Im guessing Jonathon Ive's team has been working on a completely new Tower design for some time.
The last incarnations look rushed and 'last minute' designs. Im confident the new Towers will be very forward by todays standards.
Um..., do I have the right thread?
But really, if its true that there will be no 7457RM - it could mean that Moto can see that IBM's 850 is around the corner and does not need to continue G4+ 32bit desktop class processors, allowing them to concentrate on their core markets.
They [Apple] NEED a 970 NOW, but they have to find a way to keep a second supplier in the que just in case and right now the best bet, despite their past remains Moto. Rather than ALL IBM all the time, it's probably wise to intermediately bring the lineup to a reversal of it's current state. IBM based pro machines ad Moto based consumer machines.
Like 970 in PowerMacs and PowerBooks; G4 in eMacs, iMacs and iBooks. This will work for a while, enough for Apple to see if iMacs and eMacs with old G4s are being sold well. In 2004 IBM will have the 0.09 process and Apple can switch all their products to 970/980. Only time can tell what will be available later.
Remember Moki's references to x86? Maybe Apple truly does like options. Interesting times for Apple.
That is one of the few areas where Moki was absolutely wrong. I don't know WHO he met around his watercooler at that but it was someone uninformed, speculating around rumors that were floating in some of Apple's software dev teams at that time, based on the implementation of new procedures to ensure that the x86 codebase was up-to-date with the main one...
Like 970 in PowerMacs and PowerBooks; G4 in eMacs, iMacs and iBooks. This will work for a while, enough for Apple to see if iMacs and eMacs with old G4s are being sold well. In 2004 IBM will have the 0.09 process and Apple can switch all their products to 970/980. Only time can tell what will be available later.
Precisely. But the 980s will arrive very late in 2004 (subject to change, of course) and will be reserved for the new top tier product category. Distributed computing, etc... thin clients...
It's not just a good idea for the short term. IBM could pack up it's business and go home right away in a second if they decide PPC isn't going to penetrate the way they wanted.
IS windows ever going to run on 64 bit PPC? Hard to believe. And if not, then it's never a question of Intel vs IBM competing with each other. If M$ supports x86-64 that will be the closest AMD ever comes to competing with Intel. IBM won't compete unless they run windows, they can't so they don't, not with a PPC.
But, what percentage of consumer/pro CPU market is worth it, in a sense, to keep a chip maker interested and motivated?
10% ?
People forget that for much of the G4's life, it was limited exclusively to the pro towers, less than half a percent of all desktop CPU's. Not worth it by anyone's standards.
But, Apple has 2.7% of the worldwide market. If IBM had ALL those 2.7% and the pro machines were ALL DUALs, then they could sell 6X the 970's than moto sold G4's for most of their early life. Put another way, provided .09u 970's arrive in 2004, rather than some 500 000 G4's moto sold in to Apple 99, IBM could sell 4-5 million 970's to Apple by late 2004.
Is that enough to keep them interested? That is the ONLY upside to a single supplier scenario, though the danger of stagnation then looms larger than ever.
I think that IBM would have to sell at least as many PPC970 class chips in their own machines in order to bring sales up to a point where there remains a strong incentive to develop for the desktop. Remember the G4 has a very big market, but it isn't a very big desktop market and development to that direction has fallen apart.
Can IBM find a market for another 5-6 million desktop chips per year? If not, look out, you will see a similar drop off in interest from IBM in 3-5 years.
It's not just a good idea for the short term. IBM could pack up it's business and go home right away in a second if they decide PPC isn't going to penetrate the way they wanted.
IS windows ever going to run on 64 bit PPC? Hard to believe. And if not, then it's never a question of Intel vs IBM competing with each other. If M$ supports x86-64 that will be the closest AMD ever comes to competing with Intel. IBM won't compete unless they run windows, they can't so they don't, not with a PPC.
