# OS X Leopard



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

Yikes!  Maybe the Leopard is changing it's spots!


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Yeah and wondering what will it including?


----------



## moav (Jun 6, 2005)

Changing spots... beat me to it.  IRONIC no?


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

MacWorld has confirmed Intel will be inside!


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Oh yeah I see that.. Damn it my guess was WRONG!.  And I hope its good..

It will begin a Mac with Intel processors by June 6th, 2006


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

I'm still using a PowerBook G3, glad I held out!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 6, 2005)

this saddens me 

On the other hand, WINE... running of windows apps, and other x86 apps within the macOS, no need to dual-boot.

What processor are they going to start to use ?
All the details are sketchy.... argh! why no webcast!


----------



## cfleck (Jun 6, 2005)

Am I the only one beyond pissed that this is happening?


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

AdmiralAK said:
			
		

> this saddens me
> 
> On the other hand, WINE... running of windows apps, and other x86 apps within the macOS, no need to dual-boot.
> 
> ...



It will begin a Mac with Intel processors by June 6th, 2006


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

This to me is confusing.  There will be 2 versions of Tiger then?  That's a year off.  Why will people continue to invest in Macs when obviously the current hardware is dead.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

I think Steve Jobs meant that two versions for G5 and Intel. 

Its strange to me that developers applauded Steve when he said that both processors would be supported for a long time to come, and the core to this will be universal binaries.

Huh? whats going on with them!


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 6, 2005)

does it really matter so much to you cfleck? - what does it matter what chip is in the box??

apple will lock it down and it wont matter one jot. - they've made a sound business decision based on what intel can offer to apples own road map.

they could have made the switch 5 years ago by the sounds of it and not told anyone and you wouldnt be any the wiser.


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

Apple has a vision and I applaud them for going with it instead of being hindered by poor PPC production.  Steve obviously has a better lay of the land than we ever could.  It's much better Apple do something then do nothing and be in the same boat 2 years from now.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

True.. What will happening to Apple's hardware? Will Apple give up and using their hardwares from off the shevles?


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 6, 2005)

macfreak - what do you mean?

all apple hardware - hardrives, optical drives, memory even the chip! etc is 'off the shelf' - which is then bought together by apple and built as one of its machines.

just because the chip is different why would any of that change?


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 6, 2005)

cfleck said:
			
		

> Am I the only one beyond pissed that this is happening?


Probably not. As for me, I am crestfallen. I just hope that it works out. However, there are a lot of unanswered questions. The change here is greater than the change ushered in by the Mac II, System 7, the Power PC, or MacOS X. This is going to takle a while to shake out. In the meantime, I hope that people don't stop buying Macs. Judging from some of the comments I have read, a lot of people intend to do just that.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Sorry for not clear. I meant motherboard. Ok.. So Apple will use their motherboard such as ASUS, MSI, Biostar, or Dell?


----------



## ratz2plt (Jun 6, 2005)

What happens to the big deal about 64 bit proccessing of the G5 chip? Will they use 64 bit intels?


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

Yes, they will using Intel's new 64 bits.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

Keep this thread on LEOPARD, please.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

The "Nazis" around here are called moderators. Their job is to moderate the forums. That's what I'm doing. All I'm asking is that people use _existing_ threads for the same subjects and they don't turn any other thread into yet another intel-thread.

And don't call me a "Nazi", please. I didn't call you names, did I.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 6, 2005)

The next release of Leopard will be full 64 bits and using Intel also will support G4, and G5..


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

heck, this is the end of the ppc arch. who's gonna buy a mac when its available on x86 eh? and x86s are dirt cheap and fast.

damn it.. i really hoped that apple would have opted for Cell.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

Leopard WON'T come out for X86. It will come out for PowerPC-Macs as well as intel-Macs.


----------



## wiz (Jun 6, 2005)

you guys are too optimistic.


----------



## bootedbear (Jun 6, 2005)

wiz said:
			
		

> heck, this is the end of the ppc arch. who's gonna buy a mac when its available on x86 eh? and x86s are dirt cheap and fast.



You assume that OS X will run on any old x86 box. Nobody said anything about that. Using x86 processors in Apple boxes will not make them anymore generic PC's than they are today.


----------



## fryke (Jun 6, 2005)

No, but right now, we _do_ have word from Apple and we don't need to speculate too much. Steve Jobs himself has said what I've just pointed out. So why argue him?


