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.
before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Funny)
thankyou you've beening such a wonderful audience
ciao
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Informative)
The new search tech is fully integrated
The new G5 optimised code in the kernel is implemented iirc
The Dashboard looks very cool
A reworking of many of the key areas of the functionality of the OS
Read the article and read any review of the tiger betas out there to find out for yourself why this is more than a mere update.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I read in a local PC centric computer mag, that the new sync function requires a
Can someone put my mind to rest on this? This is the biggest feature I am eagerly waiting for. I was going to just use rsync and some scripting, but if Appl
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know anything about whether iSync will require .mac in 10.4, sorry. But I did want to bring a piece of sync software to your attention: Unison. http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/ [upenn.edu]
It works wonderfully well. It's a little cleverer than rsync in that it will do bi-directional updates (ie syncing) and also merges conflicts if it is able.
I work on two macs and with unison I am pretty much able to work on either one without having to worry about which one is up to date.
I have .mac too and
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know about 10.4 (and if I did know I wouldn't be allowed to say) but I'm guessing that it's not that much different to the way iSync works now in 10.3.
You can sync between one Mac, your phones, iPods, Palms, etc. without requiring a .Mac subscription. However for Mac to Mac syncing you do need .Mac
However, if you have access to your own server somewhere, it is possible to fake it to look like .Mac Here are some instructions [tnpi.biz] on how to do that.
Note: I haven't actually tried it myself (yet)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
The rumors about a month ago were for an April 1 announcement and in stores by the 15 (the announcement wouldn't surprise me, but in stores would). April 1 is Apple's 29th birthday. It also wouldn't surprise me if Apple sent that rumor out as an April fools prank. A ship date Amazon leaked said March 31 in stores, but I think that is out of the question now.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not even sure what's on the system restore disks, since I've never bothered to use them.
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:before anyone else does it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other tentacle, this is a case of comparing apples (uh oh) to oranges: OS X is a whole OS, Linux is just the kernel. We should be rather comparing Tiger to, let's say, Debian Woody or Debian Sarge.
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Informative)
If you want, you can complain that Apple's devaluing the normal versioning numbering system, but I don't think they'll care much if you do.
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:5, Funny)
The way it should work is x.y.z
z: Bug fixes
y: New features
x: Backwards compatibility break
Does that mean Windows XP should really be called Windows 3.15.8734?
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Funny)
z: Bug fixes
y: New features
x: Backwards compatibility break
Does that mean Windows XP should really be called Windows 3.15.8734?
You probably want to drop the z value a bit
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
technically, it'd be 4.y.z
Windows 4.0 was the internal name for NT and actually was the version reported by Windows itself. XP is derived from the kernel and source of NT and is not backwards compatible to Windows 3.x. Windows 95/98/ME technically should have been Windows 4.0, since they broke backwards compatibility with 3.1, but since NT came first and took the version (at least internally) they went with a new naming scheme. The on
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, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, people refer to OS X as "Oh, sex", so adding the I on the end would make it "Oh, sexy!"
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Do you pronounce that "Mac OS Ex" or "Mac OS Ten"? Most people I know use the former, but the latter also makes sense...
The Apple folks say 'ten' (I think because 'Ex' can have negative implications) but everyone I know says 'Ex' (prob. b/c it sounds a bit cooler.)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Informative)
You're clearly being facetious, but not everyone will pick up on that. Thus, a point of explanation:
It's a mere point release, but that's an artifact of marketing. The number and magnitude of changes under the hood is incredible, with huge advances in developer productivity through tools like CoreData, CoreImage, and CoreVideo. The rendering subsystem has been worked over to the point where some operations are hundreds or thousands of times faster than they used to be, and the system takes advantage of modern GPUs to offload even more processing (formerly it was just compositing, not it's a whole lot more). Add to that new versions of Safari, Quicktime that's build on CoreAudio, and a ton of other neat stuff (Automator). You get a lot for your $140.
And remember, the 2.6 kernel was just a point release!
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but for most people CoreImage and CoreVideo is going to be utterly useless. Apple still ships shit, shit, shit video processors on the iBook, Mac Mini and only the latest generation Powerbooks, PMs and iMac have the much-needed Pixel Shader on their GPUs. I'd guess probably 10-20% of the Mac userbase uses a Powerbook latest revision, PM G5, or iMac G5. The iBook was Apple's best selling Mac a few months back and I'm sure that the Mac Mini will replace it.
