[TheoCryst]

Even if Time Machine doesn't work with iPhoto '06, remember that it technically does still work with the Finder. As unappealing as it may sound, in an emergency situation (OMG0rz I just deleted my entire library!!!!1!one), you could always navigate to the iPhoto folder and use Time Machine to rotate back to when you had the images. (Just remember to flip your Library6.data file too!)

Anyone else think the whole not wanting MS to copy them is an excuse to cover their asses for not being ready for WWDC?

Nah, though it wouldn't completely surprise me. Apple still has a lot of time to work on the Finder/Aqua, and I'm sure that the OS X team has been pretty busy with the Intel transition. Meanwhile, Microsoft is putting the final touches on Vista. It's far too late for them to completely re-write Explorer, but could easily "tweak" it a bit before they start sending out release candidates.

In other words, I have no idea if Jobs was being honest or not. Either way, I'm hoping that we will get to see these "secret changes" before MWSF, though I'm kinda expecting a wait.

[Landos Mustache]

I'm pretty damn sure Aqua is dead. Vista has copied most of it and the blue gelcaps thing is so 2000.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OwlBoy

Steve said 10.5 will be coming with "everything included" so that means all of iLife will come along for the ride. This is prolly because it is needed for Time Machine to work.

If they were giving away commercial software, I think they would have said so instead of listing a bunch of free apps.

[fuzzball963]

I think that we'll see a redesigned UI using Core Animation. When he mentioned that the same screensaver took half as many lines to code I wondered if that was what would be able to add 3d windows orsomething along those lines on older macs. It would seem to me the tighter the code the faster it could run 3D effects even on older machines

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I'm pretty damn sure Aqua is dead. Vista has copied most of it and the blue gelcaps thing is so 2000.

Yes. I don't know how many more hints Jobs could drop, aside from saying "we can't show you a lot of stuff yet", sucking nearly all UI-specific stuff out of the "preview", and devoting a whole segment to showing some of the more blatant resemblances between Aero and Aqua.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by fuzzball963

It would seem to me the tighter the code the faster it could run 3D effects even on older machines

That would assume that CoreAnimation works without code which I sort of doubt. It just moved from the screensaver itself to the CoreAnimation library, but nevertheless still has to be run. It just has not to be written over and over again.

[Landos Mustache]

I honestly can't see anything under a G3 600MHz running 10.5 at all. Hopefully even current hardware with GMA 950 cards will be able to run all the fancy effects.

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

At least many people should be happy that Spotlight now supports boolean arguments. And if Apple can succeed in delivering a unlified 64 bit Leopard (with all APIs 64 bit) despite the challenge of the bolted on EM64T, that will be a pretty impressive accomplishment.

In What way is EMT64 bolted on? I understand you might not have even a basic grasp of CPU design... but EMT64 or rather AMD's x86-64 is a new architecture based on the x86 instruction set with a 32bit x86 compatibility mode. Get reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64

Don't FUD the new Core 2 Duo chips, they really are superior to the crap that both IBM and Freescale have been churing out for the last few years.

Now that Apple have a proper 64bit chip that can run 32bit code properly (The PPC970 had loads of compatibility issues) they can make a proper unified 64bit OS.

[iREZ]

just finished watching the keynote...and the finder used during the demo for time machine looked pretty normal, but 'whats his name' called it 'youre typical standard finder window'...i think we are going to see a new finder but even if we dont i'll still be in line for time machine and ichat alone not to mention webclip...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by bloodline

In What way is EMT64 bolted on? I understand you might not have even a basic grasp of CPU design... but EMT64 or rather AMD's x86-64 is a new architecture based on the x86 instruction set with a 32bit x86 compatibility mode. Get reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD64

Don't FUD the new Core 2 Duo chips, they really are superior to the crap that both IBM and Freescale have been churing out for the last few years.

Now that Apple have a proper 64bit chip that can run 32bit code properly (The PPC970 had loads of compatibility issues) they can make a proper unified 64bit OS.

The 64 bit extension of the x86 instruction set is basically `bolted on' the original 32 bit instruction set. It was not part of the original specs (as opposed to the PowerPC for instance). It also started out as a proprietary extension by AMD which has been adopted in part by Intel (AFAIK there are some minor differences between AMD64 and EMT64).

