiction out of the equation. It is one of the avenues by which we express our dreams. Within the last few months, the Sci-Fi Channel has presented programs which chronicled how science fiction such as Star Trek has actually driven real science.
This is not the issue that dutch pear was cautioning iZune G5 about. There are certain common elements in science fiction that are extremely useful in TV shows and movies but work very poorly in the Real World. Speech recognition is an example. Even if the technology is perfect, it is still fraught with problems in the workplace. Handwriting recognition is another. Even if perfect, handwriting recognition cannot be faster than handwriting, which is much slower than even slow typing. Both technologies have been on the Mac since System 7.
Also, iZune G5 did not seem to recognize that he was talking only about new I/O. Soon after its release in October, MacOS X 10.5 will become the most widely deployed official port of Unix on Earth. The original Unix communicated over serial lines with electromechanical TeleType terminals and paper tape readers. Is there any doubt that Unix can support holographic displays and neural connections when they become available?
But you can't take science fiction out of the equation. It is one of the avenues by which we express our dreams. Within the last few months, the Sci-Fi Channel has presented programs which chronicled how science fiction such as Star Trek has actually driven real science.
Wow. does this mean i'll be able to set Leopard on 'stun' or 'kill'? and the iPhone kinda does look like a tricorder... surf the net, make calls and chemically analyze perfect strangers.
I feel exactly the same. I was just staring at the small drop shadows in Tiger today and thinking how much I was going to miss them in Leopard. Tiger is bad enough when you have two images open in the same program and are trying to compare them side by side but with leopard it's just ridiculous. All I can hope for is that there is a file somewhere you can edit the drop shadow size like you can edit the Dock color. I hunted everywhere and couldn't find one - I fear it may be a hardcoded OpenGL effect like a black plane that is just blurred.
I second that.. I wish Apple would let the user decide if they want all the eye candy.. When I work on a Win machin I always change the appearence back to the classic look, I cant stand the glossy look of XP or Vista, transparency and all that..I would rather a super snappy OS then all the glitz... however I do like Expose', quite handy.
This phrase is on 7:50. So according to Steve Jobs, Mac OS X should be discontinued by 2010.
Elsewhere, Jobs said that MacOS X will be the basis of the Apple's operating system for the next two decades. MacOS X is the basis of the first generation iPhone and MacTV and, if rumors are correct, the next generation iPod. In 2000, Apple was satisfied for Darwin to be a fully POSIX-compliant, but uncertified port of Unix. With MacOS X 10.5, Apple is going to the trouble and expense of having its OS officially certified as Unix. The company is positioning MacOS X for the long haul rather than preparing it for its replacement. There is every reason to expect MacOS X to be around for a very long time--certainly well beyond 2010.
NO. If Apple did this, Microsoft would just brag about Windows 7. WinFS, BIOS successor, new Kernel, it certainly would be a revolution. Unless Apple also released a revolution at about the same time. A big surprise nobody ever counted on three years earlier. Just like the transition Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X.
NO. If Apple did this, Microsoft would just brag about Windows 7. WinFS, BIOS successor, new Kernel, it certainly would be a revolution. Unless Apple also released a revolution at about the same time. A big surprise nobody ever counted on three years earlier. Just like the transition Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X.
the transition to OsX from 9 was a noticable biggy. but it must be noted that Mac Os, before X, was really falling behind Windows in terms of features and support by developers. Os 9 was slim pickings while W/2000 was looking pretty good. 2000 made use of multi processor platforms, was used in servers, and every program available could be used on it. it supported all the text messengers that are used by 99% of the worlds computer users and had superior video and webcam support. 2000 was industrial grade, favored by the worlds teenage girls and every hardcore gamer. Mac Os wasn't. now, finally, after 7 years Mac Os is heading for industrial levels, supports a better consumer friendly hardware platform, and hopefully will get more support from 3rd party messengers. though iChat is amazing (and with no ads!) it's only usable Mac to Mac.
and Bootcamp. that's more about selling to Windows users than Mac users. Apple is a hardware company that has it's own Os as a unique product package. since the iPod Apple has been selling it's products as hardware, independent of Os, as a branding to consumers. iTunes is bi-platform as is the iPhone. now so is the iMac and Apple laptops and towers. it's not about the promotion of Mac Os anymore, Apple doesn't need to do it now to compete in a Windows dominated world, all they've done is allow their hardware to support Windows for Windows users. Apple products are Os independent, which gives them a unique advantage in the marketing of PCs. as consumers begin to view Apple as hardware, instead of software, Apple has opened up a whole new market. the iPod would NEVER have been as big a hit had it not been for the fact it's available to Windows users. Apple provides the coolest laptops, the most popular AIO set up (just needs bezel speakers) and the slickest built, best valued dual processor desktop/workstation available (really! compare the prices, it's amazing, equivalent PCs are more expensive now)
so now Apple can grow WITHIN the Windows world, and grow OUTSIDE Windows by providing the best alternative to Windows, Mac Os X.