So are you honestly going to tell me dev
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's great about it (and many of the things Apple has done) is that it uses the fastest available hardware to do the job.
You don't have a GPU that can handle the job, Altivec will do it.
Don't have Altivec, the core of the CPU will do it.
On other systems, either you have to have the hardware "required", or each developer has to handle checking for hardware and writing/optimizing all the code to handle the different configurations.
That's a huge feature IM
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 cou
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:before anyone else does it... (Score:3, Informative)
Amazon has it for $95 (Score:3, Informative)
FP? (Score:5, Funny)
sgarringer@gmail.com
Grrrrrr (Score:3, Funny)
Paying again... (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope this release sticks around for a few years and Apple chooses to update it rather than come up with some new cat name and ask people to pay for it. I doubt that, however, since OS updates seems to be a major cash cow for Apple.
They are inadvertently (or purposefully) creating a situation where people are running 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and now 10.4...makes it very tough for developers. We can't assume that everyone has the money to upgrade their OS all the time (and yes, I know they should).
Re:Paying again... (Score:5, Informative)
The incredibly amount of work that goes into each new major OS X version easily justifies putting a price tag on them. These aren't Windows 98 to Windows Me steps, these are considerable feature and functionality upgrades.
As to writing software for them, my understanding is that they haven't often broken backwards compatibility, and thus haven't broken forwards compatibility. If you want your app to work for multiple versions, then only use the feature set exposed by the lowest version you want your app to be capable of running on. I don't think that's creating an unfair situation for developers at all.
Re:Paying again... (Score:5, Informative)
That said, with each version of OS X, shareware developers salivate to use the new features, since they often make the dirty work easier, or negligible ( for exampe, Cocoa Bindings for 10.3 ).
Obviously, the big development houses, Adobe, Quark, etc will not generally use these new features.
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
Re:Paying again... (Score:3, Informative)
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: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: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:Paying again... (Score:5, Interesting)
They're not. There are some pretty big differences, most notably Bindings, which only work on 10.3, and can save developers a huge amount of drudge word implementing a GUI. Thing is, most apps presently on the market predate Bindings, and switching an app over is a lot of work, so the technology hasn't been widely adopted and a lot of apps still work on 10.2.
With Core Data (which basically takes all the drudge work out of data modeling), Tiger is introducing something almost as significant. Maybe more significant for some apps.
If you're writing an new OS X app now, you'd be crazy not to use Core Data and Bindings -- they'll literally save you hundreds of hours.
Maybe large development houses have the luxury of investing all those hours to support older systems, but small operations and one-man projects generally don't. So, expect to see a lot of new apps from the small guys be Tiger-only.
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.
Upgrade plans for new systems? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Upgrade plans for new systems? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you can get an upgrade (probably) (Score:5, Informative)
You CAN install the OS from scratch (you aren't forced to do one of those nasty upgrades), but you MUST have the previous OS installed for the discs to work. Which you do, so don't worry. It just means if you ever need to reinstall your OS in the event of a disaster, you'll have to install 10.3 first, then do the format-(or archive)-and-install with 10.4.
Apparently I didn't whine effectively (Score:3, Interesting)
{rant mode on}
I was very upset to think that they would not offer me the option to upgrade at a discounted rate so soon after I bought a top-of-the-line notebook. I've never dropped $3K on a PC before, and it was shocking.
Re:Yes, you can get an upgrade (probably) (Score:3, Interesting)
How soon after a new Mac OS is released does it appear on new Mac inventory? I assume current Mac Minis ship with Mac OS 10.3.8 installed. How soon after Mac OS X 10.4 is shipped will I be able to buy a Mac Mini with Mac OS 10.4 pre-installed?
Re:Yes, you can get an upgrade (probably) (Score:3, Interesting)
Running older hardware?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Any word on how it's expected to run on older hardware: meaning, any G4 from the last 4 or 5 years?
Every newer OS X has run better than the previous version on these machines from my experience, and from what I've heard others say. Realistically, how long can that go on though until newer versions start to overwhelm older hardware?
Anyone with their hands on a pre-release version of Tiger have any insight into this?
