digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at tuaw.com —

Mac OS 10.6 to appear at WWDC 08?

tuaw.com — Rumor has it that Apple will be seeding developers with Mac OS 10.6 early next week at WWDC 08.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • noonions, on 06/04/2008, -6/+80OS 10.6 Snowball II
    • KevInTx, on 06/04/2008, -3/+8Actually I was thinking more Cougar soon to be followed by the MILF version (would that be for the servers? :) )... Sorry I couldn't resist
    • wphj, on 06/04/2008, -3/+11Who knows what it will be called, but I bet that the last OS X cat will be Lion.

      King of the Jungle.
    • rawnnie, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5I'm amazed that all you guys (comments below me included) actually believe in this rumour.
    • dfsjdkflasjk, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1OS 11 would be more like it, but highly unlikely
    • fahrvergnuugen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5Actually, it looks like it might be "Snow Leopard"
  • GreatOne08, on 06/04/2008, -7/+53Damn, that was fast
    • Ratteler, on 06/04/2008, -10/+29It's called competent programming. You're just not used to it.
      • DarknessGP, on 06/04/2008, -19/+11No, I think it's called an "Expansion Pack".

        Also, FTA - Apple is focusing solely on "stability and security.". So, looks like there probably won't be much new features.
        • 2shae, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5I have to say he's right if they aren't doing anything spectacular.

          And before I get dugg down to hell...just know I'm a Mac user :P
    • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -3/+168 months? 10.2 and 10.4 were both shown 8 months after the previous release. People seem to have forgotten the short release cycle of OSX updates because of Leopard which was NOT a normal development time for OSX updates.
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -3/+11That's not entirely true. After the release of 10.4, Apple publicly stated that they were going to slow down OS X developement.
        They may make some announcements about 10.6 at WWDC, but I don't think we'll see it until at least the 09 WWDC
      • pixeldust, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5As stated below by another use:
        "Steve Jobs in October 2007: "I'm quite pleased with the pace of new operating systems every 12 to 18 months for the foreseeable future."
        http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/technology/22app ...
        (Pointed out by Mac Rumors)"
    • phoomp, on 06/04/2008, -19/+11Exactly. Mac fans are always quick to point out that Windows costs twice as much as MacOS, but are equally quick to ignore that Apple charges for incremental updates.
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -7/+27They do? Funny that they didn't charge me for 10.5.3.

        Unless of course you mean major releases like 10.4 to 10.5, but that would just make you sound stupid.
        • jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -5/+1"They do? Funny that they didn't charge me for 10.5.3"

          As for saying stupid, you mactards always seem to out do yourself.
          If you bought a Mac with 10.5 - You paid for it.

          If you had 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, now 10.6 you're paying 300 (at least) within about 3 years.
          And yes that is more expensive that Vista upgrades. XP came out in 2002.

          So yes retardation makes math difficult for mactards.

        • MacParrot, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2"As for saying stupid, you mactards always seem to out do yourself.
          If you bought a Mac with 10.5 - You paid for it."

          Yes I did buy two Macs with 10.5. One was to replace my 2002 QuickSilver G4 tower. I think I got my money's worth after six years of nearly trouble-free use. The other was a refurb MacBook Pro to replace my 2003 G4 iBook. A laptop nearly 5 years old that still easily runs the latest OS.

          Every single Mac made since 2002 will run Apple's latest OS. How many computers from the same era (without major modification) will run Vista? And no, this is not meant as a slam against MS. They (like Apple) draw a line where they say that an OS will run best on equipment from this point on...as they should.

          "If you had 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, now 10.6 you're paying 300 (at least) within about 3 years"

          It seems you're the one with a little math problem or possibly just writing coherently is just not your thing. 10.3 came out in 10/03, 10.4 came out in 05/05, and 10.5 came out in 10/07. So that's actually 4 years.

          Unless of course you meant transitioning to 10.4 FROM 10.3 in which case that is a little more than three years except your math is STILL messed up as that wouldn't be $300 but $260 or so. Oh it could be more if you bought the family pack (you know 5 legitimate licenses for less than some charge for one) or if you include the eventual release of 10.6 which probably won't be until August/October of 09 so your math is still screwed.

          Work on that please.

      • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6I don't understand your point. Are you saying that you prefer one WIndows release in 6-years at a higher cost than a sequence of cheaper releases roughly once every 2-years? Personally, I'm quite happy to pay costs to upgrade periodically, and certainly isn't something that I ignore. I don't know anyone that ignores the fact that we have to pay for OS X updates, but simply prefers that to waiting years for a single new release that costs quite a lot.
      • boxlight, on 06/04/2008, -4/+3> Apple charges for incremental updates.

        Incremental updates are free; like 10.5.2 to 10.5.3, these are basically the same class of update as Windows XP SP2 to XP SP3.

        Major OS version upgrades cost about $150; like 10.4 (Tiger) to 10.5 (Leopard), these are basically the same thing as Windows XP to Windows Vista.

        Personally, I've always felt the naming of Mac OS X was awkward and not as clean and clever as the rest of Mac's product names. Things like Time Machine, Spaces, Pages, Keynote, and so on, as really nice names.

        Shouldn't Mac OS X be called, I dunno, "Lightbox" or something nicer?

        Also, they should drop the "10" from the name. Just call it Mac OS X ("ex") version 5 -- or even call 10.5.3, "Leopard v3".
        • freqk, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4As much as I try not to, I always read it "Mac OS "EX"" and not Mac OS "Ten"
          Oh well.
      • alpha88, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7I don't point out that Windows costs twice as much. I point out that it costs three times as much.

        Incremental updates on Mac OS X are free, but major updates cost about $150 or $100 in certain places, and there's only one version. None of this "Basic, Professional, Ultimate" ***** that adds two features for another $100.
    • roodammy44, on 06/04/2008, -14/+6It's because they barely change the OS at all.
      There was seriously nothing extra that I wanted in the transition from 10.4 to 10.5.
      I was shocked that people queued up to pay a lot of money for their copies. Madness.
      • joshpar, on 06/04/2008, -2/+12just because there wasn't anything YOU wanted doesn't mean there weren't any changes.
      • boxlight, on 06/04/2008, -2/+10I wanted Spaces, Time Machine and that purple starfield desktop background. I'm also one of the very few people that like the transparent menu bar. :)
        • supermanKD, on 06/04/2008, -2/+7There are lots of people that like it. It's just that the haters tend to be more vocal. Especially on digg
        • sjmulder, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4I got it for exactly the same reasons, plus the updates to Cocoa like the new Interface Builder and Core Animation.

          Oh, and the unified interface. 10.4 was a mess.
        • MMaster23, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3And you like spaces, time machine and some purple stuff so much that you paid 120$ for it! :
        • Giga, on 06/05/2008, -2/+1You paid for an upgrade to get a purple starfield desktop background? Jesus, there really is a problem with some Mac fans...
      • jatoskep, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2]=111111111111111111111-
      • wphj, on 06/04/2008, -1/+8Time Machine and QuickLook alone make it worth the money for me.
      • alpha88, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4Time Machine, Quicklook, Cover flow, Spaces, there's tons of things that I couldn't imagine NOT having.

