Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

New Version of Mac OS X Leopard Leaked 359

the linux geek writes "InfoWorld has an article informing us that an early beta of Mac OS X 10.5 has been leaked. This appears to be the same build Steve Jobs previewed at WWDC, and contains most of the new features, including Time Machine and Spaces." From the article: "Attendees at last week's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) received copies of the beta ware and had to sign legally binding agreements not to let Leopard stray onto file-sharing networks. Perhaps someone didn't read the not-so-fine print? MacUser reports that this version of Leopard is indeed legit, unlike a fake one that was reportedly making its rounds last week. The version of Leopard available on BitTorrent is 4.3GB, containing 93 files."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Version of Mac OS X Leopard Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • Oh snap. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Stevie J. will be unpleased with this development.
    • Re:Oh snap. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman@gm3.14ail.com minus pi> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:48AM (#15909779) Homepage Journal
      Stevie J. will be unpleased with this development.

      What are you talking about? Jobs probably leaked it himself. Not only does it generate free press for Apple, but it would help ramp up the buzz machine. Jobs can then take that general feedback ("oh, this feature sucks" or "that feature is wonderful!") and redirect it back into the product without having to provide tech support for a beta product!

      Just about the right time for it, too. Apple has already revealed the features in this copy, and is obviously at the later stages of development. Which means that they are ready to start polishing, but still have time to yank and replace components if necessary.
  • One thing... (Score:2, Interesting)

    One thing I couldn't tell from the article was whether this was a Mac-hardware-only copy, or if it works on intel-hardware... Any help, guys?
    • Re:One thing... (Score:3, Informative)

      by autojive ( 560399 )
      It's Universal Binary.
    • Apple wouldn't release a generic OS X even for developers-only.

      Apple has announced that Leopard will be Universal (PPC + Intel) but it'll still require an Intel Mac, it won't run on random Intel hardware.
      • I think he probably meant "PPC" instead of "Mac hardware". But yeah, I think the day Apple releases OSX for commodity hardware is the day they go out of business...
        • by Loconut1389 ( 455297 ) * on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:43AM (#15909762)
          no- they definitely wouldn't.. the iPods are generating more revenue than their computers and many people would still buy mac hardware- especially since anything in it would be inherently supported.

          Their os userbase would expand greatly, their hardware userbase would probably stay very close in size, iPods would be unaffected or perhaps grow in sales...

          They don't want to deal with all of the calls coming in that joe schmoe cant get it to work on his cyrix cpu or schmo joe can't get his el-cheapo scsi controller working or his $2 video card. Apple wants to keep the perceived quality (and actual quality) of their products high- rather than having reports published about how incompatible it is with some guys random mobo configuration. People currently understand that the machines and OS only works with authorized apple hardware (and from partners), but as soon as you open the floodgates, joe schmoe idiot will go out and buy a copy thinking itll just work on the computer his son set up and it wont. Apple doesn't want to do it half assed.

          I honestly don't think it has anything to do with their market share.
          • by Shaper_pmp ( 825142 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @10:17AM (#15910365)
            the iPods are generating more revenue than their computers


            Which tells you exactly what kind of market share their desktop machines have at the moment. Anything which reduces this further risks making their desktop market share so small it's effectively negligible.

            and many people would still buy mac hardware- especially since anything in it would be inherently supported.


            Nah, not for shit IMO. Aside from elitist Charles [penny-arcade.com] geeks people buy Macs now because of Mac OS/X's user interface and the fact that It Just Works. If Mac OS/X was available for commodity PC hardware nobody (again: normal people, not geeks) would spring the extra $$$ for Mac hardware too ("What's the point?", they'd chuckle - "I can be clever and safe a few hundred bucks!") and the Mac hardware platform would die (or at least, be taken very ill).

            Of course, penny-pinching consumers would also find that on third-party commodity hardware It Just doesn't Work as well, so Apple (through no direct fault of their own) would also find their IJW reputation going down the tubes.

            Their os userbase would expand greatly, their hardware userbase would probably stay very close in size, iPods would be unaffected or perhaps grow in sales...