Re:Running older hardware?! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Running older hardware?! (Score:3, Interesting)
I made the mistake a couple years ago of playing with a Power Mac G4 back when all I had was a 500MHz iBook G3. CompUSA offered a trade-in shortly thereafter (which, frighteningly enough, was nearly market value), and out the door I went with a new Power Mac.
I made the mistake recently of playing with an iMac G5. But I've got other things I need more, so I'm safe from the upgrade bug for the moment. If $1100 magically dropped in my lap, thou
Logistics (Score:4, Informative)
So I believe the 15th as release date is very improbable (by Zarquon), maybe June 6th at WWDC?
Info from Amazon (Score:3, Informative)
1. The coupon says you have to pre-order by 5/31/05, and then postmark the coupon by 7/1. OK, that doesn't necessarily mean much, but that 5/31 date looks suspiciously as if the release will be June 1.
2. After I ordered it, Amazon gave me an estimated shipping date of 6/1/05.
Now maybe they don't know either and they are ju
New Hardware (Score:5, Interesting)
There is some new hardware coming out, sometime between "now" and "the end of 2005" (how is that for vague). This new hardware will require extra drivers and code to support some new features. The beta testers have only been able to run Tiger on this hardware, released versions of 10.X don't work much, or at all.
Since releasing Tiger before the hardware is announced means that legions of Mac fanatics will be picking it apart, they will quickly find the code relating to new hardware names. So it is almost a certainty that Apple will release Tiger at the same time they announce the new hardware. The hardware might ship later, but at least it will be announced by the Tiger ship date. Tiger may be announced as much as a month in advance of its ship date, if past announcements are any guide.
So the speculation is centred around which events in Apple's calendar would be good for announcing a new round of hardware upgrades and new models, as well as releasing Tiger. The WWDC has been a favorite target until recently, as it is now approaching rapidly and Tiger is still in beta, MacPsychics are looking further into the summer for good announce dates.
the AC
My money is on the WWDC for a ship date
Will it cost money? (Score:5, Informative)
No, this is nothing new.
Yes, the version number seems to indicate it's not a new version but only an update. You have to simply ignore the leading "10.". It ain't that hard.
Yes, this is actually like Microsoft charging you for XP (NT5.1) after you already bought Win2000 (NT5.0) or NT4.0 or NT3.51 - the leading "10." is like the leading "NT" from Microsoft.
Yes, this is old news, but the issue comes up every time Apple releases a new version of OS X.
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 run
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 th
Re:Will it cost money? (Score:3, Interesting)
I understand what you're saying, but a few points:
Re:Will it cost money? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there are quite a few people running Mac OS 9 or even Mac OS 8. I just don't get your point.
Re:Will it cost money? (Score:3, Informative)
1) I wouldn't call it a remake... you get new features and capabilities (for both users and developers) more often then the 4-5+ year cycle seen on the Windows side and in a single package. I personally like this.
2) It isn't yearly by any means and in fact Apple has said now that Mac OS X has matured (said around the time of 10.3 release) that major revisions will come less frequen
10.3.9 update is coming (Score:5, Informative)
point releases (Score:5, Funny)
Jumping over to Family Canidae from Family Felidae, would you upgrade from a Chihuahua that shits on your keyboard to a Golden Retriever that fetches beer and Hot Pockets? I sure would.
That's about the difference that Tiger is going to be over 10.0 (Cheetah).
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
10.4? I can't wait for 11! (Score:5, Funny)
11.0 Halle Berry
11.1 Eartha Kitt
11.2 Julie Newmar
11.3 Nastassja Kinski...
meow!
This is why Windows is better! (Score:5, Funny)
Looking forward to Java JDK5 support (Score:3, Interesting)
I am also interested in playing with Searchlight.
Re:Looking forward to Java JDK5 support (Score:3, Interesting)
Impressed by Core Data and Core Bindings (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't Forget to Pay SCO (Score:4, Funny)
New releases getting *faster* on old hardware? MS? (Score:4, Interesting)
I would think Micro$oft would want to take a look at this....Of course this would mean people wouldn't have to buy PCs as often...I wonder how Micro$oft's relationship with PC makers compares with Apple making their own hardware...
Something to think about. Any thoughts?