        Speak for yourself man.
      • ORBAT, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7You're completely right. They introduced Objective-C 2.0, which has a gaggle of new and exciting features, a LLVM-based OpenGL-implementation, Quick Look, Spaces, Time Machine, new Core Image filters, oodles of fun stuff for developers in the XCode package (DTrace!), application signing, sandboxes, stack randomization, and so on. But besides those features, what did Leopard give us? Nothing, I say!
        • roodammy44, on 06/04/2008, -6/+1How many people are realistically going to want any of those?
          Stacks - pointless
          Time Machine - The only decent part of the update (not that I or most people will ever use it)
          Quick Look - very minor
          The rest - Only Mac developers would ever care about these.
          Finder/Mac interface - I actually prefer the 10.4 interface

          Worth $120? Really??
    • ru(sic), on 06/04/2008, -2/+2and not a month to fast if you ask me... leopard has so many bugs...
      • TomFrost, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Enumeration wtf = ru(sic);
        List supportForYourClaims = wtf.getElements();
        printAFullWellComposedComment(supportForYourClaims);
    • jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -3/+1YEP and another 100-150 bucks you have to shell out again.

      So please keep on telling us how cheap OSX is compared to Vista.
      It never get's old ;-)
      • Tenoq, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2$299 for 5 PCs. Versus what, $200 per PC for OEM Vista licences? Then shell out again if you want to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit. :p
  • samespbn, on 06/04/2008, -13/+91I don't believe it.
    • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -3/+11Why? 10.2 and 10.4 were both shown 8 months after the previous release. Leopard is 8 months old.
      • philgmo, on 06/04/2008, -3/+10Good point, but didn't Apple make a public decision after 10.4 to take longer OS development cycles?
        • plucas, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7Steve Jobs in October 2007: "I'm quite pleased with the pace of new operating systems every 12 to 18 months for the foreseeable future."
          http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/technology/22app ... (Pointed out by Mac Rumors)
        • R031E5, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2From the same article:
          "We’ve put out major releases on the average of one a year, and it’s given us the ability to polish and polish and improve and improve"
          By january, Leopard will be 14 months old, it does sound logical.
      • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -0/+9They weren't working on the iPhone during this period. Apple already publicly stated that they needed to divert development resources to the iPhone and that this lead to the delay in releasing Leopard. Given that development of the iPhone software/hardware has continued, and appears to be ever more important to the company, I don't see them having the resources available to produce another OS in such a short period of time.
    • koko775, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3(I'm sorry for doing this)

      HABEEB IT!
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Neither do I. Even if Jobs does announce it at WWDC, it's not going to ditch PPC this quickly, and it's not going to be little more than security/stability updates. There's no way in hell Jobs is going to pitch an OS unless it has some gee-whiz new features in it.
    • bluntwrap, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah there is no way they will announce 10.6 this soon I say give it another year atleast before they announce 10.6.
    • m0neybags, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1I can believeable
  • AZJazzyJ, on 06/04/2008, -9/+19WWDC is going to be an interesting conference if all of these rumors are true.
    • icanrule, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't call it interesting. It suggests they are going more towards stability and less about features. Nothing wrong with that as long as it's customers don't have to purchase it. Everyone wants stability but how much would people pay for it especially considering 10.5 is already pretty stable.
    • Zaleucus, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1All apple events would be AMAZING if ALL the rumors were true. Remember the iWalk?
  • Bobaliki, on 06/04/2008, -13/+416Can't wait for OS 10.6 Lolcat
    • jkleinfeld, on 06/04/2008, -18/+5I blew the bowl out of my bong I laughed so hard at your comment.
      • drgmdp, on 06/04/2008, -9/+7wow, you smoke pot, you're such a rebel
        • bbqsalad, on 06/04/2008, -4/+1How does that have anything to do with being a rebel?

          wow, you made a comment, you're such a rebel.
        • ORBAT, on 06/04/2008, -0/+8And he even told the internets about it. How quirky.
    • 3amboo, on 06/04/2008, -12/+2i see what you did there
    • biffen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+20Rarely log in to digg. Logged in just to dig up that comment.
    • lfroker, on 06/04/2008, -3/+2hahaha! made me laugh even harder
      shut up drgmdp. wtf does that even mean? derg-ma-de-puh?
    • franksands, on 06/04/2008, -0/+33Mac OS X Lolcat: I can haz glossy appz
    • Aadain, on 06/04/2008, -4/+6You sir win the thread.
    • Konstantino, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4If Mac OS X 10.6 is called Lolcat or Garfield I'll be one happy camper.
    • evolutionium, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1I can has a Mac OS X

      kthanxbai
  • clak, on 06/04/2008, -51/+67Some things I would like to see in the next OS X version.

    A better Finder.

    Please, Steve, it's time for the green button to actually maximize. Also, please give us a "Move to" function in the menu like PathFinder. Also, make it possible for Finder Windows to expand using every corner of the window, just to shut up the Windows switchers.

    Give iChat some casual multiplayer games.

    I talk to my niece in iChat almost daily, but she always wants to play me in a game of checkers. While Freeverse makes a nice multiplayer Checkers game, it would be a whole lot simpler to just build it in directly into iChat. That way, you could just click on a buddy's name and start up a game. Also, make a deal with Hasbro and GameHouse. They already make a great versions of Scrabble and Monopoly on OS X. Now imagine multiplayer functionality for Scrabble and Monopoly through iChat. Come on, Steve, this is win/win.

    Give the Windows Switchers a version of Paint.

    Steve, I'm getting tired of telling Windows switchers where to get OS X versions of Paint. While Skitch is probably the most famous, it is still in beta and there are already free alternatives like Seashore and Paintbrush. How hard would it be to make an agreement with one of these companies to distribute these FREE alternatives in the next release? You don't even have to lift a finger, man. It's a no brainer.

    Buy Elgato and EyeTV (www.elgato.com)

    Companies like Dell are owning Apple in this department, by offering tuners with their copies of the iMac (XPS One). And while anyone can buy a USB tuner from Elgato, wouldn't it be much better if there was an option to configure Mac Minis, iMacs and Mac Pros with an internal TV tuner? I'm convinced EyeTV is the best DVR on the market. It's just as good as any native Apple app too. Another no-brainer Steve. Buy them. You certainly have the money.

    Touch interface.

    Touch is, ahem, a very touchy subject, but OS X should have some built-in touch functionality. It's obvious with the last refresh of the MacBook Pro, that this has been implemented directly into the OS X code, but it would be nice if you gave us some kind of multi-touch trackpad for desktops. Absolutely NO multi-touch for the Cinema displays. Don't make the same mistake Microsoft is making. We don't want to grease up our monitors, but some kind of trackpad or dare I say, tablet, that can interface with desktops would be a welcome addition and possible replace the mouse for some people. This is more of a hardware request, but give it some thought. If anyone can make multi-touch work for desktops, it's Apple.

    Give us WinFS

    Yes, Spotlight and Smart Folders are a good start and you are certainly ahead of Microsoft in the quest for a relational database, but HFS isn't cutting it, man. Of course, you're likely to change the file system with OS XI, so perhaps I'm jumping the gun on this.

