Apple to Unveil New Leopard OS in August 519
Max Fomitchev writes "Looks like Apple is going to reveal its new cool and fast Mac OS code-named 'Leopard' in the upcoming World Developer's Conference in August. Good news for Apple! And terrible news for Microsoft. If 'Leopard' is really what it claims to be, i.e. fast and efficient, in sharp contrast to slow and resource hungry Windows Vista, we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year."
This has been news on June 26 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More Speculation (Score:4, Informative)
That's probably also why Apple didn't reverse engineer MAPI so Mail.app could talk to Exchange, choosing instead to screen-scrape Outlook Web Access.
Re:Who writes this junk? (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed. It's not even like you'd need to edit a whole article - you're editing the summary of an article.
(emphasis mine)I found that pretty amusing. Since when is a 10% (plus or minus; feel free to correct me with solid info) marketshare remarkable?
Also, from the actual article itself:
Is this actually a new OS like the article suggests, or just a new revision of OSX (10.5 or what have you)? If it's not supposed to be completely brand new, I find this article somewhat questionable.
Re:No, We Won't. (Score:3, Informative)
Thousands of casual computer users are switching. I switched. I know at least 10 people in my age group (20-30) who have swtiched. 10 more who are thinking about it. People looking to buy a new comptuer when they go off to college are looking at Macs more seriously than ever. They do the same things that any casual user is looking for in a Windows computer (email, web, chat, word processing), they look better doing it, and they work flawlessly (and better) with that iPod they got for Christmas.
You're right when it comes to Gamers not switching to Macs, but how many gamers don't have a PS2 or Xbox? You're right when it comes to businesses not switching to Macs, but the home computer market is certainly not worth overlooking.
Mac's marketshare may not be stellar yet, but compare it to their marketshare 5 years ago.
Does a "faster" OS really sell computers? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? Wanna say that again? (Score:3, Informative)
Really? Not according to this article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/busine
Apple may have lost market share in the late 90's / early 2000's but they are recovering. I believe this a lot of this is due to OS X.
I generally don't trust statistics but I have more faith in these numbers than someone who calls himself MSFanBoi2.
Re:Apple's next Mac OS X, Leopard (Score:5, Informative)
One should note that it's not Carbon that makes the Finder suck. Any decent, full-featured OS X application can be written in Carbon if the developer takes care to implement things correctly. And even more importantly, some things in OS X can still only be done in Carbon, hence the Framework's inclusion in many Cocoa applications as well. Unfortunately, most users associate Carbon with all those ported ("carbonized") OS 9 C++ applications written on top of Metrowerks' PowerPlant, so it makes sense Carbon has a bad rap, but the fact is: Carbon is not the issue here. Carbon's fine.
Re:Huh? Wanna say that again? (Score:2, Informative)
You are very much mistaken. XP runs about 5-8% faster on the same processor and RAM as Windows 2000 did. Windows Server 2003 is leaps and bounds ahead of Windows 2000 Server in every category, in some, such as IIS, and file serving, its nearly 4x (not percent) thats FOUR TIMES faster.
Um, you really don't understand market share do you? Please get back to us after reviewing exactly how marketshare works. Please peruse http://www.pegasus3d.com/mac_sales.html [pegasus3d.com]. Apple's current marketshare of the PC world is now just under 2.0%
Are you seriously trying to say browser stats prove any type of marketshare?
Re:More Speculation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Speculation (Score:5, Informative)
List of OS X Code Names (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the list of OS X code names:
Apple doesn't have to reverse-engineer Windows API (Score:3, Informative)
Despite that, you're probably right that it would be easier and safer to require a real Windows install underneath. Apple has always been about things Just Working, and using the real Windows code is the surest path to that.
Re:More Speculation (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/
Despite the fact that Microsoft is a lumbering giant they do have some fairly sharp people working for them and they have picked up that MAPI is a dead horse. Exchange now uses SMTP for transport between exchange servers and OWA/DAV is being pushed. MAPI is still used extensively and is supported over the Internet by RPC over HTTP (a godsend for consultants at customer sites) but casting Apple's decision to use OWA as a screen-scraping hack to get around the big evil is wholy inaccurate. The Mail.app guys are good developers who read their Microsoft Tech Notes.
And... btw... I used to reverse engineer the Mac Toolbox so we could port Mac games to DOS and Windows, so I have a little bit of experience with this whole thing. (Yes, yes... someone was that foolish, look up "V for Victory" and "Close Combat" by Atomic Games... both series were written on the Mac and ported over.) Any time the Mac lead and I got into the whole fanboy thing the owner of Atomic would ask us if we hung our toliet paper with the loose end in front of the roll or behind the roll.