----------



## RyanLang (Jun 6, 2005)

Haha. Pismo, joined May 2005, comes in here and calls Fryke (someone I'd consider an original) a forum Nazi...ROFL....Times like these remind me of when I was a kid and I would have to go to church every Sunday and it was always the same, good people there. Then Easter would come, and the whole damn town would be there, displacing me from my seat, eating my after-church munchkins and disrespecting something via their ignorance. Seriously though, Hail Fryke!  :::raises hand into the air:::


----------



## pismo (Jun 6, 2005)

RyanLang said:
			
		

> Haha. Pismo, joined May 2005, comes in here and calls Fryke (someone I'd consider an original) a forum Nazi...ROFL....Times like these remind me of when I was a kid and I would have to go to church every Sunday and it was always the same, good people there. Then Easter would come, and the whole damn town would be there, displacing me from my seat, eating my after-church munchkins and disrespecting something via their ignorance. Seriously though, Hail Fryke!  :::raises hand into the air:::



I have more posts than you on this forum, trust me.


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

Stopit !


----------



## chevy (Jun 6, 2005)

What will the new features of LEOPARD be ?

Steve did another of his big magician's trick: he announced LEOPARD without telling us anything about its content !


----------



## chadwick (Jun 6, 2005)

Maybe they'll finally fix Finder...


----------



## RGrphc2 (Jun 6, 2005)

chadwick said:
			
		

> Maybe they'll finally fix Finder...



whats wrong with Finder?


----------



## RyanLang (Jun 6, 2005)

Post count has nothing to do with it, I was just sticking up for Fryke. But yeah I agree, stop it!


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 6, 2005)

Is the finder finally completely cocoa?


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

no it's still a Carbon app.


----------



## Shookster (Jun 7, 2005)

So if Leopard is for 64-bit only, does that mean that the non-64 bit PowerBook I've just bought has no upgrade path?


----------



## HomunQlus (Jun 7, 2005)

It has been assumed here that "Leopard" won't come out for X86. I think it will come out for X86 as Apple begins to migrate with Intel. Wouldn't make much sense to make that OS for PPC only when they're no longer building PPC Macs, now would it?


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> whats wrong with Finder?



it's terrible. inconsistent at best, plain unpredictable at worst....  they've added lots of gimmicks, like the sidebar, and column view, but the way it works is shoddy. just TRY playing with the "This Window Only" "all Windows" thing. then opening a DMG.


----------



## fryke (Jun 7, 2005)

You got that wrong. It's fully 64bit for 64bit computers only. 32bit machines are still supported however, they're just not using the same code.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 7, 2005)

oh. that's a good point. Have intel fixed their 64bit CPU-running 32-bit code problem? it used to be a big problem, cus it had to use emulation to do it.. does that mean all the Intel macs will be 64 bit, (with no 32bit software for (intel macs) or that there will be PPC, x86-32 and x86-64 binaries needed for complete compatibility??


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

MacOS X will use newest Intel processor beyond 3.2 ghz period.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 7, 2005)

I learned that 10.5 possible kill Classic 9. 

Apple Computer's move to Intel chips appears to spell the eventual end of support for older, pre-Mac OS X programs.

Current versions of Mac OS X support the running of Mac OS 9 programs in a "Classic" environment. However, documentation for Apple's Rosetta technology says the transcoding software will not support programs written for Mac OS 8 or Mac OS 9.

Rosetta was announced by CEO Steve Jobs on Monday as the translation software technology that will help ease Apple's planned transition to Intel-based chips. Rosetta will allow most of the Mac OS X programs to run on Intel-based Macs even if the software has not been compiled to run natively on Intel chips.

In an interview, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller did not definitively address future Classic mode support but said "it's certainly not very high on the priority list." 

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,39202161,00.htm


----------



## CreativeEye (Jun 7, 2005)

well they can't go on supporting OS 9 and further back forever now can they?!

by the time leopard should be released (according to jobs) at the end of 2006 - intelmacs will only have been on market for 6 months...

so how many people here actually believe that developers etc will suddenly stop making stuff for the HUGE market on PPC for the sake of a few hundred thousand who would have bought intelmacs by that time???

eh? so who actually thinks that? 

who actually thinks that by the end of 2007 - when essentially the user base on PPC will STILL be larger than those on intelmacs those same developers will again turn their backs on such a huge market?! even by mid 2008!?! 

full transition of OS (to intel and 64-bit) by end of 2008 at a minimum...


----------



## kainjow (Jun 7, 2005)

HomunQlus said:
			
		

> It has been assumed here that "Leopard" won't come out for X86. I think it will come out for X86 as Apple begins to migrate with Intel. Wouldn't make much sense to make that OS for PPC only when they're no longer building PPC Macs, now would it?