But, what percentage of consumer/pro CPU market is worth it, in a sense, to keep a chip maker interested and motivated?
10% ?
People forget that for much of the G4's life, it was limited exclusively to the pro towers, less than half a percent of all desktop CPU's. Not worth it by anyone's standards.
But, Apple has 2.7% of the worldwide market. If IBM had ALL those 2.7% and the pro machines were ALL DUALs, then they could sell 6X the 970's than moto sold G4's for most of their early life. Put another way, provided .09u 970's arrive in 2004, rather than some 500 000 G4's moto sold in to Apple 99, IBM could sell 4-5 million 970's to Apple by late 2004.
Is that enough to keep them interested? That is the ONLY upside to a single supplier scenario, though the danger of stagnation then looms larger than ever.
I think that IBM would have to sell at least as many PPC970 class chips in their own machines in order to bring sales up to a point where there remains a strong incentive to develop for the desktop. Remember the G4 has a very big market, but it isn't a very big desktop market and development to that direction has fallen apart.
Can IBM find a market for another 5-6 million desktop chips per year? If not, look out, you will see a similar drop off in interest from IBM in 3-5 years.
Who knows what chips will be around next year, let alone 3-5 years from now. Multi-processor configurations will most likely fill the channel. So why even speculate about the downfall of IBM/Apple relationship.
IBM is in it for the money. If they can build/manufacture chips for profit they will be there. Their new philosophy is the manufacturing of chips and assisting in the design of new chips (for money).
But who knows maybe IBM will start making toasters and TV's instead.
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
You'll see IBM 970 64bit w/ "Altivec Velocity Engine Extreme"
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.
There is also OS X 10.3 being ported to the 64bit offerings to be forthcoming from AMD. I cannot confirm it this version of OS X will ever be released.
Some Details of OS X 10.3 (some of you probably guessed these)
64bit OS, including rewritten finder to take advantage! Jokes have been made about "finder extreme".
Multiple concurrent GUI logins (similar to XP but with solid unix)
OSXFS - New filesystem, based off of BeOS Filesytem. Very cool features built right into the finder! 10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore. You can use "simple/regular" finder mode to bypass these. The ability to assign files categories like ID3 tags. Ever finder window can be searched realtime similar to the itunes search thanks to OSXFS. You can find all files that were assigned "category" business in 1 second flat.
New Print Services and much better dialog windows
New Navigation services! Three different ways to drill down files, you can even click a button to "spot" the folder. This means your cursor changes and you can move through the finder to locate the folder then hit enter key to finish saving. You can also assign the file categories at this time or the application can by default. files created by apple sound track editor can automatically be assigned "audio", so could files from an updated pro tools.
Bundles (some of you call them piles) work sort of like this, you could select 20 files and say "these are all the files for my project" monitor them. when you go to move 1 file it will automatically copy the rest with it. You can also condense them to look like a folder. Think files on different hard drives, different networks all as one project "folder" all updating and all copying when you move them. Very cool.
New themes and sound effects, lots of interfaces changes, and customizations you can make for yourself
New dock, so many new features, split mode, text mode, "start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.
new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)
new ichat, built in video conferencing (works with netmeeting!), voice chat, secure chat, better sortable and group lists, jabber support, plug in module support (for other IM services) and many cool new features and several mac only ones
new mail.app uses webcore for parsing html/mime email now, much faster and better, offers exchange server support, and many other new features, including a new "view" that looks exactly like outlook 2003 preview for windows. (you can still use old ones) mail is much faster.
built in ftp, sftp, scp into the finder connect to server menu.
much improved sharing controls for sharing with windows and unix enviroments, lots of complex options.
new built in remote access software, much better and faster than stupid remote access from apple. It reminded me of terminal server for windows. very fast.
new itunes (this will be out sooner i think) speed updates and built in support for music service?? new wireless and options to "share" your files with friends only on certian files.
new iphoto (very very very very very very very very fast)
new appleworks (new name, don't know if it ships with it, looked very nice!)
