Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

TheoCryst · Oct 22, 2007, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by kelso

I don't think there is going to be a 10.6. I believe that after leopard, OS X is done and they are going to jump to 11.

In all seriousness, that wouldn't surprise me too much.

By the way, does anyone remember how long 10.4 had been out before 10.5 was announced?

.Neo · Oct 22, 2007, 07:57 AM

I can't think of a reason why Apple would abandon Mac OS X at this point and continue with Mac OS 11. Things are still going great for them, Mac OS X is still one of the most advanced OSs out there and it only started to work better throughout the past six years. With Mac OS 9 they had a serious problem, it was outdated, suffered from viruses, terrible at handling multitasking, overal not ready for the "internet-age", slow etc. It was just done. None of this applies to Mac OS X so far, especially not compared to the competition.

Apple would really need to have something revolutionary up their sleeve to go Mac OS 11 on us. Next to that Steve Jobs said that the Mac OS X base would last them for the next decade. So technically we could see another one or two 10.x releases before 2011.

Kevin · Oct 22, 2007, 08:02 AM

I never ran a virus program from OS 7, 8 or 9 and never got a virus.

That was do to the small amount of virii that actually still worked, and the propagating factor.

Classic just went down too much too. Stability issues that you just don't have with OS X.

I like also scanning stuff, while printing and chatting in MacNN at the same time.

Apple has a hard enough time getting rid of Aqua, and OS X name sounds good.

kelso · 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by .Neo

I can't think of a reason why Apple would abandon Mac OS X at this point and continue with Mac OS 11. Things are still going great for them, Mac OS X is still one of the most advanced OSs out there and it only started to work better throughout the past six years. With Mac OS 9 they had a serious problem, it was outdated, suffered from viruses, terrible at handling multitasking, overal not ready for the "internet-age", slow etc. It was just done. None of this applies to Mac OS X so far, especially not compared to the competition.

Apple would really need to have something revolutionary up their sleeve to go Mac OS 11 on us. Next to that Steve Jobs said that the Mac OS X base would last them for the next decade. So technically we could see another one or two 10.x releases before 2011.

Very true but Leopard is going to be the biggest release ever. Besides the reason of running out of cats to use, when they release something bigger than Leopard, it is going to need a fresh new name; a new start. Thats why I think they will jump to 11 or maybe some new naming scheme. Those are just my thoughts.

Also I have never had to run anti-virus for OS9 and below. I believe I got the Melissa virus once and what does that virus effect: Microsoft Word. Probably one of the most pointless and saddest viruses ever. lol

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 03:38 PM

They won't go to 11. They have 2 more cat names copyrighted. So there will most likely be a Mac OS X 10.7 at the least. Then they will probably abandon the Mac OS name, or something, and go to a whole new scheme.

kelso · Oct 22, 2007, 03:50 PM

What cat names are those? I'm just wondering.

.Neo · Oct 22, 2007, 03:55 PM

Cougar and Lynx from the top of my head. Not entirely sure though.

0157988944 · Oct 22, 2007, 04:01 PM

Yeah, those are them.

lpkmckenna · Oct 22, 2007, 04:15 PM

I predict 10.6 will have more features and will cost $129.

schalliol · Oct 22, 2007, 05:07 PM

Syncing home directories. This will allow .mac and OS X server users to have transparency across their laptops and desktops. I'd like to see this work peer to peer as well. Something similar has been hacked as of a few years ago.

besson3c · Oct 22, 2007, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by schalliol

Syncing home directories. This will allow .mac and OS X server users to have transparency across their laptops and desktops. I'd like to see this work peer to peer as well. Something similar has been hacked as of a few years ago.

This has been possible since the intro of OS X using rsync at the user's discretion, but I'm curious to see how a successful implementation would work. There are some kinds of data that a user would want likely synced one way (e.g. bookmarks), some two way (e.g. homemade files), some none at all (e.g. caches), and some big fat question marks (application preferences if the application versions are different? Dock settings? Accounts settings such as display prefs?)

Visualize · 05:34 PM

Nothing is certain or set in stone.

I think most of us had anticipated that Apple would commit to the PowerPC roadmap for many years to come - but opportunities rose and Apple chose Intel because the PowerPC roadmap was not to Apple's liking. Maybe not that harsh, but still.

ghostdawg · Oct 22, 2007, 05:49 PM

It will offer virtual desktops...

schalliol · Oct 22, 2007, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by ghostdawg

It will offer virtual desktops...

How would this differ from 10.5's virtual desktops?

schalliol · Oct 22, 2007, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

This has been possible since the intro of OS X using rsync at the user's discretion, but I'm curious to see how a successful implementation would work. There are some kinds of data that a user would want likely synced one way (e.g. bookmarks), some two way (e.g. homemade files), some none at all (e.g. caches), and some big fat question marks (application preferences if the application versions are different? Dock settings? Accounts settings such as display prefs?)

I am not thinking of an rsync. Sure, you can copy data, but this is not the same as a true mirrored system. I'm thinking something more like the interaction time machine offers.

.Neo · Oct 22, 2007, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Visualize

Nothing is certain or set in stone.

I think most of us had anticipated that Apple would commit to the PowerPC roadmap for many years to come - but opportunities rose and Apple chose Intel because the PowerPC roadmap was not to Apple's liking. Maybe not that harsh, but still.

