Mac OS X 10.6 to show at Apple developer event, drop PowerPC
While everyone focuses on the iPhone next update, a new rumor posits that Apple will already have a new version of Mac OS X available for testing in early form at WWDC, with its actual launch appearing as early as next year's Macworld event.
Information purportedly handed to TUAW would have Apple seeding a rough version of Mac OS X 10.6 to developers attending the conference, with a release to manufacturing in December and a January shipping timeframe.
Similar to Mac OS X 10.1, however, the release would more closely resemble a maintenance release than a complete overhaul. The primary change would be a complete transition to an Intel-only, 64-bit platform that drops PowerPC support, pushing developers to code only for the x86 architecture at the heart of all Macs released from 2006 onwards.
AppleInsider first received word that the Mac maker would shed PowerPC support as early as September, just a month before the release of Leopard.
Expectedly, Apple has refrained from discussing any of its post-Leopard plans to date. The company has nonetheless dropped early signs that it may be preparing for the new release, with reports of a small 10.6 reference surfacing in the latest build of the iPhone's software development kit.
Apple has also alluded to next week's WWDC as a landmark event in "more ways than one," with bridge imagery suggesting two bridges to cross at the San Francisco gathering.
Information purportedly handed to TUAW would have Apple seeding a rough version of Mac OS X 10.6 to developers attending the conference, with a release to manufacturing in December and a January shipping timeframe.
Similar to Mac OS X 10.1, however, the release would more closely resemble a maintenance release than a complete overhaul. The primary change would be a complete transition to an Intel-only, 64-bit platform that drops PowerPC support, pushing developers to code only for the x86 architecture at the heart of all Macs released from 2006 onwards.
AppleInsider first received word that the Mac maker would shed PowerPC support as early as September, just a month before the release of Leopard.
Expectedly, Apple has refrained from discussing any of its post-Leopard plans to date. The company has nonetheless dropped early signs that it may be preparing for the new release, with reports of a small 10.6 reference surfacing in the latest build of the iPhone's software development kit.
Apple has also alluded to next week's WWDC as a landmark event in "more ways than one," with bridge imagery suggesting two bridges to cross at the San Francisco gathering.
Comments
If 10.6 is introduced next week I would expect that bells and whistles to be shown to entice the audience. I don't see how Apple?who best attribute is arguably their marketing?would try to sell a new OS that had no new features to lure us.
Maybe keep ppc g5 64 bit systems.
also 10.5 came out on October 26, 2007 and now apple wants to put out 10.6 in late 2008 / start of 2009?
makeing it last only about 1 year will apple lower the cost of going from 10.5 to 10.6?
Also, i'd suspect that Apple will include some touch features and possibly voice as the platform is now ready and has the power, which could be why non-Intel machines won't be included.
This will get to the punch before M$ also. Apple has been doing touch in a big way, in the real world so they should be ready. Manufacturers will be ready as they are already developing for the iPhone/Touch. This would make sense announcing this along side of iPhone 2.0. It would be cool not to have to reach for the mouse each time, but think of the finger prints
I do hope voice is included as this would enable us to work out of reach of our systems, but i imagine that touch in more important to the creative side, so that will be first and foremost.
It's too soon to drop ppc and way too soon to drop 32bit x86 macs.
Maybe keep ppc g5 64 bit systems.
also 10.5 came out on October 26, 2007 and now apple wants to put out 10.6 in late 2008 / start of 2009?
makeing it last only about 1 year will apple lower the cost of going from 10.5 to 10.6?
I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.
10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.
I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.
10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.
I don't think 10.6 has to be huge and quite honestly January 09 seems a bit early. I think most people would be happy with summer 09.
There's not many Core technologies to move to. We have
Core Audio
Core Image
Core Video
Core Animation
Core Text
I guess we add Touch and continue to polish up the innards and give me my damned ZFS!
Hopefully we'll see 64-bit apps like Safari standard from Apple before 10.6 comes out. Those of us with 64-bit Intel systems are losing out on significant performance because most/all Apple apps and even the bundled Darwin command line utilities are still 32-bit.