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies.
When someone starts a post with something like this I always agree with the statement.
What I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. But an inside source have told me that this post will generate at least 250 more posts, 2500 more views and honorable mention on at least one US and one french mac rumour board .
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
Not sure what this is doing in a hardware thread, and if you're right, somebody's gonna get fired. But what the heck...
Quote:
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The first IBM PCs also had a proprietary, patented component to protect the platform: The BIOS. Whoops.
Quote:
64bit OS, including rewritten finder to take advantage! Jokes have been made about "finder extreme".
Quote:
OSXFS - New filesystem, based off of BeOS Filesytem. Very cool features built right into the finder! 10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore. You can use "simple/regular" finder mode to bypass these. The ability to assign files categories like ID3 tags. Ever finder window can be searched realtime similar to the itunes search thanks to OSXFS. You can find all files that were assigned "category" business in 1 second flat.
Oh, yay. HTML formatted Finder windows.
Quote:
Bundles (some of you call them piles) work sort of like this, you could select 20 files and say "these are all the files for my project" monitor them. when you go to move 1 file it will automatically copy the rest with it. You can also condense them to look like a folder. Think files on different hard drives, different networks all as one project "folder" all updating and all copying when you move them. Very cool.
"Bundles" is already taken for folders-as-files in OS X. Unless Apple is planning on either confusing the heck out of people or expanding the definition. It would actually be kind of cool to have all the application files in a "bundle" without their all being in the same folder. Hmm.
Quote:
New dock, so many new features, split mode, text mode, "start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.
The Dock has always been better than the broken-by-design Start Menu, but hey, if it makes switchers happy...
Quote:
new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)
"Anything that moves?"
Quote:
new mail.app uses webcore for parsing html/mime email now, much faster and better, offers exchange server support, and many other new features, including a new "view" that looks exactly like outlook 2003 preview for windows.
Blech.
Quote:
much improved sharing controls for sharing with windows and unix enviroments, lots of complex options.
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
Well actually while nothing you've said is substantiated, nothing you've said would surprise me either. Its all a fairly reasonable pile for what we'll see in 10.3, including the x86 support. Intel has always hated being tied to MS so of course they would like to have Apple support their architecture(s). AMD wants any 64-bit OS on the planet to run on their x86-64 architecture so they would probably be happy about that too. This kind of thing would require very little investment on the part of either Intel or AMD, and it gives Apple options. The hard part is figuring out Apple's business model in this situation but given Steve's position on clones and the strong leadership team currently at Apple my guess is that they have a much better handle on it than a bunch of guys sitting in some forum at AppleInsider. If it makes sense, they'll do it. If it doesn't, they won't. Supporting both Intel, AMD and IBM certainly gives Apple a bit more security in the processor department, doesn't it?
The rest of the listed features of 10.3 are also reasonable although I reserve judgement on how useful they are to me personally until I see them. Apple has a better track record on this than MS, however, so some features that I find useless or undesirable in WindowsXP might turn out much for the better on MacOS X. I have no doubt that some of the stuff in 10.3 will be enough for me to upgrade to it.
And as for Matsu's comments about IBM not competing without having Windows to run on their processors... keep in mind that IBM's main focus for the 970 is not the desktop. They are mainly interested in the 970 for low-end servers and massively parallel machines, all running Unix or Linux.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies.
My thoughts - I believe that Apple has Mac OS X running on x86 processors. There is a risk associated with PPC processors, and history shows that some have come true - i.e., Motorolla having limited success on G4 improvements, and the G5 being deep sixed. Having IBM as a sole supplier would be a risk. The Motorolla fiasco and the "IBM sole supplier" risk had/has the potential of of putting Apple out of business. Just imagine how great Apple's position could have been if Motorolla had come through with faster G4 improvements and released the G5 a year ago? Also imagine how bad Apple's position next year would be if Apple hadn't worked with IBM to produce the PPC970. Not a pretty sight.
