The Latest News From Apple

[Guest Reimar]

Apple previews Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard"

Apple surprised many today when it announced it would be previewing the next version of the operating system that runs on its Mac line of desktops and notebooks, Mac OS X 10.6, aka "Snow Leopard". Despite questionable name choice, in its early stages it shows a lot of potential as an even more stable operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, featuring better 64-bit computing (a theoretical 16 TB, yes terabyte, of RAM is to be supported), full Microsoft Exchange support in its Address Book and Mail applications, improved multicore support through what Apple calls "Grand Central", and a technology called OpenCL that puts more processing to the graphics processing unit. Apple also promises an improved media experience through QuickTime X.

“We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more,” said Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering. “In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”

View: Snow Leopard promotional page

Read the full article HERE

[nikster]

Why is that a "questionable name"? Anyway...

I found it pretty impressive for a company to come out and pronounce proudly that the new OS will have "no new features". Instead, they are focusing on stability and performance.

As a customer of OS X Leopard, frankly, that's exactly what I want to hear. I haven't even discovered the 300 new features in Leopard, and even though I have found quite a few there are probably hundreds I will never find.

But one thing that Leopard and especially the included apps need is better stability. The OS doesn't crash on me, really, but the apps like Mail, Safari, etc, are buggy. Leaking memory, crashing, etc. Not a whole lot - but enough that it's annoying. I wish they were as stable as the OS itself.

[slackula]

“We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more,” said Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering. “In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”

(emphasis added by me)

That's an interesting quote imh(umble)o. I guess they are not feeling any pressure from Vista, or any of the myriad of Linux distros that are all playing catch-up with them at the moment and are going to kick back a bit and smooth off the rough edges.

I wonder if Snow Leopard will be touted as a new OS like Leopard was when it goes on sale, or an incremental upgrade?

My (uneducated) guess is that Apple will focus on hardware compatibility, especially now that they have a fully UNIX certified system, and already have an OS that works fine with various graphics cards.

Although they have long made locked in systems, I have a suspicion that a version of OS X which incorporates drivers developed by the Linux community will be coming to market in the next couple of years to allow OS X to compete on non-Apple hardware, and I think that Ubuntu and Knoppix and such are responsible for this as they have shown that MS pricing and hardware requirements are putting people off at the moment.

People willing to give a live Linux distro a shot would also probably be willing to give a live OS X CD a shot, especially given Apple's skills at making user friendly interfaces and their marketing skills.

Meh! I'm just spitballing here, but I think interesting things are coming soon.

[A_Traveller]

The most interesting comment about Snow Leopard is the suggestion that Apple will use the opportunity to stop support for PowerPC based systems. Given that strategically Apple has moved forward without providing a high level of backward compatibility {not a criticism per se} then it might not be such a surprise, though I think it would be a shade early and may well appear in the next "." release.

Regards

[nikster]

Opening OS X is an interesting option - but there really isn't much for Apple to gain for now and the foreseeable future. What it would do for sure is awaken Microsoft and that would be downright bad for Apple. A sleeping lion is better left alone.

I think Apple is betting on computers becoming more like gadgets, and there, the closed model works exceedingly well. The iPod is a closed ecosystem all of its own, and better because Apple keeps complete control. The iPhone is even more amazing - there, Apple has a huge technological lead over its competitors because of OS X. Add to that that Apple is reaping huge profits from Mac hardware sales and there is no way OS X is going to be open any time soon. Would you rather be selling 10% of all computers or 90% of the OS licenses running on computers? Apple clearly wants to do the former. Also because they think they can make the most compelling product by bundling hardware and software.

By the time OS X Snow Leopard comes out, the newest PPC based systems out there will be 3 years old. However, those were Mac Pros and you would think a company would support their own professional systems for more than 3 years - 5 minimum. I think they will be supporting PPC for a while longer maybe just with updates to OS X Leopard.