    Virtual Desktop

    No, I'm not talking about Spaces, more like a Second Life virtual desktop. Quartz Extreme has made animations in OS X virtually an afterthought for developers, due to the power of the API. Now it's time to harness that power to change the nature of the GUI interface from a relatively flat 2D surface, to 3D and beyond. This would be extremely hard to implement right, but Apple impressed me with those animations in Time Machine. Of course, this is a BIG change, so perhaps this would be a better project for OS XI.
    • nebkiwi, on 06/04/2008, -2/+52"Give us WinFS" nah we need ZFS, it was originally gonna be put in leopard, but apple never got round to it.
      • threemagic, on 06/04/2008, -2/+10never got it stable.

        There, fixed it for you.
      • clak, on 06/04/2008, -3/+4I completely agree with you, I said WinFS because that's the best known example of a relational database and Microsoft wasn't able to deliver it. Apple is a lot closer than Microsoft with boolean search in Spotlight and Smart Folders.
        • Ramble, on 06/04/2008, -9/+2No it isn't. Microsoft had both of those before Apple.
        • sjmulder, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7Ramble, where are smart folders in XP?
    • aspec, on 06/04/2008, -8/+9Also, please fix the wireless drivers. It's still killing my router everyday.

      Granted, at least it's not as bad as it used to be.
      • cawpin, on 06/04/2008, -8/+22Your router is a piece of *****, then. There's nothing wrong with the wireless.

        A couple other suggestions, let the "send with email" function in automator work with the default mail app, whatever it is, not just Mail.app. I use Thunderbird and very much miss this functionality from Windows. Another thing that Windows has right is sorting folders before files in Explorer. Do it in Finder, at least give me an option. You don't have to make it the default.
    • naderslim, on 06/04/2008, -14/+2Ubuntu (with Beryll) has a desktop switching app that blows spaces away. Why doesn't Apple implement a little more control and visual effects into Spaces?
      • KibibyteBrain, on 06/04/2008, -1/+14The desktop cube sucks. Its cool looking but not as practical as the Desktop Wall. And the Desktop Wall and Spaces are pretty much the same from the basic features standpoint. And of course OSX isn't going to be as configurable or feature rich as Compiz/Ubuntu, different philosophies at work there. All in all, I'd say both OSes at this point have very comparable implementations of virtual desktop switchers and expose type functions. Although I will note that OSX's implementation doesn't lead to all the glitches with applications(especially video playback) that Compliz seems to, or any for that matter.
      • bigsteve, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5I don't want visual effects. I want to hit a button or hot-corner my mouse, see my desktops (it's okay if they just slide in, nothing fancy. I want to use the UI, not watch it) drag windows between them if I wish, click on one, and be done with it. Spaces is just fine. Not everyone wants their windows to burst into flames or whatever when we close them. Some of us have work to do.
    • WomensUnderwear, on 06/04/2008, -14/+16Sounds like you should have bought a PC
      • clak, on 06/04/2008, -4/+11I'm a Mac user and despite what the Microsoft Fanboys think, most of us don't think Apple is perfect. But they are a lot more close to being perfect than Microsoft, I can tell you that.

        A lot of the suggestions for stuff like Paint and fully expandable corners, are concessions I would like to see for Windows Switchers. There is an influx of Windows users buying Macs, and I think the switch would be easier for them if they didn't have to look for some basic programs that come with Windows.

        And I used WinFS to illustrate how Apple should continue to develop their relational database, which started with Spotlight and Smart Folders. Microsoft doesn't own the concept of the relational database, but WinFS is the best known example, which is why I used the name. I'm convinced Microsoft will be no where near to having this kind of database in the future, so Apple is a natural for this technology.
    • cliffr39, on 06/04/2008, -14/+7Go back to Windows if Mac isn't cutting it for you!
      • 1platypus, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6I think most mac users would probably go Linux before windows.
      • clak, on 06/04/2008, -1/+7My Mac is great, but as with anything, isn't not perfect. Windows is crap and there is no way in God's green earth that I will go back to that trash. You can keep it, brother.
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -5/+30"Please, Steve, it's time for the green button to actually maximize."

      It actually does maximize, it just doesn't fill the screen. I would like a little consistency though. That green button sometimes seems like it has a mind of its own.

      "Give iChat some casual multiplayer games."

      Most likely won't happen. Apple seems to be (finally) trying to extend to the business market and iChat is part of that. Multiple screens of video that works remarkably well. Would like some better or customizable audio preferences though. Audio through iChat just isn't suitable for recording.

      "Give the Windows Switchers a version of Paint."

      While I really can't see this as a big deal, adding some basic tools to Preview shouldn't be that hard.

      "Buy Elgato and EyeTV (www.elgato.com)"

      Won't happen. Apple typically only acquires software companies (that custom PPC chip maker aside). The AppleTV has some basic flaws but not having a digital tuner isn't one of them IMO.

      "Touch interface."

      Completely agree and I think the next round of hardware will share it across the Mac line. Maybe a new keyboard with the Touch interface built-in with a trackpad.

      "Give us WinFS"

      Apple uses and licenses Microsoft technology only when absolutely necessary (Exchange support for the iPhone is a good example), so I can't see any way they would do this unless...they built in support to run Windows programs without Windows. While it might technically be possible, would Apple jeopardize losing Office for the Mac simply to thumb their nose at Microsoft? I don't think so at this stage of both companies business models.

      Virtual Desktop

      A 3D desktop would look amazingly cool, but would require developers to create (yet again) two different versions of their software for the Mac. Maybe with 10.8 or .9 once the majority of PPC Macs are gone and most (if not all) of the software is Intel native.

      I'm not sure why you're getting dugg down (I dugg you up) as your list was well thought out and not filled with Apple bashing. I guess some people are too sensitive.


      • clak, on 06/04/2008, -2/+8I wasn't suggesting that Apple license WinFS. WinFS is just the name for Microsoft's version of a relational database. The relational database is just an idea and WinFS is the best known example, hence my use of the name. Apple is closer than Microsoft to getting a relational database with Spotlight and Smart Folders and I would like to see them continue in this direction.

        And I'm surprised that I'm getting Dugg down as well. I'm a confirmed Apple Fanboy, but as with anything, Apple isn't perfect. They're a lot more perfect than Microsoft, and I want to continue to see them succeed.
      • bbqsalad, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6Apple should buy Pixelmator and include it as a standard with the next OS.
    • mikev, on 06/04/2008, -17/+20Digg is not your blog...
      • BrendanSheehan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+3And if he blogged it you'd call it blogspam.
    • knightboat, on 06/04/2008, -5/+14Lack of full Windows-style maximize was a forward-thinking move. Why put that in when screen resolutions are getting larger and larger? At what point do we concede that we no longer need the full screen for anything? (I don't unless I'm looking at some desktop wallpaper site or watching a video.)
      • corkdorkdan, on 06/04/2008, -3/+7Umm, on a 13" Macbook (which I hear are pretty popular), it's common to use the full screen. I would certainly enjoy it.
        • bigsteve, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6Eh, most pages, digg included, are silly to maximize. With floats in CSS being as prevalently used, maximizing even on Macbook's 13" widescreen usually leaves me with a column of content and whitespace on either side.

          To each their own, I guess. I couldn't tell you the last time I used maximize in OS X; it seems better to manually resize each window to what best fits it. But that's me.
        • sjmulder, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4I wouldn't want to maximize stuff on my iMac, except maybe applications with complex interface, like Final Cut.