So there is truth behind x86 rumors, and that's why these ideas keep surfacing. But my belief is the x86 would be a final, last resort to stay in business. If the Mac's distinctiveness is taken away, then Apple will fold. That distinctiveness is both hardware and software. Can anyone say OS/2?
Intel has always hated being tied to MS so of course they would like to have Apple support their architecture(s). AMD wants any 64-bit OS on the planet to run on their x86-64 architecture so they would probably be happy about that too. This kind of thing would require very little investment on the part of either Intel or AMD, and it gives Apple options. The hard part is figuring out Apple's business model in this situation but given Steve's position on clones and the strong leadership team currently at Apple my guess is that they have a much better handle on it than a bunch of guys sitting in some forum at AppleInsider.
Well, the simple fact is that we don't know Steve's position on clones. We know his position on Amelio's program in no uncertain terms, but that's hardly surprising, since that program was killing the company.
CoreComputers is still going, and the guy claims to still be in ongoing talks with Apple. The difference here is that he isn't building machines that undercut Apple's most profitable lines. If Core starts shipping machines in quantity, and Apple doesn't budge, we have an important clue. Even though he's not shipping x86 boxes.
Quote:
And as for Matsu's comments about IBM not competing without having Windows to run on their processors... keep in mind that IBM's main focus for the 970 is not the desktop. They are mainly interested in the 970 for low-end servers and massively parallel machines, all running Unix or Linux.
Also, unlike with Motorola, IBM Semiconductor's biggest customer has historically been IBM. I don't think IBM would be churning out the 970 unless they saw a satisfactory market for the CPU within IBM. Apple sales are certainly important, perhaps even crucial, but IBM has a much better fallback position than Mot does if Apple disappoints for whatever reason.
Quote:
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
I can definitely see something like this happening. IBM and Apple have very little to do with each other. Perhaps IBM could even pull back farther from the desktop market, since their PC division has done nothing but bleed money, and offer Apple desktops as part of their small business and enterprise packages. They are not averse to selling and supporting other companies' products when it suits them to.
What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
Not so crazy. Apple is at a point where they want and need to penetrate the enterprise server room, and if people are a bit put off having Apple hardware and support to contend with, having IBM there is probably a bit easier for an IT manager to swallow. Easier to get xServes or IBM whatevers, running Mac OS X Server, and therefore easier to penentrate into the corporate desktop arena. Hmmmm....
****...an ibm branded apple (or apple branded as ibm) would possible freak me out, but it could sell oddles of computers at best buy or sears (areas apple tried before)...but i am most likely mis-reading people smarter than i....
****...an ibm branded apple (or apple branded as ibm) would possible freak me out, but it could sell oddles of computers at best buy or sears (areas apple tried before)...but i am most likely mis-reading people smarter than i....
g
IBM isn't going back into retail, or the consumer market. They got slaughtered there last time. And I do mean slaughtered.
If they do start offering OS X machines, they'll leave those markets to Apple.
Not so crazy. Apple is at a point where they want and need to penetrate the enterprise server room, and if people are a bit put off having Apple hardware and support to contend with, having IBM there is probably a bit easier for an IT manager to swallow. Easier to get xServes or IBM whatevers, running Mac OS X Server, and therefore easier to penentrate into the corporate desktop arena. Hmmmm....
I'm not so humble that I won't point out that I've been saying this for over a year now.
Comments
Originally posted by Leonis
I still can't stand the way those towers look
:shrug: All a matter of taste, I suppose.
The last incarnations look rushed and 'last minute' designs. Im confident the new Towers will be very forward by todays standards.
Um..., do I have the right thread?
But really, if its true that there will be no 7457RM - it could mean that Moto can see that IBM's 850 is around the corner and does not need to continue G4+ 32bit desktop class processors, allowing them to concentrate on their core markets.