Leopard will be availble for both PPC and x86 Macs, no doubt about that. How they do that will be very interesting though. I bet they won't sell it as retail for their Intel Macs, only their PPC, because all their Intel Macs by then probably will ship with it.

I think Leopard will be a much more minor version of OS X. I can't really imagine what will be its biggest features - definitely compiled as universal binary, or however they'll do that. But beyond that it's all blank. Anyone have any ideas? If they won't be featuring it until WWDC 2006 and they want it out by the end of 2006, that leaves developers little time to test their apps, so hopefully just small general changes and no major API changes either.

2006 - the year of Intel


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

they should still support classic in some way. it pisses me off about windows lack of decent dos emulation as it means that bloody fantastic old dos games can never be played again, without dusting off an ancient, and very wheezy pc. (monkey island!)

there are plenty of (usually) games that still launch classic. i'd still like the option.  they don't need to support it as such, just, don't remove it!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 7, 2005)

kainjow said:
			
		

> Leopard will be availble for both PPC and x86 Macs, no doubt about that. How they do that will be very interesting though. I bet they won't sell it as retail for their Intel Macs, only their PPC, because all their Intel Macs by then probably will ship with it.
> 
> I think Leopard will be a much more minor version of OS X. I can't really imagine what will be its biggest features - definitely compiled as universal binary, or however they'll do that. But beyond that it's all blank. Anyone have any ideas? If they won't be featuring it until WWDC 2006 and they want it out by the end of 2006, that leaves developers little time to test their apps, so hopefully just small general changes and no major API changes either.
> 
> 2006 - the year of Intel



there lies a dilemma.  they need some way of justifying $129. but, you're right, i even saw tigers feature set to be like scraping the bottom of the barrell...  there was nothing truly innovative, other than spotlight, which i've never really liked


----------



## kainjow (Jun 7, 2005)

Classic support would be bad for Apple. They need to somehow force a way for developers to upgrade their software. If you so badly need to run old software, there are plenty of cheap Macs that run OS 8/9 on eBay!


----------



## xarcom (Jun 8, 2005)

Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> they should still support classic in some way. it pisses me off about windows lack of decent dos emulation as it means that bloody fantastic old dos games can never be played again, without dusting off an ancient, and very wheezy pc. (monkey island!)



check out DOSBOX (http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/news.php?show_news=1) I've been using it to play old DOS xwing games... Actually it might even run on mac...(I mean it runs on other *nix systems... so OSX should be possible...)



			
				Lt Major Burns said:
			
		

> there are plenty of (usually) games that still launch classic. i'd still like the option.  they don't need to support it as such, just, don't remove it!



Perhaps someone will start a project like DOSBOX.  I mean, currently OSX simply loads the whole OS 9.... I'm sure someone can create a similar app to start classic...


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Classic is _HOW_ old? And Apple's STILL supporting it in Tiger? I almost can't believe _that_. Should Leopard kill Classic in 2007, I'll give them a round of mild applause, but I'll certainly have no sympathy for the whiners come January 2007.


----------



## xarcom (Jun 8, 2005)

I'm certain that most people aren't illusioning themselves that Classic will be in OSX forever.  I mean it was a transitional tool so that developpers had more time to port their app to OSX and also not piss off people that just bought software ABC for OS9... 

I think with OSX in its 5th iteration could very likely kill Classic support, you can see that this one of Steve's top priorities from all the past conferences (he always talks about how many people are on OSX)

I think that Apple should perhaps release the code to run Classic as a seperate Open Source project and let those who want to use it support it.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 8, 2005)

I am forward to have Classic mode remove soon. Since it eat up my space!


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 8, 2005)

no, all i'm saying is don't remove the option to. sod bundling 9.2 or whatever, just save ability if you *want* to.  i like flexibilty.  removing classic would just restrict use. it wouldn't actually benefit the system removing it, but it offers some benefit by it being there, even if you don't ever use it. suddenly when you come accross a really old file that just needs one instance of a classic enironment (a long dead app for example), do you really want to have to boot up an old mac (if you even have one - i certainly don't) when you would actually be saying: crap. i wish i could just have it now.


----------



## fryke (Jun 8, 2005)

Well, if it takes development hours to keep/make Classic compatible with newer hardware (intel) and OS versions, I rather see them skip Classic. If it's no effort to keep Classic alive, I say they should go with it... Maybe it just runs through Rosetta... But it's not like Classic's really needed anymore.


----------

