# Wwdc 2008



## Satcomer (Jun 7, 2008)

I thought I would kick off the WWDC 2008 thread. I came across Flickr WWDC 2008 banner pictures. To me the pictures hint of a 10.6 preview and the iPhone software release.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2008)

There was also speculation by MacRumors that the lack of "Mac" in the banners might mean some sort of announcement for OS X on standard PCs.  I guess we'll have to wait and see if that has any merit to it.

Thank goodness school's out for the summer.  Things should be quiet enough at work for me to keep track of the news bits during the keynote.


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2008)

Would be cool to have it running on regular PCs.


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 7, 2008)

Expect a revolt if that happens.  They took the Mac out IMO because OS X is the basis for 3 distinct products.  Mac OS X, iPhone OS X, Apple TV OS X.


----------



## Qion (Jun 7, 2008)

I'll be one of the revolters if they let OS X run on regular PCs. It's against the business concept they've been trumpeting for the past millennia.

It's interesting how little concrete evidence there is about the products of this event. 3G iPhone, that's a given... but does anybody want to speculate on what else?


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2008)

Consider that a move to x86 was also thought of as being "against business practice", and yet here we are with x86 Macs.  At this point, I can't really put anything past Apple.  I doubt it will happen, but again we never expected a full move to Intel either.


----------



## Viro (Jun 7, 2008)

nixgeek said:


> Consider that a move to x86 was also thought of as being "against business practice", and yet here we are with x86 Macs.  At this point, I can't really put anything past Apple.  I doubt it will happen, but again we never expected a full move to Intel either.



That's exactly why I wouldn't be surprised by a switch to allowing regular PCs to run OS X. I've learnt to never discount anything when it comes to Apple.


----------



## Qion (Jun 7, 2008)

Maybe it's just me, but it seems changing the processors in your computers is a lot less radical than changing your entire machine/software philosophy. Mac OS X didn't change because of the Intel transition; it merely became faster. Leasing OS X to PC vendors puts an entirely new face on Apple.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 7, 2008)

Gotta agree with Qion -- Apple moved to Intel because the processors were better and the roadmap was more defined and aggressive than the PowerPC architecture.  They didn't change their business model; they just "upgraded" their computer offerings, like they always have.  It just happened to change from RISC-based processors to CISC-based processors, much like RAM changed from PC-100 to PC-133 to PC2100 and so on, and like hard drives changed from 5400rpm to 7200rpm, from SCSI to ATA to SATA.

Apple's business model has always been (with a small hiccup under different management) to control the software and the hardware for the best user experience and tightest control over the system.  This hasn't changed, and probably won't for some time to come, if ever.

Hardware progression/changes are not indicative of, nor correlated to, business model changes.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2008)

Qion said:


> Maybe it's just me, but it seems changing the processors in your computers is a lot less radical than changing your entire machine/software philosophy. Mac OS X didn't change because of the Intel transition; it merely became faster. Leasing OS X to PC vendors puts an entirely new face on Apple.



It sure seemed radical to the Mac faithful in 2005 when Apple made the announcement. Many cried blasphemy and said that they would leave the Mac....until they realized that their fears were unfounded (yes, I am aware of the clone "fiasco' of the mid 90s, but Apple and the computing arena is much different now).  I know I was floored when they decided to do it.  This is when I finally came to the realization that I should never discount the inconceivable from Apple.  Like I said, I'm sure I'm dead wrong.  However, it is still a VERY remote possibility in the back of my mind.

Yes, leasing OS X to PC manufacturers would put a new face on Apple.  But if you haven't noticed, Apple already _has_ a new face since the release of the iPhone and the AppleTV.  And let's not forget that Apple _did_ drop the "Computer' from its name.  Since the 2006 switch, there has been more exposure with running OS X on standard PCs than back in the day.

Again, let's see what happens during the keynote.  I'm about 95% sure that I'm wrong on this, but that 5%.....


----------



## Qion (Jun 7, 2008)

nixgeek said:


> Again, let's see what happens during the keynote.  I'm about 95% sure that I'm wrong on this, but that 5%.....



...I've put into words what I felt when I read nixgeek's quote...

_"*Today, we are announcing something monumental. It is something that all of us have seen coming all these years, but never fully accepted. It will be the most polarizing decision Apple has ever made."* Steve Jobs warily thumbs his presentation clicker, unveiling a slide that forebodingly tells "It's true... again!"