IMO - this looks like good news.
Originally posted by Matsu
They [Apple] NEED a 970 NOW, but they have to find a way to keep a second supplier in the que just in case and right now the best bet, despite their past remains Moto. Rather than ALL IBM all the time, it's probably wise to intermediately bring the lineup to a reversal of it's current state. IBM based pro machines ad Moto based consumer machines.
Like 970 in PowerMacs and PowerBooks; G4 in eMacs, iMacs and iBooks. This will work for a while, enough for Apple to see if iMacs and eMacs with old G4s are being sold well. In 2004 IBM will have the 0.09 process and Apple can switch all their products to 970/980. Only time can tell what will be available later.
Originally posted by rickag
Remember Moki's references to x86? Maybe Apple truly does like options. Interesting times for Apple.
That is one of the few areas where Moki was absolutely wrong. I don't know WHO he met around his watercooler at that but it was someone uninformed, speculating around rumors that were floating in some of Apple's software dev teams at that time, based on the implementation of new procedures to ensure that the x86 codebase was up-to-date with the main one...
engpjp
Originally posted by costique
Like 970 in PowerMacs and PowerBooks; G4 in eMacs, iMacs and iBooks. This will work for a while, enough for Apple to see if iMacs and eMacs with old G4s are being sold well. In 2004 IBM will have the 0.09 process and Apple can switch all their products to 970/980. Only time can tell what will be available later.
Precisely. But the 980s will arrive very late in 2004 (subject to change, of course) and will be reserved for the new top tier product category. Distributed computing, etc... thin clients...
engpjp
IS windows ever going to run on 64 bit PPC? Hard to believe. And if not, then it's never a question of Intel vs IBM competing with each other. If M$ supports x86-64 that will be the closest AMD ever comes to competing with Intel. IBM won't compete unless they run windows, they can't so they don't, not with a PPC.
But, what percentage of consumer/pro CPU market is worth it, in a sense, to keep a chip maker interested and motivated?
10% ?
People forget that for much of the G4's life, it was limited exclusively to the pro towers, less than half a percent of all desktop CPU's. Not worth it by anyone's standards.
But, Apple has 2.7% of the worldwide market. If IBM had ALL those 2.7% and the pro machines were ALL DUALs, then they could sell 6X the 970's than moto sold G4's for most of their early life. Put another way, provided .09u 970's arrive in 2004, rather than some 500 000 G4's moto sold in to Apple 99, IBM could sell 4-5 million 970's to Apple by late 2004.
Is that enough to keep them interested? That is the ONLY upside to a single supplier scenario, though the danger of stagnation then looms larger than ever.
I think that IBM would have to sell at least as many PPC970 class chips in their own machines in order to bring sales up to a point where there remains a strong incentive to develop for the desktop. Remember the G4 has a very big market, but it isn't a very big desktop market and development to that direction has fallen apart.
Can IBM find a market for another 5-6 million desktop chips per year? If not, look out, you will see a similar drop off in interest from IBM in 3-5 years.
Originally posted by Nonsuch
"Apple would never design something that ugly!"
Still get a chuckle out of that.
Me too
Originally posted by Matsu
It's not just a good idea for the short term. IBM could pack up it's business and go home right away in a second if they decide PPC isn't going to penetrate the way they wanted.
IS windows ever going to run on 64 bit PPC? Hard to believe. And if not, then it's never a question of Intel vs IBM competing with each other. If M$ supports x86-64 that will be the closest AMD ever comes to competing with Intel. IBM won't compete unless they run windows, they can't so they don't, not with a PPC.
But, what percentage of consumer/pro CPU market is worth it, in a sense, to keep a chip maker interested and motivated?
10% ?
People forget that for much of the G4's life, it was limited exclusively to the pro towers, less than half a percent of all desktop CPU's. Not worth it by anyone's standards.