Seeing how Mac OS X Leopard requires at least a G4 867 MHz and some features don't even run on anything less than a Core Duo I wouldn't be surprised if PPC support is dropped at 10.6 or 10.7.

beez1717 · Oct 23, 2007, 03:16 AM

Apple will introduce a revolutionary new thing to OS 10.6: by either adding a new input device, multi touch comes to your computer.

That's what's going to happen

Or this: Time Machine will change as thus: it will be so integrated with the OS that nobody even notices it. In fact, networking and time machine will be so integrated with the OS that you won't even notices that you are using it unless you don't have a network or an external hard-drive. Also, there will be a new feature which will blow our minds out: We will get core networking: it will allow for ANYONE to set up their own networking, and it will make the line between the internet and the desktop disappear. That's the direction that Apple seems to be going in lately, with the iPhone and the iPod Touch.

Oh and one more feature: Apple will introduce their new iNetwork or something like that suite of applications: they will be completely changed Mail, Safari, and Ichat. They will also add a new program which will allow you to make your own server without any knowledge about networking, changing computing forever.

beez1717 · Oct 23, 2007, 03:34 AM

wait... what if Mac OS 11 somehow managed to network all of your computers together into one big computer, and make it so simple that you don't even need to think about i?

schalliol · Oct 23, 2007, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by beez1717

They will also add a new program which will allow you to make your own server without any knowledge about networking, changing computing forever.

It's pretty close to that as is.

beez1717 · Oct 23, 2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by schalliol

It's pretty close to that as is.

what I was saying was this: unlike now, you would essentially cut out the need for going to the terminal at all to do many of the important tasks that an IT would do. What this program would do is allow you to be at the same level as an IT.

besson3c · Oct 23, 2007, 01:27 PM

beez1717: I'm not sure exactly what you envision, but obfiscating Unix is not something any good Unix admin would want to do. There is a tremendous amount of power and capability that can be gleamed from the command line, and don't forget that this has been the case for literally decades. The longevity of Unix is quite telling.

Command line environments are completely and entirely open ended (that's kind of the point). There is no way somebody could invent some sort of pretty just-add-water GUI that would eliminate every single OS X IT from visiting the command line again. This is exactly what Apple has tried to do with OS X Server, with limited success. Once you leave the little comfortable bubble that Apple has provided, it becomes difficult.

Moreover, when it comes to tracing and debugging problems (output that a good IT needs to see), the natural output is going to be text. There is really little point in putting text output into a pretty window, it doesn't really buy you a whole lot.

What you are basically asking to do is change the fundamental design of Unix as a whole and replace it with something more like Windows. Bad idea.

ghostdawg · Oct 23, 2007, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by schalliol

How would this differ from 10.5's virtual desktops?

I didn't know 10.5 offer virtual desktops...bout time. Thnx for the info.

TheoCryst · Oct 23, 2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by ghostdawg

I didn't know 10.5 offer virtual desktops...bout time. Thnx for the info.

Apple - Mac OS X Leopard - Features - Lots of cool stuff coming in Leopard that you might not know about.

ghostdawg · Oct 24, 2007, 05:47 AM

The new 'Spaces' is the virtual desktops for Leopard...okay I didn't see that.

Exactly what does this mean?

64-Bit Applications
Make use of all your existing devices. Leopard is the first mainstream operating system to completely and seamlessly support both 32-bit and 64-bit applications on the same platform.

Didn't I do this using 64bit Debian Linux along with 32bit apps?

Kevin · Oct 24, 2007, 05:54 AM

yay this is turning into a faux 10.6 thread.

.Neo · Oct 24, 2007, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by ghostdawg

Didn't I do this using 64bit Debian Linux along with 32bit apps?

Debian Linux isn't really what I'd call a mainstream OS. But naturally opinions can differ on this.

beez1717 · Oct 24, 2007, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

beez1717: I'm not sure exactly what you envision, but obfiscating Unix is not something any good Unix admin would want to do. There is a tremendous amount of power and capability that can be gleamed from the command line, and don't forget that this has been the case for literally decades. The longevity of Unix is quite telling.

Command line environments are completely and entirely open ended (that's kind of the point). There is no way somebody could invent some sort of pretty just-add-water GUI that would eliminate every single OS X IT from visiting the command line again. This is exactly what Apple has tried to do with OS X Server, with limited success. Once you leave the little comfortable bubble that Apple has provided, it becomes difficult.

Moreover, when it comes to tracing and debugging problems (output that a good IT needs to see), the natural output is going to be text. There is really little point in putting text output into a pretty window, it doesn't really buy you a whole lot.

What you are basically asking to do is change the fundamental design of Unix as a whole and replace it with something more like Windows. Bad idea.

um..... it's more like having the program humanize those terminal commands so that anyone, and their parents can do it. It would kidnd of be like Automator for the terminal, but for networking, with security in mind.

besson3c · Oct 24, 2007, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by beez1717

um..... it's more like having the program humanize those terminal commands so that anyone, and their parents can do it. It would kidnd of be like Automator for the terminal, but for networking, with security in mind.

Not really possible, for the reasons stated. We have GUIs for parents to use, what do they gain from using a command line interface?