Comments
But technology moves so quickly, you have to wonder if Mac OS X will be able to keep up. Who knows what is going to happen in the next 10? Mac OS X is really good at handling online (the whole Web 2.0 shizzle) though. And how many big cats are left? Surely not enough to make it to Mac OS X 10.10?
Nah...hardware is generally never held back by software...it's the other way around in 99% of the cases.
Nah...hardware is generally never held back by software...it's the other way around in 99% of the cases.
Software development is a long ways behind hardware development as many apps still only support one core when machines now have up to 8, and soon to be more. When programmers learn to take advantage of multiple cores (which they soon all will if they want to continue to be efficient programmers), Hardware may start to be held back as once people learn 2 cores, how hard would 4, 8, or 16 be?
Also, it will be called Ocelot
Software development is a long ways behind hardware development as many apps still only support one core when machines now have up to 8, and soon to be more. When programmers learn to take advantage of multiple cores (which they soon all will if they want to continue to be efficient programmers), Hardware may start to be held back as once people learn 2 cores, how hard would 4, 8, or 16 be?
Also, it will be called Ocelot
Not at all...many apps make full use of all processors available...and even moreso with the new NSOperations and CoreAnimation.
As I said, there's no limit with software...you'll always find people pushing hardware to its very limits (games mostly)...we'll always be bound by the physical hardware.
You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of people optimizing their software to eek out every little bit of performance out of hardware. You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of game developers that had to cut features out because the hardware couldn't handle it at the point in time or because it would restrict their market to people with the highest-end hardware.
Not at all...many apps make full use of all processors available...and even moreso with the new NSOperations and CoreAnimation.
As I said, there's no limit with software...you'll always find people pushing hardware to its very limits (games mostly)...we'll always be bound by the physical hardware.
You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of people optimizing their software to eek out every little bit of performance out of hardware. You'll find thousands upon thousands of stories of game developers that had to cut features out because the hardware couldn't handle it at the point in time or because it would restrict their market to people with the highest-end hardware.
I guess in my OP I should have said: 'some' at the beginning. I realize that the better developers can optimize almost anything they get thrown. Some of the more small-time ones that haven't updated their software majorly in a while are still behind (a lot of free apps, which I tend to use). It would have helped if I had taken the time read *and* understand what you said originally.(laxity=
But at the end, you come close to contradicting yourself. At this point, I think very very little software could be held back with the octo-core mac-pros with maxed ram, graphics, etc. You say it would restrict their market which has little to do with the hardware's capabilities, but more-so with it's practicality for most people and them making $$.
Ok, so basically I screwed up my OP and this was somewhat supposed to fix it, but basically I messed up so disregard the first paragraph of my previous post. The Ocelot comment is still valid.
As I have said all along Leopard is an evolution of Tiger not a revolution. There are many things that Apple has to consider when developing a next generation OS..first it has to be compatable with all Macs (Power PC/Intel) plus a wealth of third party programs. I believe that at some point in time Apple is going to release two types of new OS..one for Intel Mac's and one for Power PC Mac's.
They will never release separate OS's for Intel and PowerPC. Right now would be the time for that if they were going to do it and it would make no sense to do so and certainly not cost effective. They have phased out the PowerPC chips and hardware. The next generation OS will focus on Intel chipsets and probably not support PowerPC's at all. This OS is probably 3 years down the road.
IMO of course.
Look ... there are so many new developments the current Mac OS X wouldn't support. Holographic displays, new ways of connectivity. Scientists even want to be able to connect computers to human brains by the end of this decade!
Dude, you watch/read too much science fiction. Sure, one day all that will be possible, but I think you really overestimate the speed of technological change people are willing to accept.
Since Apple did not hesitate to license the cartoon "Mighty Mouse" name for their terrible computer mouse, I predict the next Mac OS will simply be called... Garfield®.
more like Sylvester.
the next gen mouse will be referred to as a bunny.
Dude, you watch/read too much science fiction. Sure, one day all that will be possible, but I think you really overestimate the speed of technological change people are willing to accept.
A couple of decades ago, Arthur Clark, scientist and sci-fi author, wrote a book called "Profiles of the Future".
He described what he thought would be in use in, I believe, 2020. He covered areas like Medicine, electronics, transportation, etc. Even using his expertise, he erred on the low side, in most or all those areas. They have already come to pass in the immediate past. Maybe it was a failure of imagination or possibly seeing just a mathematical progression. In any case, he missed the exponential rise of those areas - which have already come to fruition. When scientists build new science upon current science, the change rises drastically. I hesitate to say what will be in 5 or 10 years. We all may have a failure of imagination. For those of you who are older than dirt, look back a few decades. Did you (outside of Sci-Fi) dream of, for example, the evolvement of the computer from Eniac to the Mac Pro? A $5.00 hand held calculator probably has more computing power than that monstrous Eniac.
This is what the next os after leopard will be called: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t439_zzEloY
^^^ everyone watch
... We all may have a failure of imagination. For those of you who are older than dirt, look back a few decades. Did you (outside of Sci-Fi) dream of, for example, the evolvement of the computer from Eniac to the Mac Pro? ...