          Even on my 12" PB I don't like maximizing.
      • drgmdp, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3or working on some cad/3d modeling app, or just because you just want your damn window maximized
      • bbqsalad, on 06/04/2008, -6/+3No, This is completely dumb. Why not make it a option? I hate it how Apple does stupid ***** like this just to be "different". So many things Apple does seem like the only purpose is to be the opposite of Windows. And alot of the time its also the opposite of functional.
        • atgmac, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Do you even know how the zoom button works in OS X?
        • TomFrost, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1You're absolutely right. That's why Apple had to call it the "Trash", since they couldn't use "Recycle Bin" after they stole the concept from Windows.

          Oh wait.
    • Haecceity, on 06/04/2008, -2/+7No, the green button should *not* maximize. I have a 30 inch monitor and I don't want any program to fill that real-estate.
    • theurge14, on 06/04/2008, -5/+3"A better Finder."

      The green button does maximize. It opens your current window precisely large enough to display all the content inside and nothing more. If you want a full-screen window full of blank space to cover your desktop I suggest you stick with that DOS task switcher they call Windows.

      "Give iChat some casual multiplayer games."

      Why? It's an OS not a toybox. If you and your friends want games go buy/download them.

      "Give the Windows Switchers a version of Paint."

      Oh dear God no. Windows Switchers should quickly learn to take screenshots with Command-Shift-3 or Command-Shift-4 and then manipulate them in Preview. Creating 'spraypaint' stick figures with your mouse pointer went out of style in 1989.

      "Buy Elgato and EyeTV (www.elgato.com)"

      They already have an AppleTV product.

      "Touch interface."

      Yes, nobody will buy Mac OS X until this happens.

      "Give us WinFS"

      Now you are just trolling.

      "Virtual Desktop"

      And you're also insane. :D


      • localzuk, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4You must be the single most uninformed user on this site. Most of the things this article discusses are either incredibly good ideas or at least feasible.
    • jabberwolf, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Virtual Desktop - AHAHAHAAAAA

      Never - why ? That would leave a field wide open for hacking a virtual OSX to run on ANY windows machine.

      Apple will never allow that.
  • webmaniac, on 06/04/2008, -1/+40even if 10.6 is released to developers, it could take another year before it will be available to consumers. I got an early release DVD of leopard at wwdc 2006. It took over a year before it was officialy released.
    • threemagic, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Article says the projection for GM is Dec 08 with a release of Jan 09
    • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Leopard had an uncharacteristically long development time. 10.1,10.2 and 10.3 each had release cycles very similar to this rumoured 10.6 release.
    • hagis, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5I got the same thing.. the problem with 10.5 release timing was all do to the iphone, it didn't have enough developers to work on it.. and to tell you the truth it could have stayed in the pipeline for 6 mor months so they could have fixed all the issues.
      • bigsteve, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I agree. 10.5.3 is fantastic, but 10.5.3 should have been 10.5.0. Getting it cross-compiled for ARM certainly took some man-hours. Now that it's (hopefully) on all the archs it's going to be on for some time to come, things should return to normal.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/04/2008, -7/+34I don't believe this 10.6 rumor. It hasn't been 6 months with 10.5. There will be a lot of updates and iPhone 2.0 changes -- but this has to be wrong. You can't have this much change and keep development efforts.
    • redwallhp, on 06/04/2008, -10/+1If this is true, then I would not be happy. Just got a new MacBook with Leopard and don't want to have to upgrade the OS so soon.
      • MtheoryX, on 06/04/2008, -4/+2It would be at least a year before the new OS would be commercially available anyway....

        So don't get your new iPanties in a bunch just yet ;P
      • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -0/+11You don't HAVE to.
    • DarknessGP, on 06/04/2008, -13/+4It's not hard when you are just making an expansion pack for your OS. Also, remember, this is release to devs. It could still be another year before an actual consumer release. Think of it like a beta.
      • enicholas, on 06/04/2008, -6/+9"Expansion pack for your OS"? Going from Tiger to Leopard was a bigger improvement than going from XP to Vista, so I don't get your point.
        • D14BL0, on 06/04/2008, -12/+3XP to Vista is a complete switch, though. Two entirely different versions, so your analogy has no merit, really.

          OS 9 to OS X is a switch to a different OS. OS X 1.5 to OS X 1.6 is an update. It's no more than a service pack.


          So essentially, yes. It IS an expansion pack.
        • jimmy17, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3I know the numbers are confusing mate but that is not the definiton of a upgrade.
        • Colesif, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Calling it an "expansion pack" is only an attempt to denouce Apples credibility. Have you ever heard of the saying "If it's not broken don't fix it"? Apple at this point has no reason to completely overhaul their OS as Cocoa, Darwin, and Unix make an extremely elegant foundation.
          I think we can all look at the failure that is Windows Vista and the success that is OS X Leopard and see which not only brought more features (regardless of labeling and overhauls), but an all around more stable operating system.
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -2/+10C'mon! Call major releases to OS X expansion packs a few more times. It seems to be about the extent of whatever you call humor and it just never gets old. Especially multiple times in same thread.
      • Lounger540, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2If you were a developer you would know there were substantial additions to the OS in each of the 10.x releases, and they usually make a point to add some sort of support for framework expansions to the last 10.x.x release of the previous version to make the update and development cycles easier.
      • 2shae, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5Ehm, talking from experience I can say that Tiger--> Leopard has a lot more noticable features then XP-->Vista, which basically only has Aero and a rearrangement of Control panel.

        Win 2000 --> XP --> Vista
        Tell me...what has really changed?
    • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+20It's been EIGHT months with 10.5! October 2007, it's June 2008, eight months.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/04/2008, -1/+1Great, while you are on the accuracy -- can you check my grammar too? ;-)

        I could say 4 months of being stable if I wanted to pick some nits. But I'm just trying to say; "This is too quick a pace." 2 years is a good pace for OS upgrades -- but it might be even better just to improve the OS with modules at this point, and start moving away from total system upgrades. The 64 bit structure of 10.5 seems to be a good framework for years of growth. They've spent a lot of time on the infrastructure here and something developers can work to.

        IF -- and I think it unlikely, there is a 10.6 OS, then it is basically an opportunity to make more money for Apple. They won't do much changes for Developers -- just add a few pieces of window dressing and features that can be tacked on.
        • PasteEater, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3"IF -- and I think it unlikely, there is a 10.6 OS, then it is basically an opportunity to make more money for Apple."


          That is, if they charge for it. OS X 10.1 was a free upgrade.

    • D14BL0, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3I think you missed the part that said it was going gold master December, which is a bit more than six months.
    • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Leopard was delayed for a considerable period due to Apple's concentration on the iPhone, and that concentration is continuing with the iPhone 2.0 release next week. Unless Apple's had a significant influx of development resources over the past year or so, I can't see them having had the time to crank out a new OS in the past year. So, no, I don't see this story turning out to be true.
  • sruffelman, on 06/04/2008, -4/+64Please let it be Cougar. I have a free dinner riding on this from a bet with my ex-girlfriend.
    • juliandunbar11, on 06/04/2008, -2/+88..would your ex-girlfriend happen to be a cougar?
    • edebolt, on 06/04/2008, -6/+6sounds too MILF like but I hope you win your bet... There aren't many good cat names left.. If I had to bet I would say Cheetah but that conjures up Chester of Cheetoh's fame. I think they may abandon the theme soon.
      • djpants428, on 06/04/2008, -1/+16They already used the Cheetah codename for 10.0
        • WomensUnderwear, on 06/04/2008, -27/+1how about Cheater? very apt considering how apple cheats users with these bs paid point revisions
        • edebolt, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4hmm. drat... okay then I would say Lynx or Cougar. I read somewhere Apple has trademarked those two... Cougar will be the butt of jokes and its the same animal as the puma but who knows..
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6That was a good name but already used with the initial public release (OS X 10.0)
        • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -2/+5OOOOPS! dipants428 already said it. Sorry
      • griz, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Lion is the king of cats. Yet as a code name it seems lame.
      • counterplex, on 06/04/2008, -0/+8Thundercats, HOOOO!!!!
      • patm1987, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I think they should start from the beginning again but use their scientific names.