The reason why Apple made Leopard fully 64 bit (including Carbon and Cocoa) is because they had to. 64 bit PowerPCs can run 32 bit code and 64 bit code side-by-side (e. g. a 32 bit driver on top of a 64 bit Unix) whereas x86-64 cannot. That's the reason you have so few drivers on Windows XP 64: all those thousands of drivers for older (and newer) devices have to be recompiled.

One of the main reasons the Opterons (and all other x86-64 cpus) are faster in 64 bit mode are the additional registers, 16 instead of 8.

As for the PowerPC, I think you are the one who needs to read up a bit (just so that you know, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro ). The PPC970 is a proper 64 bit cpu (as it was derived from the server-class Power4). There were no compatibility issues concerning the two modes, 32 bit vs. 64 bit. You can go to IBM's homepage and buy a PPC970-based server with 64 bit linux for instance. Performance-wise, I think you should double-check what cpu manufacturer offers the fastest server-class cpu (the name of the company has three letters and starts with an I). So IBM might have failed to offer a powerful successor to the PPC970 with better performance-per-watt, but to claim they are incapable of designing good cpus shows how little you really know.

[TETENAL]

The Mac Pro (according to the Keynote) can run 32 and 64 bit applications side by side as well.

[MacBook91]

is it true that its coming out in spring 2007?
on apple.com is says.
do any you know if thats true??

[mdc]

Steve said Spring 2007

[Axel]

Originally Posted by MacBook91

is it true that its coming out in spring 2007?
on apple.com is says.
do any you know if thats true??

It's on their website, why would they publicly lie about it

[Chuckit]

No, the spring 2007 release is a smokescreen. It is actually out right now. Look harder.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The Mac Pro (according to the Keynote) can run 32 and 64 bit applications side by side as well.

Yes, but the difference is that the whole underlying OS has to be 64 bit. The reason is that the CPU has to be initialized in 64 bit mode and then the mode cannot be changed on the fly anymore since the 32 bit instructions and 64 bit instructions use different codes and a different amount of registers. There was no such problem with PowerPCs, the cpu can switch between 32 bit mode and 64 bit mode on the fly.

This concerns only the core part of the OS. Since I'm not a computer scientist, I cannot explain things in any more detail, though. However, Windows XP 64 suffers from exactly that in the way I described above: all drivers need to be compiled/written in 64 bit.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The reason is that the CPU has to be initialized in 64 bit mode and then the mode cannot be changed on the fly anymore since the 32 bit instructions and 64 bit instructions use different codes and a different amount of registers

I'm not sure I follow you here. How can the CPU run 32 bit and 64 bit applications concurrently if it can't switch between 32 bit and 64 bit mode? It seems to me it can do that.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I'm not sure I follow you here. How can the CPU run 32 bit and 64 bit applications concurrently if it can't switch between 32 bit and 64 bit mode? It seems to me it can do that.

It seems to apply to lower-lying parts of the OS only: kernel, drivers and possibly also APIs (not sure about APIs). On Windows XP 64, not all 32 bit applications will run on the 64 bit version of Windows. Even scanners and mp3 players won't work unless you have 64 bit drivers.

I'm not sure I can transcribe this 1-to-1 to OS X, but I expect more problems here than with a 64 bit PowerPC cpu.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"The one big catch is, the entire volume must be devoted to Time Machine—you can’t just stow Time Machine files inside a folder on a larger volume."

[Chuckit]

I bet you could partition a volume and use one partition for Time Machine, though.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I bet you could partition a volume and use one partition for Time Machine, though.

For sure but what happens with laptops?

[Chuckit]

I was wondering the same thing.

[Chris Grande]

I finally found some screenshots: http://techpedia.org/a/90

Seems Leopard has a built in "Guest Account" that you can turn on and off and you can now create User groups directly from the accounts pref pane along with "Sharing Accounts?" for file sharing perhaps.

You can now set grid spacing on the desktop (possibly folders also).

Search built into the Help menu (like Spotlight)

Spotlight is now a App in the Finder (icon shown only no screenshots of it)

You can add as many rows/columns to Spaces as you would like

Preview has a new UI, looking like Mail

Anyone else find screenshots out there?

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The 64 bit extension of the x86 instruction set is basically `bolted on' the original 32 bit instruction set. It was not part of the original specs (as opposed to the PowerPC for instance). It also started out as a proprietary extension by AMD which has been adopted in part by Intel (AFAIK there are some minor differences between AMD64 and EMT64).