[sjaak327]

"In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”"

LOL, not by a long shot to be honest. OSX Leopard is a very user friendly and advance OS, but it doesn't come close to Vista.

Hopefully Apple will at least consider adding proper support for Active Directory, as the current AD integration is basic at best, and if you (like me) upgraded to Server 2008, you might have lost smb support alltogether. (I found a way around this, but it's not pretty). Let's face it, Active Directory is the main platform for networks in the corporate environment, and having computers running Leopard or Tiger on your corporate network is a pain in the ass.

Time Machine is nice, but doesn't cut it when compared to previous versions and system restore in Vista.

Leopard's media centre (Frontrow) is a toy compared to Vista's media centre.

Not to mention application compatibilty and availability.

Time to change the tune I would say, some sense of reality and modesty would suit apple in this case.

Great to hear that PPC systems will be phased out, something that only Apple would be able to do, imagine Microsoft dropping support for pre core duo systems like Pentium 4D, alll helll would break loose

[nikster]

sjaak, you're kidding, right?

As for windows vs. os x one of our developers put it best: "It's Unix vs. Windows. What's so hard?"

:D:D

That corporate IT idiots keep buying a system which has the primary goal of locking them into the platform for ever and ever rather than being compatible with as many systems as possible is, frankly, baffling. We have a few server farms running Windows server 2003/2008 - outside IT no one really knows why. One IT guy said it's because that's all he knows. I suspect it's because IT really has no interest in making IT less work.

Edited June 13, 2008 by nikster

[sjaak327]

'sjaak, you're kidding, right?"

No I'm not, the main platform in most corporate environments as it comes to network access (printers, file servers, users etc) is Microsoft's active directory. Combined with Windows XP or Vista, as they are build to cooperate with Active Directory. I mean years ago there was a company called Novell, they had a product called Novell Netware, and was considered the best corporate product in this field, they have been decimated in only 5-10 years.

You can't do that if you make crappy products, IT departments the world over have identified the advantages of AD. Even Apple does, otherwise they would not even bother to make AD plugins. Too bad they don't have good programmers in this field, as the plugin sucks. Which is one of the reasons why many Lan admin's the world over don't like them, as they are much more difficult to integrate into a corporate network.

I'm not one of them by the way, but that is besides the point.

Furthermore, I like that remark of IT doesn't have interest in making IT less work, for me personally it's the opposite, I like a network and server and Pc's where I don't have to even look at. As I have moved beyond Lan admin into more exiting work.

Going a bit further in the less work departement, that's actually one of the strenghts of Microsoft, where Apple could learn and improve. Wsus for instance, a centralised patch system, instead of each PC having to go to MS update, a live safer on WAN connections, that should be used to make money, not to update Pc's. And of course it lowers the admin burden, less work.

Roll out of Vista or XP are easy, and using a simple (and part of server OS) tool like WDS makes it as easy as one F12 key, to boot from Network, where WDS will install the PC, without the admin ever having to be supervising or present at the machine. Again less work.

Just a few example why Vista/XP is years ahead in the corporate field as compared to OSX, probably also the reason why there is such a huge gap in market share.

As to locking someone, I'm not going to comment, just a tip, look hard and good at how apple has been treating it's customers over the years

[nikster]

It's Unix vs. Windows - what's so hard?

sjaak, sorry but I really can't repeat the same old arguments over and over again. I could, but I'd be rather boring. If you don't get it, be that way, it's OK.

BTW I would make servers be Linux. Open standards, no problems. End of story.

[dekka007]

Back on topic Safari 4 installed on 10.5.3 is substantially faster - love it.

[sjaak327]

"It's Unix vs. Windows - what's so hard?"

Rubbish argument.