But, Apple has 2.7% of the worldwide market. If IBM had ALL those 2.7% and the pro machines were ALL DUALs, then they could sell 6X the 970's than moto sold G4's for most of their early life. Put another way, provided .09u 970's arrive in 2004, rather than some 500 000 G4's moto sold in to Apple 99, IBM could sell 4-5 million 970's to Apple by late 2004.
Is that enough to keep them interested? That is the ONLY upside to a single supplier scenario, though the danger of stagnation then looms larger than ever.
I think that IBM would have to sell at least as many PPC970 class chips in their own machines in order to bring sales up to a point where there remains a strong incentive to develop for the desktop. Remember the G4 has a very big market, but it isn't a very big desktop market and development to that direction has fallen apart.
Can IBM find a market for another 5-6 million desktop chips per year? If not, look out, you will see a similar drop off in interest from IBM in 3-5 years.
Who knows what chips will be around next year, let alone 3-5 years from now. Multi-processor configurations will most likely fill the channel. So why even speculate about the downfall of IBM/Apple relationship.
IBM is in it for the money. If they can build/manufacture chips for profit they will be there. Their new philosophy is the manufacturing of chips and assisting in the design of new chips (for money).
But who knows maybe IBM will start making toasters and TV's instead.
You'll see IBM 970 64bit w/ "Altivec Velocity Engine Extreme"
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.
There is also OS X 10.3 being ported to the 64bit offerings to be forthcoming from AMD. I cannot confirm it this version of OS X will ever be released.
Some Details of OS X 10.3 (some of you probably guessed these)
64bit OS, including rewritten finder to take advantage! Jokes have been made about "finder extreme".
Multiple concurrent GUI logins (similar to XP but with solid unix)
OSXFS - New filesystem, based off of BeOS Filesytem. Very cool features built right into the finder! 10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore. You can use "simple/regular" finder mode to bypass these. The ability to assign files categories like ID3 tags. Ever finder window can be searched realtime similar to the itunes search thanks to OSXFS. You can find all files that were assigned "category" business in 1 second flat.
New Print Services and much better dialog windows
New Navigation services! Three different ways to drill down files, you can even click a button to "spot" the folder. This means your cursor changes and you can move through the finder to locate the folder then hit enter key to finish saving. You can also assign the file categories at this time or the application can by default. files created by apple sound track editor can automatically be assigned "audio", so could files from an updated pro tools.
Bundles (some of you call them piles) work sort of like this, you could select 20 files and say "these are all the files for my project" monitor them. when you go to move 1 file it will automatically copy the rest with it. You can also condense them to look like a folder. Think files on different hard drives, different networks all as one project "folder" all updating and all copying when you move them. Very cool.
New themes and sound effects, lots of interfaces changes, and customizations you can make for yourself
New dock, so many new features, split mode, text mode, "start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.
new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)
new ichat, built in video conferencing (works with netmeeting!), voice chat, secure chat, better sortable and group lists, jabber support, plug in module support (for other IM services) and many cool new features and several mac only ones
new mail.app uses webcore for parsing html/mime email now, much faster and better, offers exchange server support, and many other new features, including a new "view" that looks exactly like outlook 2003 preview for windows. (you can still use old ones) mail is much faster.
built in ftp, sftp, scp into the finder connect to server menu.
much improved sharing controls for sharing with windows and unix enviroments, lots of complex options.
new built in remote access software, much better and faster than stupid remote access from apple. It reminded me of terminal server for windows. very fast.
new itunes (this will be out sooner i think) speed updates and built in support for music service?? new wireless and options to "share" your files with friends only on certian files.
new iphoto (very very very very very very very very fast)
new appleworks (new name, don't know if it ships with it, looked very nice!)
that's all i can remember.
Originally posted by inkhead
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies.
When someone starts a post with something like this I always agree with the statement.
What I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. But an inside source have told me that this post will generate at least 250 more posts, 2500 more views and honorable mention on at least one US and one french mac rumour board .