The reason why Apple made Leopard fully 64 bit (including Carbon and Cocoa) is because they had to. 64 bit PowerPCs can run 32 bit code and 64 bit code side-by-side (e. g. a 32 bit driver on top of a 64 bit Unix) whereas x86-64 cannot. That's the reason you have so few drivers on Windows XP 64: all those thousands of drivers for older (and newer) devices have to be recompiled.

One of the main reasons the Opterons (and all other x86-64 cpus) are faster in 64 bit mode are the additional registers, 16 instead of 8.

As for the PowerPC, I think you are the one who needs to read up a bit (just so that you know, I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro ). The PPC970 is a proper 64 bit cpu (as it was derived from the server-class Power4). There were no compatibility issues concerning the two modes, 32 bit vs. 64 bit. You can go to IBM's homepage and buy a PPC970-based server with 64 bit linux for instance. Performance-wise, I think you should double-check what cpu manufacturer offers the fastest server-class cpu (the name of the company has three letters and starts with an I). So IBM might have failed to offer a powerful successor to the PPC970 with better performance-per-watt, but to claim they are incapable of designing good cpus shows how little you really know.

Nothing has been bolted on to anything. The EMT64 is a "new architecture", when programming it you have to think of it as a new architecture. But it has the advantage of 30 years worth of coding experience that went into the x86. The increase in architectureal registers alone make it fundamentally different (but do not account for much speed up as you claim). Long Mode (64bit mode to you) also lacks many features of the x86 architecture. it's a new CPU architecture derived from the x86, with a seamless x86 compatibility mode.

The PPC970 has many issues of compatibility with the "G4". I really don't know why you bother to go on about the POWER line of CPU's... they are Server processors not general purpose CPUs (and not compatible with the PPCs we have been using in our desktops at all). I never once said that either Freescale (who you forget to mention) or IBM couldn't design great CPU's (you read that into my carefully worded statement yourself), my point was that they didn't bother. Freescale has got a great line of embedded CPU's and now have comercial MRAM products, and IBM are concentrating on server and customer (M$, Nintendo etc...)specific parts.

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

It seems to apply to lower-lying parts of the OS only: kernel, drivers and possibly also APIs (not sure about APIs). On Windows XP 64, not all 32 bit applications will run on the 64 bit version of Windows. Even scanners and mp3 players won't work unless you have 64 bit drivers.

I'm not sure I can transcribe this 1-to-1 to OS X, but I expect more problems here than with a 64 bit PowerPC cpu.

Windows x64 runs all programs absolutly fine on my Athlon64.

With any operating system, the kernel and drivers must run in or be aware of the 64bitness of the host CPU. But anythign that runs in userland can b wither 32bit or 64bit, with Windows there is the problem of IPC which never took into account of the operating system being different in any way from the programming running on it, thus the need for a thunking layer (WoW)... but Mach has a much better abstracted system that (while being a little slower) is able to mix programming of different types (see you MacBook Pro running both x86 and PPC apps at the same time).

With the Core 2 Duo, we now have a 64bit CPU that is fully compatible with the older 32bit one. The G5 was not fully compatible with the G4 (for reasons other than the largest word size.), they were different from CPU families with different manufactures.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

The reason why Apple made Leopard fully 64 bit (including Carbon and Cocoa) is because they had to. 64 bit PowerPCs can run 32 bit code and 64 bit code side-by-side (e. g. a 32 bit driver on top of a 64 bit Unix) whereas x86-64 cannot. That's the reason you have so few drivers on Windows XP 64: all those thousands of drivers for older (and newer) devices have to be recompiled.

I'm not sure I follow. The Mac Pro runs Tiger, not Leopard. Do you expect it not to work right?

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Yes, but the difference is that the whole underlying OS has to be 64 bit. The reason is that the CPU has to be initialized in 64 bit mode and then the mode cannot be changed on the fly anymore since the 32 bit instructions and 64 bit instructions use different codes and a different amount of registers. There was no such problem with PowerPCs, the cpu can switch between 32 bit mode and 64 bit mode on the fly.

This concerns only the core part of the OS. Since I'm not a computer scientist, I cannot explain things in any more detail, though. However, Windows XP 64 suffers from exactly that in the way I described above: all drivers need to be compiled/written in 64 bit.

The very point of the x86-64 architecture was that the 32bit and 64bit modes can be changed on the fly. The reason why the whole OS has to be 64bit is because the x86-64 is a totally new architecture, that can perfectly run 32bit x86 code.