            Their OSX userbase would expand moderately - it's incompatible with Windows, so it's not going to expand "greatly" at any time while 90%+ of all PCs are still Windows, regardless of how great it is.

            Their hardware userbase would shrink rapidly - normal users just won't pay over the odds for something they don't perceive as any better. We know OSX has been designed to run on the hardware and vice-versa. Your old maiden aunt buying her first Mac (assuming she isn't tempted away by de-facto standard Windows) will get a choice between OSX-and-Mac, or OSX-and-PC for a few hundred bucks less. In the absence of any real understood difference between them, and bearing in mind they both look and feel the same (OSX), which do you think she's going to choose?

            iPod userbase wouldn't change - it's already Mac and PC compatible, so if Apple stopped making Macs tomorrow the iPod sales would hardly change.

            They don't want to deal with all of the calls coming in that joe schmoe cant get it to work on his cyrix cpu or schmo joe can't get his el-cheapo scsi controller working or his $2 video card.


            That's one reason, yes. The other is that OSX not being Windows-compatible hurts Apple when it comes to attracting new consumers to it. Making the hardware and software one package at least forces users to view Macs as a seamlessly-working package, which they don't mind paying a little extra for. Breaking the package open stops any part of it being perceived as seamless, and virtually ensures penny-pinching consumers will just nickle-and-dime them to death.

            People currently understand that the machines and OS only works with authorized apple hardware (and from partners)


            No. "People" understand that you buy "a PC with Windows", or you buy "a Mac". Macs are a package, indivisible.

            "Most people" don't even understand there is a distinction between the hardware spec and the operating system. Hell, remember "most people" still can't program their video recorder clocks right.

            As such, as soon as they realise the package is customisable and there's a choice, they'll plump for the cheapest option every time, and Apple much-vaunted reputation for solid engineering (apart from style, their only advantage over MS) flies right out of the window. And once people are used to OSX running on beige boxes and crashing because of dodgy third-party drivers, watch how long their reputation for coolness lasts, too.

            You're half right in what you say - the third-party driver issue is a big reason to keep OSX Mac-only. However, there are several other just-as-good reasons as well, like preserving what little share of the desktop hardware market they currently have.
            • by CatOne ( 655161 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:03AM (#15910700)
              You should check your facts, though -- iPods + iTMS are still not the majority of Apple's business -- the Mac business still the larger portion. It's like $6B for iPods, and $8B for Macs, software, etc.

              So over the past 4 years iPods have gone from $0 to $6B and Macs have gone from $5.7B to $8B. Whether these lines will cross in the future I don't know... we'll see. But today, iPods are *not* the majority of Apple's business. And Apple has seen real market share gains (from 2% to 4%) in the last 24 months.
    • One thing I couldn't tell from the article was [...]

      It's odd that you have questions remaining after such a clear-cut article, which lacks no details. Consider the following quote from it:

      According to MacWorld, "early reports from people claiming to use the software claim that certain parts of it 'feel' incomplete."

      What could be more definite? First, this is 'according to MacWorld', so it's not direct knowledge. Second, these are 'early reports'. Third, these are claims from people claiming to use
      • Re:One thing... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by larkost ( 79011 )
        Since people legitimately using 10.5 Developer Preview are all under NDA (since we got it at WWC and they were very meticulous about making sure you knew the conditions under which you were receiving the disks), we really can't be very specific. Since it is out in the press, I can say that the Preview is very focused on Developers, and most of what we need to get working on products so that they are ready for 10.5 when it ships (in "Spring"... whatever that means).

        This is not a OS version that most people s
  • by Pao|o ( 92817 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:03AM (#15909538)
    Tiger was also leaked a couple of years ago.

