I know it's early (although maybe only by a year or so if you believe Steve's latest comments) to be thinking about the next release, but what do you think we'll see in 10.6? i say:
-fully multi-touch friendly interface
-ZFS
that's just to get the discussion started. IDEAS!???!!
Comments
Also, read/write ZFS will be available as a download for leopard I believe.
I know it's early (although maybe only by a year or so if you believe Steve's latest comments) to be thinking about the next release, but what do you think we'll see in 10.6? i say:
-fully multi-touch friendly interface
-ZFS
that's just to get the discussion started. IDEAS!???!!
-Resolution Independence (if this doesn't come as point upgrade in 2008)
-Boot Camp Fast User Switching (which I believe was on the Boot Camp website for a minute and then pulled down.)
-Probably more support for HD.
-Core Animation 3-D? After Time Machine in Leopard, it seems clear to me that Apple will at least look down the road to more 3-D interfaces, thought it isn't at all clear that they are better for any/all tasks.
-I think there will be some sort of dashboard-on-steroids environment for Rich Internet Applications, especially in conjuction with google. Now, those could possibly just run in the finder, or in Dashboard and it may be confusing to have a third environment to run programs in, but I think RIAs are an increasingly important part of the Apple-Google Alliance.
-One thought about ZFS. I don't pretend to know much about the technical details of ZFS, but it seems to me that what the technology promises is the end of volumes and the idea that there is just "data". That data could be spread around your HDs, or in a cloud server or on your iPhone. I also imagine that it will have multiply redundant backups adminsitered through Time Machine 2.0. All, in all, I think it is a remarkably powerful new metaphor for thinking about data, and will be a cornerstone in the idea of "your mac, anywhere."
They stopped referring to Leopard as "Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard" and started referring to it as "Mac OS X Leopard." But I think the naming scheme is still clunky and inelegant. This is the 2000's. I wonder why we still refer to this product in the geeky language of an "operating system." Even Microsoft doesn't call it "Windows OS 6 Vista." (Granted they have some clunky names with all their editions, but the basic branding is strong). Everyone knows that PCs run Windows. Macs run Mac?
A new naming scheme?
They stopped referring to Leopard as "Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard" and started referring to it as "Mac OS X Leopard." But I think the naming scheme is still clunky and inelegant. This is the 2000's. I wonder why we still refer to this product in the geeky language of an "operating system." Even Microsoft doesn't call it "Windows OS 6 Vista." (Granted they have some clunky names with all their editions, but the basic branding is strong). Everyone knows that PCs run Windows. Macs run Mac?
What are you talking about? The Mac OS X brand is extremely strong. Apple's frequent incremental updates are constant with the naming scheme. Apple has always used the cat "nickname" as a popular name because it is more marketable, easier to remember, less nerdy, etc. I think the major point is that Mac OS X IS the operating system and the cat names just describe each incremental update.
What are you talking about? The Mac OS X brand is extremely strong. Apple's frequent incremental updates are constant with the naming scheme. Apple has always used the cat "nickname" as a popular name because it is more marketable, easier to remember, less nerdy, etc. I think the major point is that Mac OS X IS the operating system and the cat names just describe each incremental update.
No, the Mac OS X brand is practically unrecognizable.
We're talking about a company with the best branding chops in the world. We have the Mac (the computer), the iPod, and the iPhone- three extremely recognizable brands. On the other hand, while people *might* be aware that there is a "Mac Operating System" they certainly don't know that it's "Mac OS X" or "Mac OS X Leopard" for that matter. Apple should do something to simplify and reinvent the naming scheme.
1. Voice Recognition API- Apple's almost there with a nice suite of technologies for Assitive needs. Now we need VR. The core should be powerful, MP aware and extensive through plugins in for specialized vocabularies.
2. Beginning of the replacement for GCC. Apple's partnership with LLVM to develop a new front end for LLMV called Clang should result in faster and smaller code and more features.
3. Metadata continues to improve. With Leopard Apple addressed some of the portability issues with Metadata. 10.6 should improve this so that files copied or transferred across a variety of networks keep their encapsulated metadata intact.
4. More filestystem support- Apple was recently awarded a patent for touchless filesystem conversion provided it works it should make it transparent to deal with the variety of filesystems out as well as bridge between today's filesystem and tomorrow's.
5. Telephony API- I want to see VOIP and Digital PBX become a core function of OS X. I want Apple to make a swift move towards a Unified Messaging platform where my IM/Voice/Data/Email/Voicemail are all deftly handled and ubiquitious across Smartphone/Laptop/Desktop hardware paradigms using RFID and other technologies.
My hope:
1. Voice Recognition API- Apple's almost there with a nice suite of technologies for Assitive needs. Now we need VR. The core should be powerful, MP aware and extensive through plugins in for specialized vocabularies.
2. Beginning of the replacement for GCC. Apple's partnership with LLVM to develop a new front end for LLMV called Clang should result in faster and smaller code and more features.
3. Metadata continues to improve. With Leopard Apple addressed some of the portability issues with Metadata. 10.6 should improve this so that files copied or transferred across a variety of networks keep their encapsulated metadata intact.
4. More filestystem support- Apple was recently awarded a patent for touchless filesystem conversion provided it works it should make it transparent to deal with the variety of filesystems out as well as bridge between today's filesystem and tomorrow's.
5. Telephony API- I want to see VOIP and Digital PBX become a core function of OS X. I want Apple to make a swift move towards a Unified Messaging platform where my IM/Voice/Data/Email/Voicemail are all deftly handled and ubiquitious across Smartphone/Laptop/Desktop hardware paradigms using RFID and other technologies.
That would be pretty friggin sweet!