Invariably we were told our answer was wrong.
Re:Huh? Wanna say that again? (Score:3, Informative)
The first OS X (Cheetah) was released in 2001
The current OS X (Tiger) is compatible back to the slot loading iMac of 1999.
ANY computer that was bought for any version of OS X can still run the current version of OS X.
Re:Huh? Wanna say that again? (Score:2, Informative)
OK, I AM an apple fanboi, and that's just not really my experience. Yes, 10.1 was faster than 10.0, and 10.2 was faster than 10.1 (and 10.3 was, maybe, snappier than 10.2). But aren't these really optimizations that weren't yet completed in a massive rewrite?
In my experience, 10.4 is NOT faster than 10.3 on the same hardware (Mac Mini G4 and iBook G4 - really the same computers). At my employment (school), we use approx. 4 yr-old iMacs. These babies were truly suffering under the load of 10.3 last year. I shudder to think of their responsiveness under Tiger this fall.
Re:Who writes this junk? (Score:3, Informative)
System calls are similarly expensive, especially ones that require interaction with the Mach layer. Guess where threads are implemented? Any thread locking operations are so expensive that they can easily kill the performance benefit of threaded code.
I would love to see Apple ditch the Mach layer altogether and just port IOKit to FreeBSD.
Force quit (Score:2, Informative)
When that happens, try this:
Click on the desktop (to give focus to the Finder)
Under the Apple Menu, select Force Quit and select the non-responsive app to terminate it.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Apple doesn't have to reverse-engineer Windows (Score:3, Informative)
Without access to internal APIs, doing it entirely through blackboxes.
XP is done. There may be tweaks, but the API is frozen.
I mentioned DX because of firmware differences between Mac/PC video cards from the same vendor.
You're assuming it has to live in the same partition/filesystem as OS X. Bootcamp shows it doesn't. Moreover, Classic and X11 have given their dev team upwards of five years' experience dealing with sandboxes.
With considerably fewer years to do it. If we assume Red Box dates back to 1997, that means XP in 2001 was an incremental change for them, not a sea change. Codeweavers, in contrast, did everything through reverse engineering.
Have you SEEN the Finder?
Cite references to either imaginary factor?
Assuming Red Box exists in a workable form, it's been in the works since 1997. Rhapsody was all about getting Classic/Win apps to run natively inside it on the processor-relevant platform, as well as creating a framework to run natively inside Windows itself. Do some homework.
Re:More Speculation (Score:3, Informative)
I used OS/2 extensively. Indeed, I've still got my original media for several versions at home.
Microsoft went out of their way to sabotage OS/2 by "enhancing" Windows in ways that would be difficult or impossible for IBM to emulate.
No, they didn't. You have no idea what you're talking about (or think you are).
IBM didn't "emulate" Windows in OS/2, they used their licensed source code for the Win16 API. Later releases (when the code licensing no longer applied) required the user to provide their own copy of Windows, which was used to run Windows software.
OS/2 ran Windows 3.x software as well as - many would say better - than Windows 3.x did. It was never "broken" at all.
Now, let's have a quick look at what the original poster was suggesting. He's saying that if Apple manage to come out with a 100% (or close to it) compatible implementation of Win32, Microsoft will modify the Win32 API to deliberately "break" it, thus rendering it useless. There are a few fundamental problems here that indicate he hasn't thought this dastardly plan all the way through:
* First and foremost, Microsoft won't make any changes that breaks existing software on a large scale (they're reluctant enough to do it just on a small scale). So the scope of any such "API sabotage" is limited to software released after any such change was made (which, realistically, is going to be *at least* 12 months down the track).
* Microsoft would have to convince developers to modify their software to use the new API changes. Given the lack of interest most developers show in changing their software for _good_ reasons (Exhibit A: the plethora of software that needlessly requires Administrator privileges) I can't see many of them doing it for bad ones.
* Microsoft have no reliable way of retroactively modifying existing Windows installations.
* The extremely marginal benefits wouldn't even come close to outweighing the legal risks.
These roadblocks _alone_ (and there are more) make even the suggestion that Microsoft will just change their API willy-nilly to break an OS X/win32 make the whole proposal laughable. It's pretty clear the original poster hadn't put any more thought into it than it takes to come up with "Micro$oft is t3h suxx0r" (which, not coincidentally, applies to most criticisms on Slashdot about Microsoft).