    Who didn't see this coming? Expect Apple Legal to have a field day with this one. :)
  • Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Klaidas ( 981300 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:06AM (#15909550)
    Well, if they gave it out... how could they possibly think that it won't leak? Software, music, movies leak without giving them out. And now, there's the release of an expensive operating system and they give it out...
    I mean, how could they be sure that just signing the document would stop anyone? Sharing music, movies, etc. is illegal, but look at ftp servers, emule, torrents, etc.
    It the Internet, apple, think different!
    • Re:Well, (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They could have given a slightly different copy to everyone present. Just change a few bytes here and there. And preferably, don't tell anyone about it. Then when the software is leaked it becomes easier to pinpoint who it came from. Then you could either present them with the evidence (even prosecute) or just 'forget' to invite them next time.

      This method falls down at a few places (e.g. if they give out a hash) but it could be worth a try
      • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGreek ( 2403 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:26AM (#15909666)
        They could have given a slightly different copy to everyone present. Just change a few bytes here and there.
        Prohibitively expensive to do on pressed DVDs, but I've long thought that Apple's seeding servers should do precisely that.
        • They do, dont they? There was a story last year about a student being caught releasing his ADC 10.4 developer seed, with it being tracked back to his ADC account and ultimately him. Distinctly remember a couple of stories on here about it.
          • Re:Well, (Score:4, Informative)

            by TheGreek ( 2403 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @09:06AM (#15909897)
            They do, dont they?
            No.

            There was a story last year about a student being caught releasing his ADC 10.4 developer seed, with it being tracked back to his ADC account and ultimately him.
            That's because he was retarded enough to upload it from the same host from which he downloaded it from ADC.
    • Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by andrewman327 ( 635952 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:20AM (#15909634) Homepage Journal
      It might surprise you, but most people really do follow the "not so fine print." Look at how many people hhave access to Windows source code yet there has only been one [microsoft.com]well known leak [slashdot.org].


      This shouldn't really matter to Apple anyway. This will increase speculation about the OS on sites like /. and any publicity is good publicity. The mainstream media will probably not even care about this whatsoever. A quick glance at Google News [google.com] shows that very few non-geeky news sources have picked up the story.

  • by boxlight ( 928484 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:07AM (#15909556)
    I'm a big Mac fan -- *love* my iMac. But I'm not sure about Leopard. That is, Time Machine and Spaces looks neat. But not neat enough for me to shell out $150 for an upgrade.

    Tiger is awesome, those new feature all-in-all are pretty minor improvements.

    Now, if Jobs' TOP SECRET stuff is impressive, that may make a difference. But so far, I'm not seeing enough in Leopard for me to open my wallet.

    boxlight
    • That's the *big* feature. Screw the user interface tweakage, being able to forget about release pools and the rest of the manual storage management twaddle is going to be amazing.
      • by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:23AM (#15909643)
        Hey I'd missed that feature. That's certainly going to be a boon to developers. But it's also going to improve the user experience for users. With 512MB of memory every other day Tiger slows to a crawl because it's filled up RAM, presumably with memory leaks. Safari is a bad offender in this regard. Auto garbage collection should clear most of those leaks.
      • Wow... Slashdot is a "Nerd" site, but this is the first I've heard of this feature. I'd mod you +6 if I could. For all the eye candy worship I've seen over the new OS... where on slashdot is the feature list that is interesting to *developers*?
        • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @09:07AM (#15909904)

          Wow... Slashdot is a "Nerd" site, but this is the first I've heard of this feature... where on slashdot is the feature list that is interesting to *developers*?

          I haven't seen a single consolidated list of all the features, but all of the features shown were aimed at developers, either as demonstrations of what the new APIs support or as features useful to developers. Time Machine, for example, was demoed as an API that can be built into a developer's apps. Other features you might have missed include a full port of DTrace from Solaris, built into the new X-ray profiling software, resolution independent UI, core graphics, quicktime, and core animation features, more parity between carbon and cocoa, a built in grammar checking service for all apps, RSS, multiple clipboards, improved python and ruby tools included, Apache 2, and default inclusion of Subversion.

          Most of the coverage on Slashdot has been for end-users, rather than developers, but there has been plenty of discussion elsewhere on development sites for industries using these elements. Heck, the DTrace message boards have been talking about little else for a week now.