Re:New releases getting *faster* on old hardware? (Score:3, Informative)
PS: Apple has made a release every 12-18 months on OS X (every
What will happen... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Question: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wonder how bad Tiger will punish (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wonder how bad Tiger will punish (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:And the hardware... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mac Mini (in its default/cheapest config) is perfectly good for surfing the web, checking mail and playing music and DVDs. And it's affordable. I know because I had mine pre-ordered and have been using it ever since it arrived.
Apple's OS software tends to get faster with every release, so you can be sure that Tiger will work fine on a Mac Mini. In fact we have it running on a Mini at work.
If you want a Mac, buy one instead of your next PC. If you really dislike the Mini, iBooks are cheap on E-bay.
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:2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just un undereducated guess.
Re:2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:2005 Apple OS on 2005 Apple Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:x86 release? (Score:4, Insightful)
but Apple DO make OSX for x86 (Score:5, Informative)
But they do, they just don't sell it.
In an interview last year, an Apple executive confirmed that an x86 port of OSX, aka Marklar does exist in Apple's labs and that they are keeping it on par with PPC development.
Before the release of the G5, Steve Jobs said in another interview that they do not plan to move to x86 but that they like to keep their options open.
If you take these two statements and add one and one together, it should become obvious that they have no intent to change their business model from making and selling "hardware including software" to "software including hardware" or even "software only". In other words, Marklar is just an insurance policy against unpredictable disaster scenarios where Apple would be forced to move to another CPU and as a result, Apple have a stronger negotiating position with IBM.
Consequently, for as long as IBM do a good job on fostering PPC, for as long as PPC is competitive, Apple have very little reason to move.
And should they ever decide to move, or should they decide to offer OSX on x86 in addition to PPC, their business model will almost certainly remain the same, meaning OSX will continue to be made to run on Apple hardware only, regardless of CPU compatibility.
So, you would then see an x86 Mac with exactly the same treats as today, from OpenFirmware to Apple's own motherboard designs, not compatible with other x86 hardware. In fact, such an x86 Mac might even have a custom x86 CPU, made only for Apple, ie bolted on AltiVec compatible SIMD. Without specific hacks, OSX would not run on other x86 machines. Likewise, Windows would probably not run on such an x86 Mac without some extra software from Microsoft, eg. Virtual PC or Mac/x86. Such an arrangement would also likely have Microsoft continue MS-Office development for the Mac - even more reason for Apple to choose such a path if they ever were to go x86.
So, whether or not Apple will release OSX on x86, if you want OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware, you will almost certainly have to rig your own.
Mind you, you can do this within limits already today. Darwin, the core of OSX, is available for x86 and it's a free download
http://www.opendarwin.org/en/downloads [opendarwin.org]
You can get GNUstep and run it on top of Darwin x86
http://www.gnustep.org [gnustep.org]
GNUstep is the GNU implementation of OPENSTEP, the foundation on which Cocoa is build. In addition, GNUstep has some, but not all of the things Apple has added, so you get Cocoa compatibility within limits. This is as close as you can get OSX on x86 today. It's free, but it requires a little more effort than an OSX installation on a Mac. And if you want the OSX eye candy, you will also need to do a bit of DIY. If you do, consider becoming a contributor to the GNUstep project.
Thus, it comes down to paying a little extra for convenience or save some money and put in some work. You can't have it both ways. Remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Slow FSB still dogs the Powerbook (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Diminishing Returns (Score:4, Interesting)
You are obviously not a developer
Agreed. Still, I'm grateful it's finally here.
They are not done. CoreData is just being introduced as is SpotLight, CoreImage and CoreVideo. QuickTime is just now being integrated with the Quartz display engine. There are still lots of things to add and make better.
I for one am looking forward to Lion or whatever the next cat's name will be.
It is.
It is.
New widgets and OS features can make you more productive. Just ask some Mac users about Exposé
Andreas
Re:Diminishing Returns (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds more KDE to me! And that's why I prefer KDE to any other non-OS X UI!
Seriously, the OS X UI and Cocoa frameworks are much cleaner and better thought-out than a munged hodgepodge of paradigms. Apple's value proposition is related to not just the technical underpinnings but the thoughtfulness of design and attention to end users. Apple sweats the interface details.