64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.
I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.
10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.
Sure he is.
It will be delayed by the launch of the iToilet and not be released until 2011.
the binary code means that developers have to develop for both platforms meaning larger programs, and longer development time between releases. if adobe only had to develop for the intel platform, the product should be able to be released faster and the final product should have less code bloat since it's only written for the intel processor which would in turn mean better performance.
Those cheeky bastards at Apple are getting lazy. First they want to move developers off of carbon and now they want to slash PPC out of the mix.
Well I guess in the end it's ok for us folks that see more Mac purchases on the horizon.
Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?
Right now Apple has to test for four different system types. 32-bit PPC, 64-bit PPC, 32-bitIntel and 64-bit Intel. While the universal binaries have worked out well and the transition was amazingly smooth but dropping the 32-bit and PPC they can focus their OS R&D more speifically and potentially have faster gains with less cost.
That said, we need to look at this from Apple's POV. We need to know what percentage of Macs will be 64-bit Intel-based machines as of the release on 10.6. We would also do well to eliminate any Macs that aren't currently using Leopard as those running Tiger or earlier versions are unlikely to upgrade anyway.
Perhaps we also need to look at this from an IP perspective. Would moving to 64-bit only limit the number of Hacked Macs out there as many are setup using unused 32-bit HW? (It is that way in my case) Could this be the new OS for ONLY for new HW that has an authentication chip on the MoBo, hence the rumour of it just being stability and security? (Just throwing that out there)
the binary code means that developers have to develop for both platforms meaning larger programs, and longer development time between releases. if adobe only had to develop for the intel platform, the product should be able to be released faster and the final product should have less code bloat since it's only written for the intel processor which would in turn mean better performance.
Of course, the flaw in that argument is assuming that Adobe would drop support for PPC just because Apple does. I doubt that would be the case. Apple's motivation is to get you to buy new hardware to get the new OS. Adobe's motivation is to get you to upgrade your Photoshop, and that will include a lot of PPC users for some time to come. So by Apple dropping PPC support, it could actually make Adobe's job more difficult by having to support two mutually exclusive Mac operating systems.
And just how much simpler would their OS development be, really? According to Apple, if you use xcode, you just have to check a single box in the compiler to make a universal binary. Aren't all of Apple's apps in xcode? So it should be tivial to support both. Or are you telling me that sometimes Steve exagerates how easy things are with Apple?
Finally, is there really a performance hit with universal binaries? It's not as if your computer has to skip over every other line of code to execute only the Intel bits or only the PPC bits. It would take up less space on your hard drive, but isn't that about it?
We would also do well to eliminate any Macs that aren't currently using Leopard as those running Tiger or earlier versions are unlikely to upgrade anyway.
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
But if the baby is microscopic should Apple care? The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. I say let them keep running their legacy apps but do so with an OS suited for their legacy app.
I'd also like to see Apple reduce the amount of testing they have to do. For users who are staying current we stand to see faster delivery, better performance and stability and more features implemented.
It's time to get most development on Cocoa and push 64-bit and threading. PPC is dead weight.
I think that's actually an argument against making it Intel only! Look at the users clinging to their OS 9 machines because they need to run a certain application. It's a small number these days. However, I think the number of people who would be forced to stick with their aging PPC Macs would be HUGE because of the same motivation. A lot of those Tiger users out there are probably not upgrading to to Leopard because Apple dropped Classic support. If they next drop PPC support this early, those people will never upgrade their hardware! And Apple makes far more money selling hardware than software.
So while you are dismissing those users as potential OS upgrade customers, that logic also excludes a lot of them as potential hardware upgrade customers. "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind...
You have a point, but it's my point too. If the number of Intel users by x date in 2009 will be high enough then Apple may give a big FU to those stuck on older systems for some archaic app. If the number isn't high enough then Apple will support it as it's a financial lose, as you say, if they didn't.
I guess the question is whether it is Apple's financial favour to drop PPC and 32-bit support or not.