        • Wow... Slashdot is a "Nerd" site, but this is the first I've heard of this feature.
          You must not have been paying attention [slashdot.org], then.
    • by AccUser ( 191555 ) <mhg.taose@co@uk> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:14AM (#15909591) Homepage
      It depends what you want it for, I suppose.

      Personally I was blown away by iChat, in particular the iChat Theater mode in conjunction with Keynote. I know that I have a use for that right now, but to be honest, it was not something that I was looking for until I saw it. It surprised me, but there you go.

      I doubt I will upgrade all my machines to Leopard - as you say Tiger is more than adequate for the work I do - but I will more than likely buy a new Mac Pro and a Mac Book Pro when Leopard is released.
    • Then don't buy it. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Khakionion ( 544166 )
      Seriously. Resolution independence, a versioning filesystem and (finally) a unified UI (I'm basing this off the non-brushed-metal look of iChat Leopard) aren't worth ~$150 to most people. So deal until Lion/Ocelot/Pallas/Kodkod/Neko/whatever, and maybe that will help coax Apple to stop making incremental upgrades that are so...er, incremental. :)
    • by eczarny ( 980871 ) <(eczarny) (at) (gmail.com)> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:27AM (#15909671) Homepage
      Comments like this have been driving me insane. These features were announced at a developers conference. The majority of what Steve discussed about leopard was aimed at said developers. It may not seem like a whole lot of excitement to some. But to those developing on the platform, there is a lot to look forward to. - Garbage collection in Objective-C - An updated QTKit - Time Machine's API - Improved Spotlight - CoreAnimation - Xcode 3 - DashCode - Improved Boot Camp - And more that I can't think of off the top of my head.
      • Yah, I certainly agree with that. Don't folks realize just how much stuff has changed 'under the hood' to improve speed, reliability and flexibility? To me, full point upgrades are about much more than just new applications and GUI changes. A good example is Tiger. Folks may have complained that not much changed on the outside, but do they realize that a huge swath of the networking subsystem was updated? These types of updates may be 'geeky' but I think that they are far, far more important than a new
    • Remember all the features that have been disclosed were more aimed at developers. Some of the features have been kept secret. Wait until Leopard is fully disclosed, then to make a decision.
    • Tiger is awesome, those new feature all-in-all are pretty minor improvements.

      If you're coming from Tiger. Those of us coming from Panther or Jaguar see major improvements.
    • Its only $129 retail for OSX releases unless they decide to raise the price. Compare that to the $199 Microsoft charges for Windows XP Pro upgrade.

      You don't need to buy it. I'd just like to point out its an odd release and thus stable. Even releases tend to have more new features but are often less stable. Odd releases tend to be more reliable. If you decided to buy every other release, I'd recommend you get on odd releases. I'm saying this as a Mac user and former OSX sys admin. You will still get
    • by Dystopian Rebel ( 714995 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:50AM (#15909788) Journal
      Leopard's system-wide grammar checker will help reduce the pressure on Slashdot's overworked Grammar Nazis. ;o)
  • A little conspiracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MikeRT ( 947531 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:08AM (#15909560)
    Crazy idea here... maybe the reason Apple doesn't really put any meaningful controls in place for a while other than a piece of paper is that they want a handful of geeks to get ahold of bootleg copies, test them on non-Apple hardware and talk about the results? That accomplishes two things: gets them data and doesn't tip their hand. I wouldn't put such a sneaky way of using people past Steve Jobs.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:15AM (#15909604)
      Crazy idea here...
      Yes, yes it is. Why do these retarded conspiracy theories always get modded up? Even if Apple were intending to sell Mac OS X for third party PCs they still wouldn't care about compatibility on some random hobbyist/pirate's setup. Never mention the effort required to collect the data from random blogs all over the internet.
    • Yeah, because Apple has a massive documented history of doing things like this, right?
  • by AccUser ( 191555 ) <mhg.taose@co@uk> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:09AM (#15909570) Homepage
    ...but my desire to be surprised got the better of me. I watched the WWDC keynote, and thought that some of the new features looked really nice, and to be honest, I am prepared to wait. I want my experience of Leopard to be without prejudice.

