Mac OS X "Tiger" Enters Final Candidate Stage 583
Orangez writes "Apppleinsider.com reports that 'Tiger' reaches the final candidate stage. 'With massive software projects such as Tiger, Apple will sometimes seed several final candidate builds before one is declared gold master...'" The final release has widely been speculated to be in the next month or two.
News ? (Score:2, Insightful)
It also appeared [valcenter.ch] on my Swiss reseller's catalogue last week.
I'm however glad it'll support my Samsung 213T rotation [macbidouille.com].
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:2, Insightful)
It was obviously irony... A typical Slashdot-culture item...
Don't let this flamebait mod prevent you from starting again : it's only karma
I will wait until two weeks after 10.4.1 (Score:1, Insightful)
10.4.1 should fix most of the glaring bugs of 10.4, but a two week, watch-the-forums-for-problems period for 10.4.1 will ensure that bug-fix release is stable and does not add yet another major glitch.
I realize this strategy of waiting until the dust settles is cowardly and that I am shirking my duty to help Apple debug its OS. But I run production systems and downtime/corruption is something I prefer to avoid even if it means not staying on the bleeding edge of cool software.
Re:Wonder how bad Tiger will punish (Score:3, Insightful)
All the compliments like "omg Tiger is sooo much faster" is compared to either Jaguar or Panther.
In fact, some people would say that Panther and Tiger are back up to OS 9 levels of responsiveness...
Please release a finished product! (Score:3, Insightful)
I LOVE Panther and I am in no need for upgrading, so my message to Apple is: DON*T RUSH IT! There's really no need. Wait a month or two and get it right!
I would hate it if they released 10.4.1 in May and 10.4.2 in time for WWDC in late June. If they did that (and they will, mark my words) they obviously did a rush job and that'd really suck.
Why not release a time bombed public beta if they desperately need a larger beta test group?
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:x86 release? (Score:1, Insightful)
This has been asked in the past, and won't happen. Apple is not a company who aims to own the whole industry like Microsoft has just to get the money. Apple likes doing things well, somewhat like Ferrari
They could switch and do it, and millions of people could get convinced to use it, but they won't do it. Apple doesn't works that way, period.
Re:Wonder how bad Tiger will punish (Score:1, Insightful)
shipped I think with 6.2) as every Mac OS increment has always claimed performance improvements over the existing product."
That's ridiculous. Even if Apple didn't drop support for old hardware, one would assume performance improvements converge on the theoretical maximum amount of work the chip can do. An OS running on a IIci could go through hundreds of revisions, each faster than the last, without getting particularly fast.
That said, 10.0 was not claimed to be faster than 9. Everyone knew it was slower. That was a generational shift. Since then, Apple's been finishing the OS, and it now runs reasonably, when before it did not.
Moreover, Apple does drop support. Every time they drop an old computer model, they're able to tune the new OS by cutting out all the code that was needed to handle the old hardware. The result is that the fastest Mac OS for any system is almost always the last Mac OS that system supports. Again, the exception is systems that only support 10.0-10.1. Blueberry iBooks, for example, are best off with classic.
Re:Paying again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I've been waiting for Tiger to even start writing a shareware app I'm planning. Some of the new stuff, particularly Core Data and the improved SeachKit, are going to save me absolutely huge amounts of time and make my app better. Sure, it'll be Tiger-only, but I'm willing to trade off compatibility for quality and convenience. Otherwise I'd be a Windows user....
Re:x86 release? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The way it should work is x.y.z
z: Bug fixes
y: New features
x: Backwards compatibility break
Since 10.4 appears to have new features, but not break backwards compatibility, it's the right version.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paying again... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think there is no value in the systems updates then dont buy one. Perhaps youd like win98 second edition that add neat to nothing and isnt an upgrade for the thing that do need fixing?
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:x86 release? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:x86 release? (Score:2, Insightful)
One would be the riot by their developers.
It would be not a huge deal for developers of Cocoa applications to recompile their applications to run on OS X x86.
But many developers took the quicker route of converting their old classic applications to carbon.
It would not be an easy thing to move these carbon applications over to the new platform.
I think it's just too soon for apple to try to force these developers to make another move. They need time to recoup their costs on the current platform. If you try to force a move now, many would just quit OS X altogether.
Also, there's the little detail about Microsoft. I'm not too certain that Microsoft would continue to make Office for the PowerPC OS X in this scenario, yet alone port it to OS X x86.