" If you don't get it, be that way, it's OK. "

Yet none of my arguments are addressed by you, I guess the vast majority of corporations don't get it either, they must all be igorant. But the main argument was the difficulty in integrating OSX into the corp envirornment, that has nothing to do with unix versus windows. One of the 300 new features in Leopard was Smb packet signing, which at least would be a step up, since then the people running Domain controllers running on server 2003 or 2008 wouldn't need to downgrade security just to let OSX be able to connect to a smb share on the DC. Unfortunately that promised feature doesn't work, and even after the upgrade to 10.5.3 it still doesn't work, so I had to once again downgrade the DC security to allow my Leopard machine to connect to my windows server.

Apple always was good in the marketing department, but promising "features" that in practice don't work (and google for it, I haven't heard of a single case were packet signing actually worked) doesn't make your OS the most advance....Again time to change the tune, and for once make features work instead of shouting that you're the best, since there is no doubt that they aren't. Or if you cannot make packet signing work, they might consider employing some of Microsoft's programmers to do the job, or maybe even some people who design samba, as for instance ubuntu or suse don't have any problem wtih packet signing

"BTW I would make servers be Linux."

yes and many web servers are running on top of Linux, but when it comes to indentity management, linux doesn't offer the same advantages as AD.

"Back on topic Safari 4 installed on 10.5.3 is substantially faster - love it. "

Haven't noticed it, but I'm using Firefox out of preference, will give safari another try, now that I have upgraded to 10.5.3 as well.

[dekka007]

Haven't noticed it, but I'm using Firefox out of preference, will give safari another try, now that I have upgraded to 10.5.3 as well.

Its safari 4 developers preview version. You can source it on the net apparently if you are not a developer

[sjaak327]

Yep, I have obtained it and I'm running it now, I hope it will be better then 3, with which I wasn't impressed.

[learnthaipodcast]

If Apple would open their OS then their computer sales would drop like crazy. OS X is still one of the main selling points of Apple computer. If you just look at the hardware you will realize it is really expensive compared to a self built computer with similar components.

[slackula]

If Apple would open their OS then their computer sales would drop like crazy. OS X is still one of the main selling points of Apple computer. If you just look at the hardware you will realize it is really expensive compared to a self built computer with similar components.

*sigh* This old chestnut again?

I recently bought a DIY computer from one of those shops that build them for you. It was around 18,500 Baht for similar specs (on paper) to my 20" aluminium iMac.

But there were some exceptions:

A poxy 17" lcd screen

Woeful wired keyboard and mouse which are a pain to use

They installed an OS even though I specifically asked for none, and it was full of all sorts of nasty stuff

No camera

No speakers for sound

On-Board graphics card is very weak

Huge box under the table to hold all of this crap

No Bluetooth built in.

After mucking about with the machine for a while I have decided that it will probably be cheaper to replace it with an iMac, in terms of hardware integration (printers and faxes in the office) and especially in terms of the time I will have to spend to get the thing up and running and keep it protected from being raped by the internet as soon as it is connected.

By the time I have bought and/or upgraded the DIY box to match the iMac the iMac will win hands down on the cost factor. The DIY box is going to get Slackware installed on it and is going to be dumped in a corner where I expect it to perform its server duties well.

Meanwhile, an iMac comes as is, with a great licensed operating system, and all the things missing from the cheapo DIY box.

[sjaak327]

"by the time I have bought and/or upgraded the DIY box to match the iMac the iMac will win hands down on the cost factor."

That's just because you bought it from the wrong shop maybe ?

"and especially in terms of the time I will have to spend to get the thing up and running and keep it protected from being raped by the internet as soon as it is connected."

Funny you should say that, as Leopard by default has it's firewall disabled

Ever bought a Mac pro, these machines are way and I really mean way too expensive. I have three in our office, and while they are nice machines, their price isn't justified, no way I look at it. And as said by myself above, much harder to integrate into the corp. network, so first their initial price is much higher, and second there's simply more maintenance on the machine, then on your average Dell Optiplex, which runs just as fine.

It's not an old chesnut, it's a fact.

Edited June 15, 2008 by sjaak327