But you can't take science fiction out of the equation. It is one of the avenues by which we express our dreams. Within the last few months, the Sci-Fi Channel has presented programs which chronicled how science fiction such as Star Trek has actually driven real science.
This is not the issue that dutch pear was cautioning iZune G5 about. There are certain common elements in science fiction that are extremely useful in TV shows and movies but work very poorly in the Real World. Speech recognition is an example. Even if the technology is perfect, it is still fraught with problems in the workplace. Handwriting recognition is another. Even if perfect, handwriting recognition cannot be faster than handwriting, which is much slower than even slow typing. Both technologies have been on the Mac since System 7.
Also, iZune G5 did not seem to recognize that he was talking only about new I/O. Soon after its release in October, MacOS X 10.5 will become the most widely deployed official port of Unix on Earth. The original Unix communicated over serial lines with electromechanical TeleType terminals and paper tape readers. Is there any doubt that Unix can support holographic displays and neural connections when they become available?
But you can't take science fiction out of the equation. It is one of the avenues by which we express our dreams. Within the last few months, the Sci-Fi Channel has presented programs which chronicled how science fiction such as Star Trek has actually driven real science.
Wow. does this mean i'll be able to set Leopard on 'stun' or 'kill'? and the iPhone kinda does look like a tricorder... surf the net, make calls and chemically analyze perfect strangers.
I feel exactly the same. I was just staring at the small drop shadows in Tiger today and thinking how much I was going to miss them in Leopard. Tiger is bad enough when you have two images open in the same program and are trying to compare them side by side but with leopard it's just ridiculous. All I can hope for is that there is a file somewhere you can edit the drop shadow size like you can edit the Dock color. I hunted everywhere and couldn't find one - I fear it may be a hardcoded OpenGL effect like a black plane that is just blurred.
I second that.. I wish Apple would let the user decide if they want all the eye candy.. When I work on a Win machin I always change the appearence back to the classic look, I cant stand the glossy look of XP or Vista, transparency and all that..I would rather a super snappy OS then all the glitz... however I do like Expose', quite handy.
--Steve Jobs, January 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GkoAa5718Y
This phrase is on 7:50. So according to Steve Jobs, Mac OS X should be discontinued by 2010.
...
This phrase is on 7:50. So according to Steve Jobs, Mac OS X should be discontinued by 2010.
Elsewhere, Jobs said that MacOS X will be the basis of the Apple's operating system for the next two decades. MacOS X is the basis of the first generation iPhone and MacTV and, if rumors are correct, the next generation iPod. In 2000, Apple was satisfied for Darwin to be a fully POSIX-compliant, but uncertified port of Unix. With MacOS X 10.5, Apple is going to the trouble and expense of having its OS officially certified as Unix. The company is positioning MacOS X for the long haul rather than preparing it for its replacement. There is every reason to expect MacOS X to be around for a very long time--certainly well beyond 2010.
NO. If Apple did this, Microsoft would just brag about Windows 7. WinFS, BIOS successor, new Kernel, it certainly would be a revolution. Unless Apple also released a revolution at about the same time. A big surprise nobody ever counted on three years earlier. Just like the transition Mac OS 9 -> Mac OS X.
the transition to OsX from 9 was a noticable biggy. but it must be noted that Mac Os, before X, was really falling behind Windows in terms of features and support by developers. Os 9 was slim pickings while W/2000 was looking pretty good. 2000 made use of multi processor platforms, was used in servers, and every program available could be used on it. it supported all the text messengers that are used by 99% of the worlds computer users and had superior video and webcam support. 2000 was industrial grade, favored by the worlds teenage girls and every hardcore gamer. Mac Os wasn't. now, finally, after 7 years Mac Os is heading for industrial levels, supports a better consumer friendly hardware platform, and hopefully will get more support from 3rd party messengers. though iChat is amazing (and with no ads!) it's only usable Mac to Mac.
and Bootcamp. that's more about selling to Windows users than Mac users. Apple is a hardware company that has it's own Os as a unique product package. since the iPod Apple has been selling it's products as hardware, independent of Os, as a branding to consumers. iTunes is bi-platform as is the iPhone. now so is the iMac and Apple laptops and towers. it's not about the promotion of Mac Os anymore, Apple doesn't need to do it now to compete in a Windows dominated world, all they've done is allow their hardware to support Windows for Windows users. Apple products are Os independent, which gives them a unique advantage in the marketing of PCs. as consumers begin to view Apple as hardware, instead of software, Apple has opened up a whole new market. the iPod would NEVER have been as big a hit had it not been for the fact it's available to Windows users. Apple provides the coolest laptops, the most popular AIO set up (just needs bezel speakers) and the slickest built, best valued dual processor desktop/workstation available (really! compare the prices, it's amazing, equivalent PCs are more expensive now)
so now Apple can grow WITHIN the Windows world, and grow OUTSIDE Windows by providing the best alternative to Windows, Mac Os X.
SJ must be shaking at the possibilties.