        "I'm currently running Felidae Acionynx Jubatus but am looking forward to Felidae Puma Concolor." Although arguably you wouldn't say Felidae, it makes it sound that much cooler.
    • tecunx, on 06/04/2008, -6/+2I think Apple has a copyright for Lynx, or Lynux, or something.
    • rs2183, on 06/04/2008, -0/+9any reason to meet up with the xgf ehhh?
    • dpantages, on 06/04/2008, -7/+3I want it to be Puma. But, then I see apple striking some kind of marketing deal and they will have apple/puma shoes in no time at all.
      • Lewiji, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1010.1
      • dpcamp, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3why would apple name 10.6 the same as 10.1???
        • dpantages, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1i didnt know 10.1 was puma, I only remebered the names through 10.3, what a let down.....
    • FranklinStaples, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2dinner bets with ex-girlfriends are always a FAIL
    • kingsal, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5How many times do I have to tell you that it's over. We're done, "sruffelman," it's over.

      And no, I won't cook you a "free" dinner if it's called Cougar.

      ;-)
      • darkciti2, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1"I moved, I changed my email address, I changed my phone number..."
      • kkiran, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1free dinner riding might mean many things, not just 'dinner' dinnner!! pay attention to the riding part of the bet ;)
    • richard.spence, on 06/04/2008, -0/+14OS 10.6 Liger - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
      • stankyfish, on 06/04/2008, -1/+110.6 Liger is pretty much my favorite OS these days.
    • Millenium, on 06/04/2008, -0/+5Cougar is just another name for Puma (10.1). Same cat.
    • Dralite, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2I though Jobs already said it would be called Lynx?
    • iainc, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2I call Bobcat
  • bbrosemer, on 06/04/2008, -10/+3I don't know if I can see this coming... this soon. The iPhone and iTouch are both 10.5 based. Would they move a 10.6 version to both devices as well... If that is the case I can't see them making an announcement until next WWDC or till Jan for the sole reason they do not want to get people's hopes up then have to delay the OS again.
    • hiredg3Ek, on 06/04/2008, -2/+6Despite what Apple says, the iPhone/iPod Touch software is based on an entirely different architecture(ARM9) to the computer OS(Intel only in the case of 10.6). What you say about the OS for the devices is the same as saying 'Holy crap man, when windows 7 comes out they are gonna have to make all the WinMob devives Windows 7 as well'. Although, WM 7 is due out soon.... meh, you get the idea anyway
    • bbrosemer, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2I never said I dont understand the concept that they are designing for different processors. But what you failed to realize is that there "reason for delaying Leopard" was the team working on putting a version of leopard on the iphone was taking developers from the Leopard desktop. So as I said before .... they wont be releasing in Jan... They will do the same thing they did for leopard.. preview here... Jan deeper preview and June ish release ... so once again don't jump on me thinking I don't get that they are using RISC architecture on the Iphone and CISC on the comps... No I am not missing anything....
  • ThirdPrize, on 06/04/2008, -24/+8But how can they make OSX any more wonderful than it is now? Surely 10.5 was the apex of human computing achievements and making it any better would be like telling god to give Pamela Anderson another couple of breasts. Nice to have but not really necessary.











    ;)
    • Ratteler, on 06/04/2008, -1/+5It would be more like getting rid of her hepatitis, and other "communicable" problems.
      • skeletorcares, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2beat me to it. But I do like the idea of comparing pam to OSX, sure its sexy, but i sure as hell don't want to touch it for the 'other' reasons.
      • ThirdPrize, on 06/05/2008, -0/+2Surely that would be Windows. ;)
  • pbarbosa, on 06/04/2008, -13/+7"Please" buy your copy of the "completely new and revolutionary" software in an apple store near you
    • Jexie, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I'd rather pay apple for a mediocre upgrade then pay more $$ to MS and get another dose of something like Vista - which was a truly revolutionary piece of *****.
      • pbarbosa, on 06/05/2008, -1/+0Fortunately I don't pay any OS. But it's good thing to know it's so hated but at the same time so sold. And so many fruity followers hating and teasing MS for anything. Same thing happened before with XP, and now it's everywhere. Then again, you should look twice at your itunes sofware. Personally, I converted to amarok.

        P.S. - I use linux/winXP and I won't convert to Vista any time soon. I may convert to Mac, but not yet.
        • Jexie, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Its hated and so sold because MS went for the jugular so to speak and muscled the manufacturers into including it on everything they sell, turning Windows into more a tax than a choice. Most people don't care enough about computers to look elsewhere - and up until recently (Thank-you Ubuntu, Asus and Acer) one would have to look long and hard to find anything else if they were not the typical geek.
          Macs are just overpriced, I love mine, but I am still surprised their market share is increasing as I don't think most people would want to pay that kind of premium to switch.
  • Altotus, on 06/04/2008, -5/+47My want list: better VFS support. Minimally, Finder should mount and transparently access (read/write) files by AFP, SMB, FTP, SSH/SFTP, WebDAV, NFS -- and maybe CVS and SVN (like Cerevisia). Safari should used the newer WebKit and JavaScript engine, and changing the agent string shouldn't be hidden in the developer menu. AddressBook needs to include more contact types (for example, don't hard-code the IM protocols, or at the very least add Skype as a protocol) and a tagging feature like iPhoto. Quicktime needs it own Flash export option. iSync needs to be updated (more devices, easily configurable to add new devices not in the list). Browsing files on a BlueTooth device shouldn't use a separate browser - just use the damned Finder (disable previews and indexing, if you must). Provide an option for disabling the writing of ._ files on non-AFP shares (I wrote a plugin for this, but it's an option that should be there). Replace HFS+ with a real UNIX or Linux filesystem (ZFS, or even something mundane like EXT3). Add read/write NTFS and EXT3 support. There are probably more, but these are things that would help me every day.
    • dpantages, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2QUICKTIME Flash Export would be EPIC!! Well Played Sir
    • 2shae, on 06/04/2008, -3/+6How about iChat having MSN support ?

      Apple, you give me build-in webcam, you give a great chat app, but you don't give me the opportunity to fully use them with the worlds most popular IM protocol :S What the hell !!!

      I'm sure OS X marketshare would at least double if either Apple or MS makes a good chat app for MSN.
      • Appleologist, on 06/04/2008, -3/+4You think that a good MSN chat app will double marketshare? And MSN is the world's most popular IM protocol? You're delusional. Try Adium.
        • 2shae, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Ok double was exaggerated, I use Adium and aMSN and MS Messenger:Mac, but when you come from using Windows and MSN live messenger, your OS X options feel limited.
          Btw Adium can't webcam.

