I think the final release of X will be delayed...


Ok. This is just my opinion. I've not read this anywhere. I think that OS X won't be available til' late 2001. Why would Apple go ahead and start working on OS 9.1 when the revolutionary (which it really is) OS X has a release date in the first part of 2001? I do hope I'm wrong but thats just my prediction. Feel free to state your opinions but don't flame me to bad. :)
That idea would seem logical but I am sure 9.1 was/is just an upgrade they have to produce to release any new hardware before then.

-- On this point does anyone know what comes with the latest hw (new iBook's)???

... or has knowone recieved these? .. no they were phsically onsale in Paris ... so ..????


to add more info on this to my previous posting ..
I found the below interesting snippets at a macnn.com article from Business Expo 2000

from macnn.com
The keynote then took an exciting turn for the crowd when the floor was opened up to the audience for questions to Zelenka. Among the topics was one concerning the migration from OS 9 to OS X, where Zelenka responded by saying that Apple was committed to a "smooth migration". While he couldn't comment on any future products, Zelenka acknowledged some of the current quirks with migrating from OS 9 to OS X and all but confirmed the existence of OS 9.1.

So it could be that it is really just to support easier ugrades to os x... or even provide classic support with the final version??

..."We're not giving up on OS 9," responded Zelenka.

This could even be interprited as long-term continued development of OS9 ;-)

As long as there is a need for classic (ie until most people get all the apps they need to carbon/x) there is going to be os 9. Os x requires 9 to do this. It is my oppinion that 9's entire purpose since its beginings has been to bridge between the old and new software. The continuing development of 9 is probably an attempt to get down that 128 MB Ram requirement and to make classic apps run cleaner.
OS 9.1(or 9.x) will also still be needed by the masses that have 6100-9600 systems, original G3 powerbook, or for that matter my trusty Powerbook 2400c. Also some custom setups may or may not be quickly supported under OS X. My wife is in a cancer research lab that has a custom PCI card for a FACS machine (not going to explain what it is, just say its a $100k+ machine for research work). It currently is uses a B&W G3/400 w/OS 8.6 (not even sure if the setup will work with OS 9 yet, have not attempted to try).

And it is a good point on the fact that they will have to over time fine tune OS 9 to work better in "Classic Mode" just like OS X will need fine tuning on its side of the "Classic Mode" fence.
Back in the late eighties when Apple released System 7, they needed to release a "wrap up" release to System 6. There weren't a lot of new features in the 6.0.8, but it was needed in environments where System 7 (with it's hefty 2 megabyte RAM requirement) needed to coexist with machines still running System 6. I specifically recall an issue with System 6's printer drivers trying to overwrite System 7's settings and causing long delays on PostScript printers without the update.

When Apple released Quicktime, they wanted it to be ubiquitous so they ended up porting some System 7 technologies back to System 6 in Quicktime (I believe that the alias manager was one of these).

If some people don't want to move up to Mac OS X full time, then Apple should make enhancements to Mac OS 9 to make coexistence with OS X users easier.
One other pressure on Apple to stay on schedule will be the combined Business/Consumer release of Windows next spring. If rumors on the Windows website are to be believed, "Whistler" will ship to manufacturers on April 18th, 2001.

Apple isn't competing in the same marketplace as Microsoft, but a launch after a big Microsoft release (and this one is the one that all the pundits are waiting for) might only look like a "me too" catch up effort rather than the revolutionary overhaul Mac OS X really is.