Originally posted by inkhead
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
Not sure what this is doing in a hardware thread, and if you're right, somebody's gonna get fired. But what the heck...
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. The first IBM PCs also had a proprietary, patented component to protect the platform: The BIOS. Whoops.
64bit OS, including rewritten finder to take advantage! Jokes have been made about "finder extreme".
OSXFS - New filesystem, based off of BeOS Filesytem. Very cool features built right into the finder! 10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore. You can use "simple/regular" finder mode to bypass these. The ability to assign files categories like ID3 tags. Ever finder window can be searched realtime similar to the itunes search thanks to OSXFS. You can find all files that were assigned "category" business in 1 second flat.
Oh, yay. HTML formatted Finder windows.
Bundles (some of you call them piles) work sort of like this, you could select 20 files and say "these are all the files for my project" monitor them. when you go to move 1 file it will automatically copy the rest with it. You can also condense them to look like a folder. Think files on different hard drives, different networks all as one project "folder" all updating and all copying when you move them. Very cool.
"Bundles" is already taken for folders-as-files in OS X. Unless Apple is planning on either confusing the heck out of people or expanding the definition. It would actually be kind of cool to have all the application files in a "bundle" without their all being in the same folder. Hmm.
New dock, so many new features, split mode, text mode, "start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.
The Dock has always been better than the broken-by-design Start Menu, but hey, if it makes switchers happy...
new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)
"Anything that moves?"
new mail.app uses webcore for parsing html/mime email now, much faster and better, offers exchange server support, and many other new features, including a new "view" that looks exactly like outlook 2003 preview for windows.
Blech.
much improved sharing controls for sharing with windows and unix enviroments, lots of complex options.
That's good news, at least.
Nice features though, if they are true.
Originally posted by inkhead
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.
Well actually while nothing you've said is substantiated, nothing you've said would surprise me either. Its all a fairly reasonable pile for what we'll see in 10.3, including the x86 support. Intel has always hated being tied to MS so of course they would like to have Apple support their architecture(s). AMD wants any 64-bit OS on the planet to run on their x86-64 architecture so they would probably be happy about that too. This kind of thing would require very little investment on the part of either Intel or AMD, and it gives Apple options. The hard part is figuring out Apple's business model in this situation but given Steve's position on clones and the strong leadership team currently at Apple my guess is that they have a much better handle on it than a bunch of guys sitting in some forum at AppleInsider. If it makes sense, they'll do it. If it doesn't, they won't. Supporting both Intel, AMD and IBM certainly gives Apple a bit more security in the processor department, doesn't it?
The rest of the listed features of 10.3 are also reasonable although I reserve judgement on how useful they are to me personally until I see them. Apple has a better track record on this than MS, however, so some features that I find useless or undesirable in WindowsXP might turn out much for the better on MacOS X. I have no doubt that some of the stuff in 10.3 will be enough for me to upgrade to it.
And as for Matsu's comments about IBM not competing without having Windows to run on their processors... keep in mind that IBM's main focus for the 970 is not the desktop. They are mainly interested in the 970 for low-end servers and massively parallel machines, all running Unix or Linux.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
Originally posted by inkhead
First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies.
My thoughts - I believe that Apple has Mac OS X running on x86 processors. There is a risk associated with PPC processors, and history shows that some have come true - i.e., Motorolla having limited success on G4 improvements, and the G5 being deep sixed. Having IBM as a sole supplier would be a risk. The Motorolla fiasco and the "IBM sole supplier" risk had/has the potential of of putting Apple out of business. Just imagine how great Apple's position could have been if Motorolla had come through with faster G4 improvements and released the G5 a year ago? Also imagine how bad Apple's position next year would be if Apple hadn't worked with IBM to produce the PPC970. Not a pretty sight.