*"Today, we change the world. Today, we announce OS X for the PC."*

The expectant Moscone audience tentatively chuckle, expecting a welcome, relieving next slide to their idol's historically humorous presentations. Alas, there is but one slide, and it does not change. A tangible feeling of uneasiness passes the crowd over, tormenting the faithful and intriguing the interested. Instead of cheering, instead of booing, there is silence, only broken by the splattering teardrops of current Apple shareholders._


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 7, 2008)

Apple had a financial reason to switch to Intel.  If we were still with PPC now then Apple would probably be tanking and they knew it.  Right now they are gaining market share in the consumer space and if they released a generic version of OS X for any grey box they would either sell it as it is now without any copy protection or they'd have to put some copy protection on it.  I can't think of any financial benefit that would have for the company.  They'd inevitably loose out on hardware sales and people would just download OS X for free of illicit websites.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 7, 2008)

Apple is a hardware company. OS X is made for Macs and you kids are speculating WAY to much. Apple stock is going to take a hit because of you kids, thanks a lot.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 7, 2008)

Satcomer, you've got to admit that speculating like this always makes the event that more interesting.  You've got to have some wild and crazy speculations, otherwise it just takes the fun out of it all. 

Captain Code, you are correct in that it was a good decision for them to move to Intel just as it was for Apple to move from 68K to PPC.  But again, remember....back when the announcement was made in 2005, everyone said much of the same thing (along with griping at how Apple could make such a blatant about-face after years of telling us that Intel was crap...which it was until the Core series, let's be honest ).  People said that it would be the beginning of the end of Apple and that people would just find a way to get them installed on their generic PCs.  For the most part, they were right.  However, look at what Microsoft has to deal with.  Their operating systems are pirated more than anything all around the world.  Don't you think MS knows that this is happening?  Of course, they're going to go after the businesses that are running or selling pirated software...but what about the end user?  Don't you think that as bad as it is for MS to have their operating systems and software pirated, that it in a sense is good for them as far as penetration?  It sure has done them a world of good in many countries, so much so that even FLOSS is having some trouble in shaking people out of the Microsoft grip.

Now consider that people today are doing their darnedest to get OS X to run on their PCs, more so than ever now.  So assuming that Apple were to make a version for generic PCs, the penetration (even through piracy means) would skyrocket because people would not have to recompile the kernel to support their own hardware (and pray that it actually does).  Now remember that there was some news early this year about Apple patenting a way to run checks on the hardware to make sure that the software being run was on genuine hardware.  I don't know if this necessarily has anything to do with Macs at all, but it is something that might come into play don't you think?  Right now, the only OS that requires a serial key is OS X Server.  The worst that Apple could do is have it so that standard OS X does the same thing.  Now, I'm sure this could easily be circumvented by plucky hackers as has been done on the Windows side, but would it really matter?  It might be enough to keep the copyright police away since they are actively trying to prevent piracy, but the reality of it is that it may not and said piracy would in fact help in getting Apple some more market share.  I'm not saying that this would be the best way, but sometimes even any kind of publicity (or exposure) is good, no?

Again, these are just wild thoughts of a tired man who needs his 40 winks.  But stuff like this is what makes it fun before the keynote actually happens.  Now my next question is who will bite on the whole "missing mid-range Mac" speculation....any takers?


----------



## chevy (Jun 8, 2008)

What would be the business model for an OS-X on any PC ?


----------



## Qion (Jun 8, 2008)

chevy said:


> What would be the business model for an OS-X on any PC ?



www.microsoft.com


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 8, 2008)

chevy said:


> What would be the business model for an OS-X on any PC ?


I don't see one.

With the perception as it is now that Macs are more expensive than their PC counterparts, a business model that allowed OS X to run on any generic PC hardware would surely kill their computer business.  I foresee people flocking to generic hardware, and, as such, this forum would grow in size by a factor of 1,000 with all the people expecting their computers to "just work" and having them "just not" because of some generic-brand video card or some overseas expansion card not being fully compatible.

I don't think I could keep up with the amount of "HELP!!1!1  my r0x0rz 1337 setup givs meh 'colonel panik' wen i's try to h0w do u get SL1 on nvidea cardz??" threads.  If Apple went generic PC, this place would soon become an out-of-control, cluster****, potpourri of trouble threads.


----------



## Qion (Jun 8, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> I don't think I could keep up with the amount of "HELP!!1!1  my r0x0rz 1337 setup givs meh 'colonel panik' wen i's try to h0w do u get SL1 on nvidea cardz??" threads.  If Apple went generic PC, this place would soon become an out-of-control, cluster****, potpourri of trouble threads.