And the real question now is. . . Where do we go from here? After achieving the OS that everybody wanted 15+ years ago, now Apple's OS team suddenly find themselves without a goal. They've resorted to tacking on a hodgepodge of minor trinkets and calling it a major upgrade. It must be hard to step back and admit that they're done with this OS, and that continually adding new features to it may no longer be the right approach.
I'm not gonna try to push Tiger as a huge innovation, I have sympathy for your point here. However, to a certain extent, if maintaining OS X on the cutting edge (which may be a relatively slow crawl at times, if you're waiting for enough hardware to drive the really revolutionary stuff like voice recog or more miniaturization or whatnot) means putting up with continuous point releases to keep engineers working, that's fine with me. The US gov't does this to a degree with companies like Electric Boat: they don't _need_ new ships all the time, but they need to maintain the ability to build them, and they can't afford to let the skilled people become unavailable. If keeping a solid core of engineers at Apple paid and happy means the occasional softball release, so be it.
And honestly, I don't think Tiger's a softball release. For me, Panther was, and for any particular Macista a particular OSX release may be. But Tiger's got interesting stuff at the framework level, and who knows how useful Spotlight and Dashboard stuff will be?
If it was up to me, I would focus on maintenance, bugfixes, security, optimization. . . and de-emphasize the OS as a product. Put the OS back in its proper place, I say! An operating system shouldn't be a featured product, it should be merely a component -- a part of the computer, just like the hard drive, the RAM, the processor, etc. -- that is required for running applications.
Work for Intel then?
Seriously, when it comes to defining the place for an OS, you have to take the user into account. This attitude is great for hardware folks and embedded developers, but for desktop people it's toxic. As an end user, I want someone _else_ to make a lot of these decisions, because I don't want to waste my time on them. Having an 'advanced user' preference pane to offer finer-grained control of things is nice, but it shouldn't be necessary for normals.
The goal should be to provide a stable, efficient foundation for apps to run on, because apps are where your work gets done.
Sounds like a kernel to me, and Darwin does a pretty decent job of this. Cocoa frameworks also contribute, and Apple's OS releases typically contain a ton of interesting framework improvements (like CoreImage and CoreVideo for Tiger for example.. Imagine realtime SGI-like stream filters for video and image effects) that make upgrading worthwhile (and mandatory for the new apps enabled and/or improved by these new optimized libs).
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.
Re:Upgrade or Fresh Install to Tiger (Score:4, Informative)
Re:new things. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New developer resources? (Score:5, Informative)
If you intend on developing end-user stuff, be sure to check out the Human Interface Guidelines -- Mac users have expectations for how applications should "feel" and Apple has spent a lot of time and money developing and revising the HIG over the years. If it feels like a typical mediocre X11 app, it'll get torn to shreds by rabid users.
As for books...
Aaron Hillegass' Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X [bignerdranch.com] is an excellent primer and my personal favorite. It's not cheap at US$44.99, but well worth it. The first few chapters are essentially a Cliffs Notes version of Apple's free introductory material, and from there the book tackles a little bit of everything -- Objective-C basics, bindings, custom views, localization... you name it.
O'Reilly's Learning Cocoa (aka Learning Cocoa with Objective-C in its second edition) by James Duncan Davidson isn't horrible, but isn't the best. It also isn't as up-to-date as the Hillegass book, but they'll both be dated pretty shortly with Tiger coming out in the next few months (or a couple weeks, if you believe the rumor sites).
Once you get out of the starting gate, there aren't a whole lot of applicable books (but Cocoa and Objective-C are fairly easy to pick up). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Apple's mailing lists are a great resource and the developer and API documentation is quite good in most areas.
Re:New developer resources? (Score:3, Informative)
For learning Cocoa, the gold standard is Aaron Hillegass' "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X", Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-321-21314-9.
In addition, read Apple's online developer documentation. Just install the developer tools and then point your browser at
file:///Developer/ADC%20Reference%20Library/doc u me ntation/index.html
The introductory stuff on Cocoa is at
file:///D
Re:Free upgrade for Mac Mini users? (Score:3, Informative)
Tiger's release still hasn't been finally announced by Apple, so unless they radically change their program, there's no way a system bought in February will qualify (as would also be the case if you bought a Dell and Longhorn was magically announced for release two weeks from now).
There can be only one! (Score:4, Funny)
Thus the term "Gold Master".