    BTW, I installed Windows Vista Beta Preview a couple of weeks ago, just for fun and it confirmed what I had anticipated - I will not be buying an upgrade to Windows Vista, nor will I purchase any machine with it pre-installed.

    OS X is a dream to use on the desktop, with various GNU/Linux installations running on all my servers. The machine with Vista on it? Going to install the latest Ubuntu.

    Hasta la vista, Vista...
  • Summary (Score:5, Informative)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:10AM (#15909576) Homepage

    Since I'm not a mac-head, the summary didn't make too much sense to me.

    Spaces [apple.com]: a new application for the Leopard operating system that enables users to group different applications in separate environments.

    Time Machine [apple.com]: you can back up and preserve everything on your Mac -- including priceless digital photos, music, movies, and documents -- without lifting a finger, you can go back in time to recover anything you've ever backed up.

    • Re:Summary (Score:4, Funny)

      by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:14AM (#15909590) Homepage
      Spaces: a new application for the Leopard operating system that enables users to group different applications in separate environments

      There were going to prefix this with "My" but Tom sent them a Cease and Desist...
    • Oh, a neat idea... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by argent ( 18001 ) <(moc.agnorat.6002.todhsals) (ta) (retep)> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:19AM (#15909629) Homepage Journal
      Spaces: Virtual desktop with Exposé eye-candy.

      Time Machine: Incremental backups with Exposé eye-candy. The hooks for applications to use Time Machine are a pretty cool idea, I don't think I've seen that kind of capability before.

      What Apple needs to add:

      Let's call it "Testbed": They could use FreeBSD jails and overlays to give you the ability to run a testbed environment that would looks almost like a virtualised system (like Parallels or VMware) which even "root" couldn't see out of, but without the overhead of virtualization. Plus Exposé eye-candy!

      Plus, extend fast user switching to allow you to log in multiple times *as the same user*, giving OS X full virtual console capability.

      Combine these with Time Machine, you could actually log into a version of your whole system as it existed a week ago, or two weeks ago... and (pause) with Exposé eye-candy.
    • Re:Plan9 ideas (Score:3, Informative)

      by leoval ( 827218 )
      It is nice to see that Plan9 ideas keep flowing into mainstream OS's. Fossil+venti has been around for several years now (one of the best things of Plan9 btw).
  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:11AM (#15909580) Homepage
    I've been waiting ages for this to download, now that it's on Slashdot we'll get more seeders!

    Listens out for the sound of Bittorrent clients starting up...
  • I think it was intended, this time there will be no big koufuffle, like last time. I don't think steve feels so personal about intel line of apple hardware anymore. Its more biz, less glitz. Hallmarks everywhere that Leopard will available to generics.[hence no agreement, not to release] and thats why he'd let it out in the wild see how many early adopters are there. It is free beta testing as well, since OS X isn't so driver populated as its PPC predecessor. Steve is very deliberate, since he didn't blow u
    • Re:Intended (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rm69990 ( 885744 )
      Are you bloody retarded? There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that this release (or the final release) will run on generic PCs (in-fact, from what I've heard, Apple is going to make it even more difficult this time around). The bloody paragraphed size summary right at the top of this page says that there was an agreement not to release it onto p2p networks, and the linked article (not sure why I'm mentioning this, if you can't handle reading a paragraph long summary, I somehow doubt you bothered rea
  • Serious question. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LinuxGeek ( 6139 ) * <[djand.nc] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:14AM (#15909594)
    I see on the Apple site that I can buy a single OS X license for $129 or a 5-pack family license for $199. The fine print says it is to be used on "Apple-labeled computers". Has anyone tested their willingness to sell to generic x86 owners? Also, dosen't it make M$ seem even greedier to not have something like this for XP and Office? Imagine how many pirated copies would disappear if they had a $199 family 5-pack of XP Home.
    • Re:Serious question. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by topham ( 32406 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:16AM (#15909608) Homepage