The PPC never switched modes, since there were no modes.

[OreoCookie]

Fact is that for x64 to work properly, most of the underlying OS has to be 64 bit. As a result, certain 32 bit windows software doesn't work.

This has never been necessary for the PPC970 since 64 bit implementations were part of the original specification. There are two execution modes for PowerPC cpus: one 32 bit mode and a 64 bit mode. The modes can be switched on a per-process level.

<Edit>Added reference</Edit>

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Fact is that for x64 to work properly, most of the underlying OS has to be 64 bit. As a result, certain 32 bit windows software doesn't work.

This has never been necessary for the PPC970 since 64 bit implementations were part of the original specification. There are two execution modes for PowerPC cpus: one 32 bit mode and a 64 bit mode. The modes can be switched on a per-process level.

<Edit>Added reference</Edit>

I understand where you are coming from now. But you can't view the EMT64 processors as an x86 with a 64bit mode "bolted on". You have to view it as a new CPU with an x86 emulation mode... conceptually it's like MacOS X with the OS9 sandbox... and you should view it that way.

[OreoCookie]

I view it as bolted on because that is how it is. When x86 was invented, nobody thought about 64 bit (not even 32 bit or more than 640 kB RAM, but that's another matter). AMD single-handedly proposed an extension and Intel adopted it due to marchitectural pressure. In much the same way, Classic support in OS X is also bolted on. It's not a natural integration, but something running on top of each other.

Here's a picture from arstechnica that illustrates my point of view.


Also, it is not a new cpu instruction set with 32 bit emulation, but built on top of a 32 bit cpu. There are only two major differences: 64 bit memory addressing and 64 bit integers. Floating point operations were already 64 bit wide. So no, it's not a new cpu with emulation. It's an extension of x86 which addresses some of its architectural short-comings.

In contrast to that, 64 bit PowerPC instructions were part of the original specs and PowerPC cpus didn't suffer from the same architectural shortcomings (e. g. having only 8 registers) that were tackled in the transition to 64 bit. In this sense, you have less performance benefits if you compare PowerPCs in 32 bit mode and 64 bit mode than x86-64 cpus.

You can clearly see that -- contrary to your claims -- that you have a lot more problems running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS of top of a x64 cpu.

[as2]

Anyone got hands on experience yet!?

[kman42]

Sharing accounts is cool. Maybe it will make the task of sharing iTunes and iPhoto libraries easier. I'm always setting this up for friends. It's just too difficult right now for something that almost every household wants to do.

kman

[wintermute1]

[Vista only has to be 'good enough' to keep customers locked into MS and as much as we all want to laugh at MS, Vista has closed the gap with OS X. It was childish of Apple to go on with the Vista-bashing especially after the run-of-the-mill feature set they revealed because if OS X is really good as Steve hypes it up to be, it can speak for itself without the jabs.

For Leopard to re-open the gap, Apple really needs to make some ground-breaking strides instead of piling on useless features. I really hope that I am wrong by the time Leopard ships and the wraps have been taken off of the 'super secret' features, but the only way Apple is "going up" is by a few ticks in their single-digit marketshare.

Apple has been parading all of this time about their desire to steal away marketshare from MS. What, a whole 1%? 1.5%? Hardly anywhere near the "95% to go" claim.

If Apple wants to steal marketshare? Release OS X for generic x86 boxes. It's no secret that NeXTSTEP was portable (PPC, SPARC, x86, etc.) and I am sure that Apple has OSx86 running on ordinary PCs in a hidden lab somewhere in Cupertino. But I don't see that happening unless Apple is in dire straits and about to give their one last 'hurrah.'[/QUOTE]

Vista has to *exist* and to *ship* before it can compete with Leopard. You seem unduly confident that Vista will ship on time without suffering more feature decriments. Where does that confidence come from ? Certainly not from experience with microsoft products!

[Landos Mustache]

Springing?

[Chuckit]

Spring-loaded folders, I'm thinking.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Chris Grande

I finally found some screenshots: http://techpedia.org/a/90
... accounts pref pane ... "Sharing Accounts?" for file sharing perhaps.

That's what I'd guess. It sounds like a "valet key". Right now letting someone in to get at a few files is rather complicated. I bet that lots of people just give out thier username and password.