So there is truth behind x86 rumors, and that's why these ideas keep surfacing. But my belief is the x86 would be a final, last resort to stay in business. If the Mac's distinctiveness is taken away, then Apple will fold. That distinctiveness is both hardware and software. Can anyone say OS/2?
Originally posted by Programmer
Intel has always hated being tied to MS so of course they would like to have Apple support their architecture(s). AMD wants any 64-bit OS on the planet to run on their x86-64 architecture so they would probably be happy about that too. This kind of thing would require very little investment on the part of either Intel or AMD, and it gives Apple options. The hard part is figuring out Apple's business model in this situation but given Steve's position on clones and the strong leadership team currently at Apple my guess is that they have a much better handle on it than a bunch of guys sitting in some forum at AppleInsider.
Well, the simple fact is that we don't know Steve's position on clones. We know his position on Amelio's program in no uncertain terms, but that's hardly surprising, since that program was killing the company.
CoreComputers is still going, and the guy claims to still be in ongoing talks with Apple. The difference here is that he isn't building machines that undercut Apple's most profitable lines. If Core starts shipping machines in quantity, and Apple doesn't budge, we have an important clue. Even though he's not shipping x86 boxes.
And as for Matsu's comments about IBM not competing without having Windows to run on their processors... keep in mind that IBM's main focus for the 970 is not the desktop. They are mainly interested in the 970 for low-end servers and massively parallel machines, all running Unix or Linux.
Also, unlike with Motorola, IBM Semiconductor's biggest customer has historically been IBM. I don't think IBM would be churning out the 970 unless they saw a satisfactory market for the CPU within IBM. Apple sales are certainly important, perhaps even crucial, but IBM has a much better fallback position than Mot does if Apple disappoints for whatever reason.
Hmmm... the "one x86 OEM" bit above just gave me an interesting thought. What if that one OEM is IBM? IBM is about the most processor-agnostic bunch on the planet and they have chaffed over their dependency on MS for decades (literally). What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
I can definitely see something like this happening. IBM and Apple have very little to do with each other. Perhaps IBM could even pull back farther from the desktop market, since their PC division has done nothing but bleed money, and offer Apple desktops as part of their small business and enterprise packages. They are not averse to selling and supporting other companies' products when it suits them to.
Originally posted by Programmer
What if Apple, in exchange for the 970, is selling IBM license for both x86, x86-64, and PPC of MacOS X 10.3? IBM would sell this into business and server markets where Apple has been weak, and they would sell whatever hardware flavour their customers want. They would sell them Linux or MacOS X at their option. You tell IBM what you want and they deliver, configure, and consult. IBM leaves the consumer and graphics professional markets to Apple (they've never been good at it anyhow), and they can point to eachother as alternative suppliers. Crazy? Maybe, but we live in crazy times...
Not so crazy. Apple is at a point where they want and need to penetrate the enterprise server room, and if people are a bit put off having Apple hardware and support to contend with, having IBM there is probably a bit easier for an IT manager to swallow. Easier to get xServes or IBM whatevers, running Mac OS X Server, and therefore easier to penentrate into the corporate desktop arena. Hmmmm....
g
Originally posted by thegelding
****...an ibm branded apple (or apple branded as ibm) would possible freak me out, but it could sell oddles of computers at best buy or sears (areas apple tried before)...but i am most likely mis-reading people smarter than i....
g
IBM isn't going back into retail, or the consumer market. They got slaughtered there last time. And I do mean slaughtered.
If they do start offering OS X machines, they'll leave those markets to Apple.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
Not so crazy. Apple is at a point where they want and need to penetrate the enterprise server room, and if people are a bit put off having Apple hardware and support to contend with, having IBM there is probably a bit easier for an IT manager to swallow. Easier to get xServes or IBM whatevers, running Mac OS X Server, and therefore easier to penentrate into the corporate desktop arena. Hmmmm....
I'm not so humble that I won't point out that I've been saying this for over a year now.