Quite.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 8, 2008)

I agree there.....plus, you gave me quite a chuckle with that last paragraph, EDCC. ::ha::

Still, I would like to see it happen.  As bad as it might have been for Apple back in the 90s, I do miss the clones.


----------



## Viro (Jun 9, 2008)

Snow Leopard has been announced. I wonder if they'll charge for it, or if it'll be like the upgrade from 10.0 -> 10.1?


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 9, 2008)

Hmm, I guess I'll see in 5 mins but I can't tell you


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 9, 2008)

See, I knew I would be wrong. 

But for me it was kind of a snorefest what with it being the Worldwide iPhone Developers Conference.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 10, 2008)

nixgeek said:


> But for me it was kind of a snorefest what with it being the Worldwide iPhone Developers Conference.



At least they showed off Snow Leopard early to developers.


----------



## Qion (Jun 10, 2008)

I really hope one of the improvements in Snow Leopard is the ability to customize the GUI. 

It's all just getting stale to me.


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 10, 2008)

My concern are the system requirements.  There's more talk of 64-bit in 10.6 from that page.  Will this include the G5?  And what about those people running 32-bit Core Duos?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Jun 10, 2008)

The G5 is a 64-bit machine, yes.

Saying "64-bit" is NOT equivalent to saying "NOT 32-bit".  I highly doubt Apple would ditch support for the first generation of MacBook Pros.  They do talk of "slimming" the OS down so that it takes less hard drive space -- perhaps the installer will detect 32- vs. 64-bit and only install the binaries needed, instead of installing all 32-bit and 64-bit libraries regardless of architecture (as it does now).


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 10, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> The G5 is a 64-bit machine, yes.



That I know, but there's question as to whether PPC support will remain in 10.6 which is why I'm concerned.  The G5 is 64-bit so it meets that requirement, but it's obviously not Intel. 



> Saying "64-bit" is NOT equivalent to saying "NOT 32-bit".  I highly doubt Apple would ditch support for the first generation of MacBook Pros.  They do talk of "slimming" the OS down so that it takes less hard drive space -- perhaps the installer will detect 32- vs. 64-bit and only install the binaries needed, instead of installing all 32-bit and 64-bit libraries regardless of architecture (as it does now).



That is true, but something to keep an eye on.  As for the detection for 32/64 bit CPUs, I imagine that if the CPU is 64-bit that it would install both libraries just for backwards compatibility while just installing the 32-bit libraries for 32-bit processors, especially when dealing with third party apps.  I'm surprised that it's not doing this with Leopard now as it would be a major waste of space to have 64-bit libraries on 32-bit Macs that can run Leopard.


----------



## Viro (Jun 10, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> The G5 is a 64-bit machine, yes.
> 
> Saying "64-bit" is NOT equivalent to saying "NOT 32-bit".  I highly doubt Apple would ditch support for the first generation of MacBook Pros.  They do talk of "slimming" the OS down so that it takes less hard drive space -- perhaps the installer will detect 32- vs. 64-bit and only install the binaries needed, instead of installing all 32-bit and 64-bit libraries regardless of architecture (as it does now).



When I look at the settings tab for my Xcode projects, I have a good chuckle. If I wanted to, I can make a binary that supports PPC, PPC64, x86, x86-64. Now that's a real _F-A-T_ binary.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 10, 2008)

Well I have come to a realization, 10.5.4 will have to come by July 11th to incorporate Mobile Me instead of .Mac in the System Preferences pane. Plus incorporate the address in all the iApps. What do you think?


----------



## Captain Code (Jun 11, 2008)

That seems pretty likely.


----------



## Satcomer (Jun 13, 2008)

I called it! Read Apple Seeds Mac OS X 10.5.4, Final Release Expected in July.


----------



## Pippin (Jun 15, 2008)

> Microsoft Exchange Support
> 
> Snow Leopard includes out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 built into Mail, Address Book, and iCal. Mac OS X uses the Exchange Web Services protocol to provide access to Exchange Server 2007. Because Exchange is supported on your Mac and iPhone, youll be able to use them anywhere with full access to your email, contacts, and calendar.



Oh this is an astounding improvement. Native support for RCP over HTTP ms exchange. People have been crying for this for a long time as the only program capable of connecting has been Microsoft's entourage pro edition.


----------