Instead of being limted to sharing your whole home folder, maybe now you can set up a way for someone to log into a partictuar folder. I'm actually surprised it took this long, even OS 9 had it.

[Eug]

OK, can someone re-explain this 32-bit/64-bit Intel thing? I presume Leopard now a super-fat bastard binary? How are current 32-bit apps and stuff going to run on 64-bit Intel Macs in Leopard? I am particularly interested in PowerPC device drivers because some of mine haven't been updated since the Panther days, and the products have long since been discontinued. They seem to work fine through Rosetta in Tiger.

I also echo the question about Q2DE. Has it been enabled yet?

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by wintermute1

Vista has to *exist* and to *ship* before it can compete with Leopard. You seem unduly confident that Vista will ship on time without suffering more feature decriments. Where does that confidence come from ? Certainly not from experience with microsoft products!

I'd add that there will still be a "gap".
They have shelved just about every advanced feature that was hyped for Longhorn. Vista will barely catch up with Tiger but with the maturity level of a brand new platform, about where OS X 10.0 was when it shipped. How long was it before XP users saw a "service pack"?

So, yeah, Vista will hit the ground still playing chase.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Gavin

I'd add that there will still be a "gap".
They have shelved just about every advanced feature that was hyped for Longhorn. Vista will barely catch up with Tiger but with the maturity level of a brand new platform, about where OS X 10.0 was when it shipped. How long was it before XP users saw a "service pack"?

So, yeah, Vista will hit the ground still playing chase.

10.0 was completely unusable. Vista now is already usable, and more so IMO than 10.1 was at launch.

Anyways, personally I'm more interested in comparisons between Leopard and Tiger than Leopard and Vista.

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Springing?

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Spring-loaded folders, I'm thinking.

Nah, it's for the dock. Thus, I'm thinking it's about that dancing icon when an app wants to notify you. It seems that in Leopard you can turn that jumping icon "feature" off, or add a delay.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by bloodline

I understand where you are coming from now. But you can't view the EMT64 processors as an x86 with a 64bit mode "bolted on". You have to view it as a new CPU with an x86 emulation mode...

Pretty amusing that you would presume to tell any one of us how we need to view Intel's 64-bit processors. I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty confident that my knowledge of processor architecture design is vastly superior to yours. (Heck, I could very well be arguging with a 12 year-old here.) The 64-bit mode on x86 processors is bolted on, whether you wish to recognize that fact or not. I don't feel like derailing this thread to explain it, but OreoCookie has taken on that task anyway. Unless you can provide credentials establishing your minority opinion on the matter as authoritative, I suggest you quiet down.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Eug

Nah, it's for the dock.

And you wouldn't like a spring-loaded Dock? That was one of the big feature requests soon after release.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

And you wouldn't like a spring-loaded Dock? That was one of the big feature requests soon after release.

I would assume, though, that spring-loaded folder settings for the dock would be the same (and in the same area) as those set in Finder.

And does the Dock not have spring-loading, currently? I never keep folders in my Dock, and I'm on a PC right now.

[Big Mac]

nope

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Eug

10.0 was completely unusable.

Did you even have a Mac at that time?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug

10.0 was completely unusable. Vista now is already usable, and more so IMO than 10.1 was at launch.

I found 10.0 usable. 10.1 was a lot faster, but still, 10.0 was alright.

[Thinine]

I used 10.0 on my 500MHz iBook.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I found 10.0 usable. 10.1 was a lot faster, but still, 10.0 was alright.

What do you consider usable though? It booted, you could connect to a network and find stuff in the finder and launch iTunes?

I also found it to be unusable. It was slow, didn't have many drivers, no CD burning, DVD playback etc. Did I mention it was slow as all hell?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

And does the Dock not have spring-loading, currently?

Nope.

[OreoCookie]

Canon fortunately (as one of the few printer manufacturers) had drivers for my (now deceased) S630, I installed teTeX and TeXShop and was good to go. I could burn CDs (I had ordered an iBook dual USB with CD burner back then) … and since I was working with text editors most of the time, it was usable. However, I am not saying it was usable for everyone (back then, Steve making jokes like `unfortunately I don't have Photoshop for OS X yet …').

I don't think we need to argue that 10.1 was a vast improvement

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think we need to argue that 10.1 was a vast improvement

Nope, we don't. 10.1 was an amazing upgrade and free. It is when I switched to OSX as my main OS.