I know, there are alternative office applications out there. But at the moment, I think it's still too big a risk for Apple to take.
My guess is you will eventually see OS X x86. But it's gonna be a couple of years. Once most new applications are written in Cocoa, it would really be a simple matter to move the entire platform to intel.
But that time isn't now.
2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a Mini with a 20" Cinema Display and expose is already choppy (Courtesy of the 1600*1050 display).
I've read Tiger will require 64 Mb of Video Ram for all the cool "Core Video" features.
Does anybody know if they managed to get these features working on the Mini? Apple would be shotting itself in the foot if a 2005 machine could not run their 2005 OS
Re:Will it cost money? (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, for all the being called "Redmond fanboys" or whatnot, we Windows people don't go buying every single release. Yes, Microsoft fully expects you to pay for XP, but most sane people will not actually upgrade to XP from 2000.
My second computer is still happily running Windows 2000, ever since it was my primary box. The newer A64 machine is on XP only because (A) there was no price discount to buy an older version, and (B) I really wanted the NX bit protection, what with all the buffer-overflow viruses on the Internet. (Not that I ever got virused on 2000 either, but I figured you can't ever have enough layers of defense.)
And even that computer still running Windows 2000 is not that much of an exception. You'd be suprised how many computers still exist out there with Windows '98, or even Windows '95, or in some pathological cases Windows 3.1.
Or here at work until recently NT 4.0 was still the corporate standard.
In fact, I think that in the Windows world, it's safe to say that the OS is the _least_ important part. It's there just so the applications will load. We'd run just as happily (or actually happier) without any OS, if the same apps could be booted directly without an OS. Hence, the lack of Windows people creaming their pants at the thought "woo, we can pay for a new release."
Unless the new version is absolutely needed to run some application, most of us couldn't care less about it.
So in a nutshell that's why we're wondering about it. Because over here on this side of the fence, sticking to an OS for 4-5 years is really the norm. Seeing people getting all excited at the thought of buying yet another yearly remake of the same OS is, well, a bit strange.
So, pray tell, just for my curiosity: _what_ applications didn't work with the old release? Was there some killer-app or killer-game announced that requires Tiger to run? Is there some much needed functionality comes in this release and was sorely missing in Panther? I'm just, you know, curious.
Re:2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just un undereducated guess.
Re:What's gonna happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, I bitch and whine all the time about how crap Apple's default graphics boards are so primitive compared to the latest and greatest, and because of that OS X gaming won't be on the cutting edge.
However, for the UI stuff that doesn't require constant high framerate + 3D rendering + physics + AI, these GPUs should be completely tits for Quartz Extreme.
That is to say, for nongaming purposes, these GPUs are essentially desktop accelerators and feature enablers. Even the lowly FX5200 and Radeon 9200 w/32 or 64MB RAM is fine for this.
If Tiger ends up pushing more work onto these (for Macs) underworked GPUs, the UI will actually _speed up_. And the lowest-spec Mac (Mac mini) will have enough GPU to handle Quartz Extreme handily, while those with older AGP Macs should still be able to find 32/64MB QE cards fairly cheap.
And to be quite honest, one of the main reasons I built a dual celeron back in the day was to have all my KDE candy run more responsively.. I have no problem dedicating a cpu towards UI vanity
Re:Will it cost money? (Score:3, Insightful)
10.0 was buggy as hell, missing features and nobody really used it for production. 10.1 and 10.2 were massive bugfixes and feature adds. Hard-core Mac fans will dispute this, no doubt.
I actually think that 10.3 was where things leveled out, software vendors caught up with X versions of their applications that worked reliably and so on.
Apple's managed to produce an OS that was stable _enough_ that people would use it, but in reality was highly beta-ish. I think 10.4 is actually going to be more like a _true_ point upgrade to what should have been the 10.0 version, 10.3.
Re:Paying again... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly with you, but it's worth pointing out you've got to know your target to make this determination. A lot of users, particularly in the academic arena, are hanging on to Jaguar or stuck (in the case of IT departments with no budget) with Jaguar.
One of the first feature requests I received was for Jaguar compatibility, and that was in December. Some of them are likely waiting for Tiger, but some of them will stick with Jaguar (and have said as much). And we'll see the same thing with Tiger -- some people will be all over it the first day, and some people will stick with or be stuck to Panther, leaving you without Core Data, depending on your target market.
If the app in question was more complex, I'd probably release a final version for Jag and launch into using bindings -- writing glue code is boring, boring, boring. Key-value observation all the way, baby!