      I'd love to see the sales statistics on the Family Pack. I mean it is entirely voluntary purchase as there is nothing preventing someone from buying a single copy and using it on all their computers at home.
      • I have two friends (they're roommates) that decided to get the family pack, since it was cheaper than buying two separate copies. If you move in with them, you get a free copy of OS X!
      • by mdobossy ( 674488 )
        In past releases, it was completely voluntary, and it doesnt sound like that is going to change in the future. At the keynote, Jobs and Co. were beating up on Vista, and one of the things they pointed out is a disliked 'feature' called activation. So my guess would be that 10.5 wont be introducing any new form of activation. They may, however, introduce a product code to attempt to thwart piracy, but it hasn't been done in the past, from OS 6 all the way up to the latest OS X.
        • The server versions of OS X (as well as AppleShare IP before that) require a product key. Since Apple uses them and obviously believes in them to some degree, I'm guessing that they don't feel it's something they should bother consumers with.
      • It seems like a waste with 5 licenses of OS X. Can someone start a "Family Pack Share Program" where we can sell off our unused licenses? One "family pack" copy of OS X is purchased, and the remaining 4 licenses are sold off to people on the Internet (who are given an image of the CD.) This effectively cuts the price of OS X down to $40, which is very reasonable.
        • I realize this probably won't matter to you, but read the fine print on the family pack.
        • Re:Serious question. (Score:3, Informative)

          by dr.badass ( 25287 )
          One "family pack" copy of OS X is purchased, and the remaining 4 licenses are sold off to people on the Internet (who are given an image of the CD.)

          "* Family Pack Software License Agreement allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as
      • Well, it depends if you're confusing "entirely voluntary purchase" with "question of legal license" really, doesn't it?

        Just because there's no technology preventing someone from doing it - thankfully - it doesn't mean people will break the license agreement...

        Carry on with your "voluntary purchase" idea and why bother to buy the OS at all - after all, you can get it from all good torrent sites, and if you've got mac hardware you've already paid for the os, so why pay for it again, eh?

        I dunno, but at a guess
      • Re:Serious question. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Cloud K ( 125581 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @09:44AM (#15910134)
        I think you'd be surprised.

        I hold my hand up - I've used my fair share of software that fell off the back of the internet. Let's leave the generic legal/moral arguments for another day. But there are two major things which convinced me to do the Right Thing when Tiger came out:

        * Fair pricing. If you're fair with me, I'm fair with you. If you charge me the full extortionate price 5 times for being a loyal and legal customer and legally upgrading all 5 of my family PCs, let's just say I'll be a little miffed...

        * Trust. It's a two-way process. It's like, if someone puts out a cookie jar for someone else and says "I know you want to steal one of those cookies, but I'll make you suffer the consequences, and I'll be watching so DON'T DO IT" - the first thing a lot of people will do is try to think of a way to steal a cookie. It's the human instinct to push boundaries and see what you can get away with, and chances are because they were so snotty with you and treated you like dirt, you lost all respect for them. On the other hand, if they said "I'd like you give you one of these, but I can't. I kindly ask that you do not take any" - as an adult at least, I'm much more willing to comply. Yes I know, at the end of the day an illegal act is an illegal act, end of.... but people *will* do wrong. And I think if you treat them like an adult and not like a criminal or a child or both, then you're more likely to combat piracy than any digital protection.
    • Re:Serious question. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Rob86TA ( 955953 ) <Robert.Atkinson@Nospam.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:28AM (#15909674)
      Apple and MS have different motivation to release a 5-pack.

      Apple sells hardware... by letting you install on 5 computers, they are hoping you will buy 4 more computers. $$$ in their pocket.

      MS doesn't sell hardware... by letting you install on 5 computers, they have removed 4 purchases the revenue stream. Sure you give more $$$ to Dell, Sony, or the whitebox dealer... and they just sold 4 less copies of XP. That's why there is no 5 pack for XP.
      • That does not quite explain it. For both Apple and Microsoft, a "new computer" already includes the operating system, so sales of this is irreleveant to sales of new computers.