          And msn is the most popular worldwide, only in the US they use something different.
        • sjmulder, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1MSN is the de facto standard here in the Netherlands at least. I hate not being able to webcam, and it would be nice if I could read and set personal messages.
        • atgmac, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1MSN is the UK's most widely used protocol by a very large margin. I'd love to use iChat but I can't because most people I know use MSN.
      • BrendanSheehan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1They won't do that because the new iPhone might have a front camera and iChat, and they'll release iChat for Windows too.
    • MalDON, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Writing to NTFS would make my day. Also those ._ files piss me off when I plug my drive into my windows computer.
    • CopyNinja, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2ZFS PLEASE. It is light years ahead. HFS+ is old and busted.
    • dressedindecay, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I'll be honest- I have no idea what 90% of that means.
  • delirium, on 06/04/2008, -24/+6I guess the early release is the same reason why Microsoft is rushing Windows 7. Both are considered flops.
    • rebotfc, on 06/04/2008, -3/+12lol, Leopard a flop?

      It has been one of the most successful OS X releases ever, and with CoreAnimation has formed the foundation of the iPhone OS.
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -2/+12ummm...What? 10.5 has been a commercial success for Apple with a good chunk of the user base actually going out and buying a copy as compared to just getting it with a new machine.
    • luchid, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4Where? By who? You in your backwards world?
      Leopard has gotten nothing but excellent reviews and sales.
  • CreativeGuy, on 06/04/2008, -9/+25One mention of 10.6 in a line of code in an app update and all of a sudden the Web is buzzing with 10.6 release rumors... LOL!
  • MtheoryX, on 06/04/2008, -17/+7Don't get all worked up about this. They seeded Leopard for the first time at WWDC 06, then it took another couple months after WWDC 07 until it was released.

    Oh, and I doubt that Steve Jobs spends a lot of time on Digg, so lets keep the lengthy "I want this" monologues to a bare minimum, mkay?
    • intellimouse, on 06/04/2008, -8/+10What are you the ***** digg hall monitor?

      Kindly ***** off, mkay?
  • mastazed, on 06/04/2008, -8/+1i think that is *****. when it does drop it will be ocelot for sure :P
  • RyGonWan, on 06/04/2008, -3/+12If it shows up in the Keynote it will be an introduction not a release. I think they usually preview their next OS long before they release it.
    • NeoRicen, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6Yeah duh, it says that in the article.
  • yabos, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6I somewhat believe it but I don't believe the GM release date of December 2008. Maybe late/summer 2009 is my guess. This is because WWDC 2006 and 2007 they had pre releases of Leopard. I don't think they'd only do one pre release 6 months before GM. That doesn't give much time for developers.
    • newbill123, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Although marketing has been the main use of version numbers for the past six years, there is a very functional reason for incrementing the number. **Expressing compatibility.** The promised resolution-independent gui will break a lot of otherwise-Leopard compatible apps, as will optimizations for 64-bit processors or the heavy use of the Intel assembly.

      If Apple puts out a version of Mac OS X that gains features, stability, and/or performance by dropping backwards compatibility, you can bet that it will have a major new version number, name, and logo for easy spotting on *Software Requirements* boxes.

      Just like 10.1 Puma was free, had only 1 year of development, and was debuted at MacWorld in January, releasing a free 10.6 upgrade for all compatible Leopard users after the Holidays would be largely taken as a free gift to further enhance those purchases rather than as a nasty bottle of medicine to swallow so soon.
    • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Agreed - they'll need at least one WWDC pretty much dedicated to 10.6 before its release in order to train developers on what is in the new release. Theoretically, that could be done at this WWDC but I just don't believe that they can be this far down the line already. Still, this does mean that Monday just got a lot more interesting since I'm not that bothered about the iPhone stuff.
  • DaMarsMan, on 06/04/2008, -13/+6sudo use zfsfilesystem

    k thanx bye.
  • digitallysick, on 06/04/2008, -7/+6If it doesn't have a tabbed finder then i don't want it. Oh yeah, and i want my menu transparency options back
  • weizilla, on 06/04/2008, -2/+13if all they're doing is security and stability, why not just make it 10.5.4 or something?
    • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -1/+110.5.4 is expected to start testing with ADC members later this week, or next week. Honestly, I'm a bit shocked that the next update to 10.5 is coming so soon after 10.5.3 was released. I can only assume that this one is going to be very small in scope.
    • BrendanSheehan, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1That's just to throw people off, they have bigger plans.
  • NSResponder, on 06/04/2008, -4/+28It's not going to happen. It's been a very short time since Leopard shipped, and Apple's been up to their eyeballs working on the iPhone SDK and iPhone 2.0. The soonest I would expect to see any glimpse of 10.6 would be at MacWorld, and it's more likely that it would be kept under wraps until WWDC 09.

    -jcr
    • newbill123, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Well, you can look at the WebKit trac and see places where they are incrementing the version number to the 6000 range as opposed to the 5000 range that it's now using. But I consider such tactics like reading tea leaves; the WebKit team only has a vague idea of the next major Mac release, but they are indicating major changes in their code.

      I don't think a January 2009 release is necessary, but I could see it as beneficial if it:
      * Created no buyers' remorse for Macs purchased since Jan 2004
      * Finally implemented features promised since Panther
      * Made selecting compatible software easier for users
      * Was a free upgrade for Leopard users

      No, I don't think they could milk Mac owners for another $100, but I see these features and optimizations as benefiting Apple as much (if not more) than the users.
      • NSResponder, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2They started the 10.6 build train shortly before Leopard shipped, but that doesn't mean they'll have enough to show us something at WWDC.

        -jcr
        • newbill123, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2This is what I imagine we'll hear at WWDC. Whether 10.6 is announced for January 2009 is a big question mark, but whatever the delivery date, this is what we'll hear about OS X's next version...

          "You know all those changes we've been warning you developers since before WWDC2004? We're finally going to make them mandatory for 10.6."

          "All of those deprecated API's that we've warned you will break in the future? 10.6 is going to be our line in the sand."

          "Since we've already nagged you for years about resolution independence and taking advantage of 64bit processors, multi-cpu architectures, and the Intel hardware you really aren't going to have much at all to do to prepare. Well behaved apps will get a free gains when used on 10.6."
  • ShiftAWS, on 06/04/2008, -13/+3OS 10.6 Lolcat FTW!
  • XCrazedPenguinX, on 06/04/2008, -8/+1Eh, its not an iPhone.

    Ha.
    But yeah that'll be cool, one thing that I like about OSX over Windows is the frequentness of releases and updates
    • etx313, on 06/04/2008, -6/+3Yeah, The daily patches in Windows simply aren't enough.

      • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6Bug fixes are one thing, but having to wait 6-years between the release of XP and Vista is kinda taking the piss a bit. And, let's be honest here, do we really think that Vista was worth the wait?
      • smoger, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2last time I checked, Microsoft releases bug fixes EVERY week. Apple waits until they compile a handful of them before issuing an update. Wifi is STILL broken in 10.5.x

        What are they waiting for? It's not like they need to support a range of wireless cards or anything.

        yes, Vista was worth the wait. noone was waiting for it since day 1 of XP.
  • phogasmic, on 06/04/2008, -5/+2They better be building some multi-touch into that.
  • directrix13, on 06/04/2008, -22/+5The fact my wife fell for the Mac marketing gimmick pisses me off. I don't like spending $$$ on ***** incremental updates to my OS. I tried to leave that behind when I switched to Linux. Steve Jobs is just as big a ***** sucking ass hole as Billy-boy-Gates.
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6So you have no control over anger management, your wife or your family finances? Tell us please why we should listen to you again?
      • directrix13, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1Because I have the insight to see through the horrendous pop marketing gimmick that is the Apple brand. Don't get me wrong the Mac is a decent platform. But besides a couple of open source projects it helps and open protocols it supports (for now), the Mac is just yet another proprietary platform. With all the propensities to be open and wonderful in the beginning but continuously locking down and closing off as the platform gains more support. I have yet to see a proprietary platform not undergo this lock down as usage increased. So why should you listen to me? Because I've seen this pattern before, and I would much rather avoid this awkward process. IOW, do whatever the hell you want. I don't care. I was just saying I hate how they advertise to the naive. And those in the know just play along.
    • wacomwacoff, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3So you'd rather use an OS that never improves or has security updates? Ok, have fun with that!
      • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4I think he meant that he prefers Linux, where updates are pushed out for free, compared to OS X, where major updates cost money. Typically I have no issue with paying for OS X but have to confess that 10.5 is still annoying me. While 10.5.3 fixed a load of bugs, particularly in Spaces, it managed to introduce some new ones that all seem to be related to its handling of proxy server PAC files so that I can't, for example, connect to the iTunes Store at work without iTunes crashing.
  • etx313, on 06/04/2008, -16/+6Of course it will! Who doesn't want another $120 "Service Pack" for OS X?
    • damndj, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3Except that these "service" packs introduce high profile features, something that other OS' "service packs" fail to do.

      These aren't service packs, you dolt. These are full new OS releases.
      • smoger, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1High profile features like broken WiFi
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -2/+4Have checked lately for updates to your "original and funny"? I think you're a few Service Packs behind.
    • 2shae, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3The people saying the 10.X's are just service packs are retarded (and unoriginal).
      If the new features and new look doesn't make it a new OS then WTF does make it a new OS.
      It's not like XP to Vista a big improvement, but you don't call that a service pack.
  • MuffinFlavored, on 06/04/2008, -6/+3I am glad to see their plans. Go straight to 64-bit and leave legacy behind. Can Microsoft copy them again? Just this time, not on chess or a crazy bloated theme.
    • UU7a, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4Wrong, they cant go 64-bit only because the original macbook(pro)'s can't do it.
      Check the specs of the Yonah. Anyone with Core Duo would be quite annoyed.
      • diggimator, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Annoyed would be me. E.g. Java SE 6 for OS X is only supported on 64 bit Intel, not on my Core Duo MacBook...
        • MMaster23, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1aaaah the sweet taste of defeat .. even with the world most narrow-minded hardware setup/choices, they manage to break their own compatibility.

          Thank god for my vista that can even run crap apps made 15 years ago... hell even age old dos games work out of the box...
  • nicc, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7the only thing I am not particularly happy about is the rumor that 10.6 could be Intel only.
    remember, PPC based machines were still being sold in spring/summer 2006...
    • D3IM0S, on 06/04/2008, -0/+51st gen intel are also SOL on this... Core duo and solo were both 32-bit processors and according to this rumor will not be supported if it's truly 64-bit only!
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7Even if it is Intel only, it's not like the PPC machines will stop functioning. You'll just be stuck at 10.4/5. They will still work great for a number of years.
      • nicc, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3I know the PPCs will continue working and I know at some point Apple will have to drop support for the older PPC Macs on newer releases of OS X; I guess I am wishing for at least 1 more release that will work with the PPCs

        my 15"HR Powerbook runs Leopard GREAT!
        my other PPC Macs (Mini and eMac) dont run Leopard well so I keep them at Tiger.

        oh well, in another year my fiancees eMac will be due for upgrade and she will probably get a new iMac.
        • jsebrech, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1If you throw enough ram at it, leopard runs great even on a mini. I'm typing this from a 1.2 ghz first-gen mini, with 1 GB of ram (maxed out). Leopard runs just as well as tiger did.
    • digitalpencil, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2it's inevitable.. some machines run leopard ok but i reverted my ibook back to tiger cause it chugged. Leopard runs great on my mbp but the idea that 10.6 would be intel only makes perfect sense.
    • rabbro, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah and the article says it'll 2009 when it comes out... that's 3 years and not a feature-hungry update.

      There's no way it'll be out in 2009 though, we'll be lucky to have the first seed by 09
    • bigsteve, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Haha, Vista doesn't work on some machines sold the day it came out...
    • ilgaz, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1There is no chance entire PPC line is dropped. Perhaps they will say Dual G4+
  • LuCiFer6, on 06/04/2008, -0/+7I mean I know Apple is quick when releasing new versions of OS but dam didn't Leopard just come out last October?
  • Kelmon, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4No, I don't believe this one. Apple has been slowing down the releases of Mac OS X and this is just too soon after the release of 10.5 for me to believe that they could be in a position now to release a beta of 10.6, which has not even been discussed publicly. That said, Monday may prove me wrong, but if it does then I'll eat my hat.
    • ilgaz, on 06/06/2008, -0/+110.5.3 is still buggy. They would become joke if they early seed a Intel only 10.6,
  • blankoboy, on 06/04/2008, -0/+8JOBS! New Mac Mini already...sheesh.
    • exomni, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Dude, Mac Mini seems to be dying away.
      • sudowrestler, on 06/05/2008, -0/+1About a year ago or a little more there were a bunch of predictions of the mini's imminent demise. then Apple without much fanfare upgraded it to Core 2 Duo. No idea what their plans are for it in the long term, but the people who were predicting Apple would drop it back then turned out not to have much of an idea either. I recently bought one to use primarily for development, the base model, 1.83 GHz/ 1 GB. Sweet little machine. I sort of think they'll keep it around, as it fills a spot in the lineup for people who don't want the all-in-one, and Apple apparently has no interest in a moderately priced conventional tower. Also, in Apple's push for developers for the mobile platform, it makes sense to have a low-cost machine that satisfies the requirements.
      • blankoboy, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I certainly hope not as I would like to pick one up for the wife but I'd never pick one up that's tied to the display (hence wanting the Mini).
  • ZippyV, on 06/04/2008, -12/+3Are they already giving up on 10.5?
    • smoger, on 06/04/2008, -1/+4you get -3 diggs for that, but every week theres about 2 articles hitting the front page about MS "abandoning" Vista
  • jkr801, on 06/04/2008, -0/+17Liger!
    • dpantages, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Its has to have powers of magic and flight
  • skeletorcares, on 06/04/2008, -12/+4Riddle: When does 6 come after 5.....? oh yeah, when Jobs wants ANOTHER hundred dollars.
    • chrislee149, on 06/04/2008, -1/+6I think the correct answer is "all the time."
      • skeletorcares, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1+2? or if one and/or the other is a variable. Or fibonacci sequence .....5, 8, 13.....

        There are many situations where that is not true. But when you spend...

        OSX $100 + OSX.2 $100 + OSX.3 $100 + OSX.4 $100 + OSX.5 $100 + OSX.6 $100, and still think that apple isn't a rip off. I wouldn't think you'd be getting any advanced math or economics degrees anytime soon.