So for all the developers new to the Mac platform: put out feelers before you commit to one set of technologies. The new stuff is cool (I'm very excited about the changes in Tiger), but it's not going to get you any love (or cash) if 50 or 60 percent of your audience isn't using a compatible version of OS X. If you're targeting academia at any level, support backwards as far as you can without ripping your hair out.
And it's worth learning how to check the user's version of the OS and bail out gracefully if you're not supporting that version. Despite clearly stating the original system requirements as Panther, I had a dozen users contact me in the first week of release to tell me it didn't work when run on Jaguar. I have no idea where they got the impression it should work, but a dialog box could have saved me a lot of time.
Slow FSB still dogs the Powerbook (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Native Compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
In the same respect, Windows XP is backwards compatible to DOS, so it's not a Mac vs. PC argument.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Logistics (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:x86 release? (Score:2, Insightful)
If everyone who says that had actually bought it when it was called NextStep / OpenStep / Rhapsody, they probably still would be.
Re:Paying again... (Score:3, Insightful)
While the initial blitz of MacOS X updates was necessary to get it established, slowing down to 18-24 months between releases is better for Apple and customers in the long term.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait! Wait! Hear me out.
On Windows, every app gets its own menu bar. Essentially, every app lives in its own self-contained window. I find this very irritating for 90% of applications (SQL Server, I'm looking at you). On the Mac, by contrast, every app gets essentially full control of its space, including the system's one menu bar, when the app in particular is focused. This, I like.
90% of the time.
But what about apps that really are one window apps. This isn't like iTunes, or iPhoto, because these apps have menu bars, and separate palettes. I mean, apps like Stickies, or a calculator. Furthermore, why do I need the calculator sitting in the Dock, when it's just one window, that I don't need to see most of the time?
Enter Dashboard. Basically, it groups all of these one-window-apps into one place, and lets that particular area come and go as easily as Expose does. Your one-window-apps live in one giant container app, which is then treated like any other multi-window application.
Anyway. I think it's neat. I'll be buying Tiger as soon as it's available.
Re:new things. (Score:3, Insightful)
Could we please look at this objectively? (Score:3, Insightful)
CoreImage and CoreVideo are going to make these effects go as fast as they can on your hardware. It puts the power to do what the Quartz EX people have been doing into the hands of developers. Of course it won't be as fast on older machines, but that doesn't mean it's going to be any slower. Indeed, I'm sure we'll see a speed boost. And when developers can leverage these algorithms then suddenly 3rd party apps become faster too, which really helps with the perception of OSX's speed.
CoreImage and CoreVideo are groundworks for future apps, and proof that Apple really does care about the quality of tools available for its developer community.
If we based our criterion for software features based solely off how many people could derive immediate benefit, we'd end up with Windows, where the masses rule your OS. Apple is growing the OS towards certain goals. CoreImage and CoreMovie are cool, but they're only pieces in a larger puzzle.
Then I suspect you're not paying attention. Or not thinking about the implications or these products.
See? What did I tell you. You're missing the point. Let me bold it so you don't miss it: Spotlight unifies application and file data together! You may be the king of organization, fastidiously organizing every file, but when it comes time you find an address in AddressBook or a Mail in Mail.app, you still need to open these apps.
Spotlight is going to make the content of various apps searchable from a single point. So instead of deciding where to go, opening that app, and using its search feature, you open one search dialog and get all the relative hits. Any Mac user who's tried LaunchBar or the up-and-coming Quicksilver can attest to how powerful this idea is. Being able to open and control apps all from one small, powerful, searchable interface is fast, fun, and efficient. It also follows the theme of Apple caring about its developer community. Your app provides the data in an indexed format and Spotlight integrates the searching into the OS for almost not cost (you need to tell spotlight how to read your data).
This means that your bookmarks, RSS feeds, IRC/IM logs, text files, OmniGraffle documents, whatever, they all get cheap, fast, OS-integrated searching at minimal developer cost.
Excellent example of where Spotlight could do some good. Searching your feeds. Safari stores them and makes Spotlight.framework aware of them, and you get powerful, fast, integrated searching of your feeds.
NetNewsWire and NewsFire will add this as soon as Tiger comes out. You watch.
Incedentally, it seems that the next Safari is going to have incredible HTML and CSS support. This RSS thing is probably just an example to show how to leverage their new XSLT and CSS3 handling. The new web framework looks amazing, if the developer's blogs are to be believed.
For anyone who does develop
Re:2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)