My hope:
1. Voice Recognition API- Apple's almost there with a nice suite of technologies for Assitive needs. Now we need VR. The core should be powerful, MP aware and extensive through plugins in for specialized vocabularies.
2. Beginning of the replacement for GCC. Apple's partnership with LLVM to develop a new front end for LLMV called Clang should result in faster and smaller code and more features.
3. Metadata continues to improve. With Leopard Apple addressed some of the portability issues with Metadata. 10.6 should improve this so that files copied or transferred across a variety of networks keep their encapsulated metadata intact.
4. More filestystem support- Apple was recently awarded a patent for touchless filesystem conversion provided it works it should make it transparent to deal with the variety of filesystems out as well as bridge between today's filesystem and tomorrow's.
5. Telephony API- I want to see VOIP and Digital PBX become a core function of OS X. I want Apple to make a swift move towards a Unified Messaging platform where my IM/Voice/Data/Email/Voicemail are all deftly handled and ubiquitious across Smartphone/Laptop/Desktop hardware paradigms using RFID and other technologies.
LLVM doesn't replace GCC. It complements it.
-Resolution Independence (if this doesn't come as point upgrade in 2008)
-Boot Camp Fast User Switching (which I believe was on the Boot Camp website for a minute and then pulled down.)
-Probably more support for HD.
-Core Animation 3-D? After Time Machine in Leopard, it seems clear to me that Apple will at least look down the road to more 3-D interfaces, thought it isn't at all clear that they are better for any/all tasks.
-I think there will be some sort of dashboard-on-steroids environment for Rich Internet Applications, especially in conjuction with google. Now, those could possibly just run in the finder, or in Dashboard and it may be confusing to have a third environment to run programs in, but I think RIAs are an increasingly important part of the Apple-Google Alliance.
-One thought about ZFS. I don't pretend to know much about the technical details of ZFS, but it seems to me that what the technology promises is the end of volumes and the idea that there is just "data". That data could be spread around your HDs, or in a cloud server or on your iPhone. I also imagine that it will have multiply redundant backups adminsitered through Time Machine 2.0. All, in all, I think it is a remarkably powerful new metaphor for thinking about data, and will be a cornerstone in the idea of "your mac, anywhere."
I thought resolution independence was included in Leopard?
LLVM doesn't replace GCC. It complements it.
That's where I'm noticably confused. It appears that GCC can function as a front end for LLVM right yet GCC doesn't offer some advanced features that many would like. It appears that Apple is trying to replace GCC slowly with a Clang/LLVM setup. I'd assume if this is true that it would happen in a long phase a la Carbon --> Cocoa.
Yet LLVM sounds like a future competitor to GCC particularly when they are hyping Clang as the C/C++/OBJ C front end for LLVM compiler
http://clang.llvm.org/
Somewhere my wires are getting crossed.
That's where I'm noticably confused. It appears that GCC can function as a front end for LLVM right yet GCC doesn't offer some advanced features that many would like. It appears that Apple is trying to replace GCC slowly with a Clang/LLVM setup. I'd assume if this is true that it would happen in a long phase a la Carbon --> Cocoa.
Yet LLVM sounds like a future competitor to GCC particularly when they are hyping Clang as the C/C++/OBJ C front end for LLVM compiler
http://clang.llvm.org/
Somewhere my wires are getting crossed.
The GNU Compiler Collection (emphasis on Collection) won't go away.
CLANG is a new frontend for C/Objc/C++ where it parses the language code before it hits LLVM.
GCC is not just a set of language front ends for specific compilers.
From
Some of the goals for the project include the following:
* Real-world, production quality compiler.
* A single unified parser for C/ObjC/C++
* Language conformance with C, ObjC, C++ (including variants, like C90, C99, etc)
* GCC compatibility (supports GCC extensions, but allow them to be disabled)
* Library based architecture with finely crafted C++ APIs
* High performance
* Design for integration with IDEs as well as code generation with LLVM.
* Expressive diagnostics
* BSD License
Of course this is only a rough outline of the goals and features of Clang. To get a true sense of what the new LLVM front-end is all about, as well as why you might want to considering using it, see the Features section.
Here is the key reason why CLANG is being leveraged by Apple:
The goal of the Clang project is to create a new BSD Licensed C, C++, & ObjC front-end for the LLVM compiler.
GCC 4.3 is under the GPLv3 license.
Apple isn't going to put in the time to replace GCC but to leverage it where it makes sense (i.e., GCC extensions) and ignore it where it conflicts both with license issues and when they need Apple specific performance optimizations not present in GCC.
There are a lot of Politics in the GCC community.
The dev list rants from 2005/2006 were quite viral between Apple Devs and GCC (RedHat) devs.
GCC gives Mac users and for that matter all developers:
The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).
Apple doesn't have any specific development in Fortran and currently doesn't develop with GCJ (Java) but uses Sun's JVM. Java is up in the air with all the changes of OpenJVM.
Apple has wanted to add improvements to GCC that benefit them but with the approach of egalitarianism that GCC utilizes they take forever to test and add in such features if the rest of the community can't see a benefit from them.
What I want from XCode 3.x and 4.x is that we get an Agnostic Language Frontend where we can use CLang/LLVM for specific areas of development, GCC for others, Intel C/C++/Fortran for others, etc.
If Apple does this they will really make a platform for porting from all industries.
...If Apple does this they will really make a platform for porting from all industries.
MUCH appreciated mdriftmeyer. Sounds like Clang will be another tool in the chest to use when it's appropriate. I've read that Apple's putting LLVM to good use with their OpenGL implementation.
MUCH appreciated mdriftmeyer. Sounds like Clang will be another tool in the chest to use when it's appropriate. I've read that Apple's putting LLVM to good use with their OpenGL implementation.
I personally just want the right tool for the job and to be able to develop on OS X, Linux and not Windows.