        Just as a heads up, that 600 dollars is enough to buy a new laptop with w/ windows or linux, that will never try to nickel and dime you for 'upgrades/new box' every year.
    • ZigVicious, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3six always comes after five...
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -2/+2Hold on, is this some kind of Battlstar Galactica joke?
  • smoger, on 06/04/2008, -13/+11OSX: $20-30 cheaper than Windows, and you get to buy it 3 times in the span of one version of Windows.
    • colincornaby, on 06/04/2008, -3/+16Vista Ultimate = $450
      OS X Ultimate = $130
      $450-$130=$320...
      • mrbutter, on 06/04/2008, -8/+5Oh please, if you're going to compare prices and try to show that he's wrong you could at least do it fairly by not using full prices. How about Upgrade editions...that's what you normally end up buying especially since you can do clean installs with it.

        • colincornaby, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2"that's what you normally end up buying especially since you can do clean installs with it."

          Vista won't do clean installs on upgrade editions.
      • smoger, on 06/04/2008, -2/+1My copy of Vista Ultimate was $190. Where are you getting $450 from?

        also want to point out that Mac developers are terrible with backwards compatibility. once a new version of OSX comes out, they're quick to start requiring it.

        I can't think of much of anything in the Windows world that runs ONLY on Vista and not on XP.. maybe a handful of games. i just see that a lot with Macs.(i'm a systems admin for a mac-based company, in case you're wondering where my experience comes from, being that I clearly prefer PC's)
    • exomni, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Why? You could just wait and buy a new version whenever Windows comes out, and you'd be just as well off as with Windows.

      I've only bought two Mac OS X operating systems. Though I've had three others from Laptop and Desktop purchases. With Mac OS X, whenever I buy a computer or an operating system, I know it will be only a couple years old at most. That's better than a decade with outdated Windows operating systems.
    • kkiran, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Windows - once evry 3~5 years?! OSX - Every year!
      • colincornaby, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1There were two and a half years between 10.4 and 10.5.

        The quickest one was six months between 10.0 and 10.1, but 10.1 was a free upgrade.
    • Kflo, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Linux = $0

      Win.
  • Willow01, on 06/04/2008, -14/+9Hmmmm spend 120 for an update that should be free? No thanks I'll stick to 10.5 and get my Windows updates for free.
    • mrbutter, on 06/04/2008, -3/+4agreed.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't worry. There's way too much in that article that smacks of *****. Ditch PPC? No big new features? This soon? Not a ***** chance in hell. I'll eat my own boxers if this turns out to be true.
  • usingpond, on 06/04/2008, -7/+3Obviously *****, but hey. You gotta keep releasing new stuff to counter the giant copy machine in Redmond.
  • kingsal, on 06/04/2008, -2/+15whenever 10.6 comes out, it's going to be more than just a security and stability upgrade.
    • diggB, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3If the upgrade only include stability and security changes, then they should keep it under 10.5.
    • Haydio, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3Thanks captain obvious.
  • trpnblies7, on 06/04/2008, -10/+3I don't understand why Apple continually charges money for glorified service packs.
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -1/+3I get the feeling there's lots of things you don't understand.
  • interg12, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4nope
  • bloodydata, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Leopard just came out 8 months ago; it seems weird they would make a successor already. And if they're going to leave 32-bit in the dust; Intel, stop caring about cores and start working on memory bandwidth so we can start the 128-bit era.
    • scy1192, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1I don't think we're *quite* at 16 exabytes of RAM yet.
  • mentor972, on 06/04/2008, -8/+2"OS X - Touch"
    ..Nuff said.
  • dmerc, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3"Apple may be working to seed developers with an early build of Mac OS X 10.6 at this year's WWDC"

    Not for everyone.
  • helloluke, on 06/04/2008, -2/+3Digidesign ProTools and Adobe CS3 still dont work well on Leopard... I hope they give developers copies of new OS ages before the new one comes out, longer than they gave em with leopard.
    • dpcamp, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4?????
      i'm running cs3 and protools(7.4) flawlessly on my leopard machine
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -0/+3Actually he's right. There's been major issues with both Pro Tools and CS3 under 10.5. Most people I know of that run it for their business haven't upgraded yet.
      • helloluke, on 06/04/2008, -0/+0Don't come at me like that, CS3 menu bars do vanish from time to time (have checked on multipul machines)... And only yesterday did they release some very early beta for Protools LE systems that work on Leopard..

        I'm just saying, Whats the point of OS betas early if Adobe/Digi doesnt use em.
        • Haydio, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Im running leopard and CS3 and I've never had a problem.
  • indiehead, on 06/04/2008, -3/+12ZFS ?
    • digitallysick, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1maybe we will see that before we get old and die
    • zunipus, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Leopard actually HAS some basic ZFS functionality via the CLI. You can use it to create a read and write volume. But last I heard, Apple still had not coded it for Mac to allow bootable volumes, and it still has a few other kinks to be worked out. IOW it holds a lot for promise, but for Mac it has remained an incomplete 'standard'. I believe Wikipedia has a decent article about its status.
  • OffPiste, on 06/04/2008, -8/+3With all the trouble and problems with 10.5 it's not surprising that Apple wants to put 10.5 in the rear-view mirror as fast as possible.
    • Z_Man, on 06/04/2008, -0/+6The only reason that 10.5 had problems was because it's a big move ahead in terms of graphics and other underlying technologies. And I've not had ANY problem with it after the GM release. 10.6 in '08 is a bunch of ***** in my opinion but whatever.
    • mrbutter, on 06/04/2008, -6/+1wait i thought macs didn't have problems.
      • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -0/+1Wait I thought that joke was played out...oh it IS. I see
    • MacParrot, on 06/04/2008, -0/+410.5 hasn't been all that bad. The only major issues I'm aware of have been WiFi under G5 PPC machines (had this happen to me so it was back to 10.4 for that machine) and some issues with CS3 and Pro Tools. For my Intel Macs it's been rock solid since day one
    • Mard, on 06/04/2008, -0/+4Problems? I got a new Macbook with 10.5.2 a couple of months ago, my first Mac. No serious problems (nothing a little googling couldn't solve) yet... nothing like what I just went through with my Windows desktop (nothing a little format and reinstall couldn't solve).
  • pyrates, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2Interesting, so if this is true about it being fully 64-bit, can we say the minimum requirements are a core 2 duo based intel mac? Since core duo's didn't have the 64-bit extensions in them. That would mean the first generation intel mac's would be left out of this.
    • valkyries, on 06/04/2008, -0/+2so some one that just bought a macbookpro two years ago with a coreduo cant upgrade?
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 06/04/2008, -1/+2Leopard is fully 64 bit. It has a compatibility library of 32 bits as well. Both run at the same time and is basically decided by the Developer.

      If you code for Cocoa, you are already in 64 bit now.

      I could understand going 100% Intel with the next OS -- but not YET. There isn't any advantage over the current OS -- 32 and 64 work.
  • rezist, on 06/04/2008, -2/+9I know it is an Apple article... but it's nice to see a tech submission on the front page. I remember when Digg sucked because of too many Apple articles. I never thought Digg would dive to the level it is at currently. I wish we were complaining about Apple ***** at this point. Also I wonder if they'll drop powerPC support?

    /mac user
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.