        Can't think of any real explanation. One is that Microsoft just never thought of it. Or that the bean counters thought that the availability of a "family pack" would reduce sales (like you, I suspect it would actually raise revenue, by a tiny insignificant amount...). Or that Microsoft relies on corporate customers that would only buy
    • Re:Serious question. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <richardprice@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @09:04AM (#15909887)
      Theres no Intel version of the Family Pack, the included DVD is not Universal. Thus it can be argued that the licenses included dont extend to the Intel version, since that isnt the product included.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) * on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:15AM (#15909600)
    Other then developers who are going to use the brand new features and see if their code will break, who will need or even want an early beta. Having an early Beta of OS X is like having a Production version of Windows, and you know how buggy and anoying that is. Heck Steve Himself wouldn't demo many of the feature wich were labeled "Top Secret" which probably is a code word for too buggy for a SteveNote. As well OS X interface is relitivly small changes for the interface over time, it is not like Windows Beta users who use the Beta version so they can have say 7 years of XP Experience and probably next year say they have 2 years of Vista Experience, because every version moves everything around forcing you to relearn the OS again and again. While I am interested in Leopard when it is released but not now in early beta where is is just slightly less then a Year away from production. Companies don't like Beta Releases because non-Beta Wize users get a hold of it Judge the quality when it is Beta and talk down to it even when all the problems are fixed. It is like a person who used Linux last in 1994 and today are still saying I used Linux and its interface is horible, having to go to a config file to configure your windows manager is so out of date.
    • Other then developers who are going to use the brand new features and see if their code will break, who will need or even want an early beta.

      Time travellers who went back too far.
    • Having an early Beta of OS X is like having a Production version of Windows

      LOL

      Having recently tried Windows Vista Beta Preview, I was surprised to see that the user interface had been revamped, but only at the highest level. Dig into some of the dialogs, and you still see the Windows 2000 we all knew and, well, hated less. Personally, I find this very cynical, and am not at all convinced that the efforts that Microsoft indicated that they were putting into Vista have not been realised.
  • What garbage (Score:5, Insightful)

    by agent dero ( 680753 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:16AM (#15909610) Homepage
    This is absolutely garbage journalism, and there's a lot I take concern with, first off, with how they refer to BitTorrent like it's some sort of unified network. I'm sure I could have gotten Leopard off of Efnet at some point over the past two weeks, does that mean I got Leopard off of IRC? They're just feeding the fire as to why ISPs and *AA's take concern when it comes to BitTorrent the protocol.

    Secondly, after the Bono releases a record and it shows up on P2P, does that make it worthy of a new story? Look, people, file sharing is going to happen, as soon as something is digitally encoded, it's chances of being pirated approach 100%. Leopard finding it's way onto a BitTorrent tracker isn't news worthy, it's not even unexpected!
  • This appears to be the same build Steve Jobs previewed at WWDC, and contains most of the new features, including Time Machine
    Careful installiong it! As with all leaked software and all time machines, safety is not guaranteed. [ytmnd.com]
  • by Cjays ( 866936 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:23AM (#15909647)
    Attendees at last week's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) received copies of the beta ware and had to sign legally binding agreements not to let Leopard stray onto file-sharing networks.
    They didn't have us sign anything. Obviously there was an already established legal agreement, but nothing was signed on the spot.
  • They need to take better care of their cats at apple. That way they can avoid having it leak and ruin the rug.

    Seriously, though. $150 a year for your OS. It seems a bit shady to me. Do you apple fans have plans to skip eve/odd releases or something?
    • Seriously, though. $150 a year for your OS. It seems a bit shady to me. Do you apple fans have plans to skip eve/odd releases or something?

      It's more every 18-months than every year, and the education price gives a steep discount. Unlike MS educational discounts, you get a full version for the educational price (not a license that expires when you leave academia). This means you can resell it, so if you know someone in full-time education then they can get the student price for you. The lifespan of a

      • Skipping OS X releases is not generally a good idea. Apple does a lot of work behind the scenes with each release, and so you tend to end up with limited functionality (fortunately Objective-C provides late binding, so you can actually do this) in applications acquired after the release of the new version.

        The only reason I'm running Panther rather than Jaguar on my Mac Mini is because that's what it came with. When I got it I was still running Jaguar... and that was right before the release of Tiger.

        The onl
    • I'm still running Windows 2000 and have no plans to downgrade* to XP, let alone Vista, until I absolutely have to. As the neighborhood "nice guy who knows about computers" I've found people running Windows 98 and Me. Why on earth do you think typical Apple users are any different than typical Windows users?

      Sure, the obsessives and the hardcore gamers (but I repeat myself) track the latest version of the OS, but most people won't even understand your question.

      (* Windows XP - Windows 2000 with a few more driv
    • A year? I last bought Tiger in April 2005, Leopard will be released in 2007, nothings been released in 2006. By my count, its an upgrade every 2 years.
  • by iainl ( 136759 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:27AM (#15909668)
    It's really useful when a news source not only tells me that new pirate software exists, but how to tell the 'good' one from the fake.
  • Forward this story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by etresoft ( 698962 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @08:28AM (#15909673)
    to the developers at Adobe and the MAC BU at Microsoft. Maybe if they can get a beta version of Leopard soon enough they will be able to release compatible software less than a year after it gets released. This while Mac OS X on Intel seems to have really caught them by surprise.
  • On YouTube... (Score:2, Informative)

    ... there are some videos of the GUI [youtube.com].
  • "leaked" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis@gmail . c om> on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @09:10AM (#15909927) Homepage
    Yeah I'm sure. It was "leaked." As in, Apple wants more press so they do what they do with every other release and accidentally get a beta out the door.

    Can we stop pretending to be gullible and just call it what it is?

    Tom
    • Re:"leaked" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cowscows ( 103644 )
      Why do people insist on making things more complicated than they need to be. There are droves of hardcore mac fans who salivate over things like OSX updates. Demand. A bunch of copies were distributed to a bunch of developers following WWDC. Supply.

      Wherever there is a supply and a demand, people will get a hold of those things. Apple didn't have to have some super secret plan to leak a version onto the internet. They know full well as soon as they let a copy out of their "labs" that they've basically lost c
    • Re:"leaked" (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dr.badass ( 25287 )
      Yeah I'm sure. It was "leaked." As in, Apple wants more press so they do what they do with every other release and accidentally get a beta out the door.

      Right, because there is no chance in hell that any one of four thousand WWDC attendees could have possibly uploaded a copy on their own. No chance in hell. It must be a secret corporate conspiracy to get buggy, incomplete software in the hands of end users, because that's good for business.

      Here's a simpler explanation: anything that can end up on BitTorren
  • by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @11:30AM (#15910931)
    You can have legally-binding documents lining the walls, but anytime you release software out of your immediate, physical control, it's going to leak, either intentionally or unintentionally.

    The only sure-fire way to keep anything from leaking is physical separation from the rest of the world.

    Anybody want to speculate that this was really a "controlled" leak to drum up interest and anticipation for Leopard, or am I all wet?
  • by ElephanTS ( 624421 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @02:02PM (#15912183)
    [drum roll]

    There were rumours that Bit Torrent would be integrated into Leopard. In reality it looks like Leopard's been integrated into Bit Torrent.

    Thanks, I'll be here all week

    [bread roll]
  • by BWhaler ( 878615 ) on Tuesday August 15, 2006 @02:17PM (#15912344)
    I think that Apple gave the developers a very old build especially designed for WWDC. The Top Secret features point to unreleased features, UI, and potentially hardware. So, all functionality and low-level information which point to these products must be missing. As we saw from the iPhone references discovered in the last iPod update, Apple is aware that people will be sniffing around for clues. Also, Apple knew this was going to happen. It's inevitable. Sure, they will sue and write nasty letters to protect their IP, but it's still inevitable. So, what is out in the wild is probably--and hopefully given the keynote--and a very limited preview of Leopard. The preview seed gives developers just enough to test their application and get cracking on some of the new API's--SpotLight, Time Machine, etc.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.

Working...