Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

android8 · Apr 23, 2003, 03:21 AM

From a thread over at appleinsider....

First off, what I'm about to say will probably be regarded as BS, lies, and more lies. I'm positive about the information and have, and even if you don't believe me now you'll get to see sometime after June. This is going to be a huge year for Apple.

You'll see IBM 970 64bit w/ "Altivec Velocity Engine Extreme"
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.

There is also OS X 10.3 being ported to the 64bit offerings to be forthcoming from AMD. I cannot confirm it this version of OS X will ever be released.

Some Details of OS X 10.3 (some of you probably guessed these)

64bit OS, including rewritten finder to take advantage! Jokes have been made about "finder extreme".

Multiple concurrent GUI logins (similar to XP but with solid unix)

OSXFS - New filesystem, based off of BeOS Filesytem. Very cool features built right into the finder! 10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore. You can use "simple/regular" finder mode to bypass these. The ability to assign files categories like ID3 tags. Ever finder window can be searched realtime similar to the itunes search thanks to OSXFS. You can find all files that were assigned "category" business in 1 second flat.

New Print Services and much better dialog windows

New Navigation services! Three different ways to drill down files, you can even click a button to "spot" the folder. This means your cursor changes and you can move through the finder to locate the folder then hit enter key to finish saving. You can also assign the file categories at this time or the application can by default. files created by apple sound track editor can automatically be assigned "audio", so could files from an updated pro tools.

Bundles (some of you call them piles) work sort of like this, you could select 20 files and say "these are all the files for my project" monitor them. when you go to move 1 file it will automatically copy the rest with it. You can also condense them to look like a folder. Think files on different hard drives, different networks all as one project "folder" all updating and all copying when you move them. Very cool.

**New themes and sound effects, lots of interfaces changes, and customizations you can make for yourself**

New dock, so many new features, split mode, text mode, "start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.

new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)

new ichat, built in video conferencing (works with netmeeting!), voice chat, secure chat, better sortable and group lists, jabber support, plug in module support (for other IM services) and many cool new features and several mac only ones

new mail.app uses webcore for parsing html/mime email now, much faster and better, offers exchange server support, and many other new features, including a new "view" that looks exactly like outlook 2003 preview for windows. (you can still use old ones) mail is much faster.

built in ftp, sftp, scp into the finder connect to server menu.

much improved sharing controls for sharing with windows and unix enviroments, lots of complex options.

new built in remote access software, much better and faster than stupid remote access from apple. It reminded me of terminal server for windows. very fast.

new itunes (this will be out sooner i think) speed updates and built in support for music service?? new wireless and options to "share" your files with friends only on certian files.

new iphoto (very very very very very very very very fast)

new appleworks (new name, don't know if it ships with it, looked very nice!)

that's all i can remember.

Granted, every one seems to have "the inside scoop" about what 10.3 will contain. Regardless, this thread struck me as interesting.

Any thoughts?

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Apr 23, 2003, 03:39 AM

Meh, I pray it is all true. Hardware doesn't tickle me as much as the software. That 10.3 sounds perfect but a "Text Dock"? Ew.

Gul Banana · Apr 23, 2003, 04:09 AM

That sounds alarmingly like the ideal future. I have no idea whether or not any of it is true, but one thing bugs me: bundles are already something else in OS X, and a quite well-defined thing at that.

SYN · Apr 23, 2003, 04:25 AM

could you provide a link to the original thread?

If this is true, then panther will indeed be quite amazing.

fg · Apr 23, 2003, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by SYN:
could you provide a link to the original thread?

If this is true, then panther will indeed be quite amazing.

Here is the original thread at appleinsider.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=2

The poster is inkhead.

/F

GENERAL_SMILEY · Apr 23, 2003, 04:50 AM

...sounds good, but if true feels like a guaranteed P45 at Cupertino...

voodoo · Apr 23, 2003, 05:28 AM

OS X for Intel?

Never.

(The original poster writes like he freelances for MOSR - say hi to Ryan for me)

This is bull.

Sharky K. · Apr 23, 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
OS X for Intel?

Never.

(The original poster writes like he freelances for MOSR - say hi to Ryan for me)

This is bull.

never say never...

The Placid Casual · Apr 23, 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by voodoo:
OS X for Intel?

Never.

(The original poster writes like he freelances for MOSR - say hi to Ryan for me)

This is bull.

I too think it is bull... especially the bit about an x86 release of OS X. I read the original post when it was made, and it is buried away in a thread that has nothing to do with the subject of Panther or OS X at all... Smells like a 'Walter Mitty' type to me.

And how many real 'insiders' are there left at AI? Dorsal has gone (did he ever exist?!)... AI has become all lies, and half truths.

However,

If you think about things, and look at how the deal with IBM could pan out and what the logical conclusion may be, I fear we may see OSX running on their x86 servers sooner rather than later...

What are they getting from the deal? Assuming Apple doesn't put dual 970s in every machine to bump up chip sales from IBM, they will be looking for extra 'value' from the Apple deal...

They currently supply their customers with; PPC, x86, x86-64, Unix, Windows... how soon before they add OSX to the list?

It would mean, mercenaries that they are, IBM have all bases covered... and they would not be treading on Apple's toes.

If this ever did happen, and the x86 world knew X can run on their hardware, how much time before the pressure becomes unbearable and Apple has to buckle and release it to the unwashed PC masses?

It is a situation I fear... Technology to stop OS X booting on non-Apple machines? Isn't that what the BIOS on PCs was originally meant to do for box makers?

X on x86 is a Pandoras Box...

Peace,

Marc

Putta · Apr 23, 2003, 06:40 AM

This may be a bit amateurish of me and I may be missing apoint but surely the thing to do is get Mac OS X to run on Intel machines but make it inefficient enough thatthe Mac always retains the performance advantage. Then people will either switch to the mac because it performs better (I take it for granted that the OS is better) or because the machines look better.

No flaming for any of my ignorance please!

The Placid Casual · Apr 23, 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Putta:
This may be a bit amateurish of me and I may be missing apoint but surely the thing to do is get Mac OS X to run on Intel machines but make it inefficient enough thatthe Mac always retains the performance advantage. Then people will either switch to the mac because it performs better (I take it for granted that the OS is better) or because the machines look better.

No flaming for any of my ignorance please!

It is a valid argument, but unfortuately, 'looks' don't sell machines. It comes down to Pounds, Shillings, and Pence (Excuse the 'Englishness' of the statement!!) in a lot of cases...

Apple has always been a hardware company. Pretty much all of their money came from their machines... if they lost that income they would be in a very, very tight spot, It would be financial suicide...

A few points which I guess may be relavent;

I can't see Apple releasing a crippled OS... They are after all, not microsoft... Nobody would stand for it for one moment.

Also you get a whole host of driver, peripheral, and component issues which you never had before when you 'controlled' what the machines contained... Has Apple got the R&D money to sort it all out?

IMHO, if OS X ran, no matter how badly on an x86 machine, people will go that route purely because of cost. For exampe:

�100 for OS X and �300 for a self build 3 gig P4 machine? OR �2000+ for a Powermac? You get the same 'core' functionality on both machines... Hmmm. I think it is safe to say, no sale for Apple. So they get only �100 income instead of a machine sale...

When you increase this to an office environment, woud you spend rather �8000 on 20 'inferior' machines, or �40,000 on Apples machines... Assuming your 'slower OS' idea happened, �32,000 can make you put up with a lot... let you employees suffer while you take a holiday in the Bahamas...

Look what happened with the clones... They sold for cheaper, and were to some extent inferior to Apples own machines in terms of stability and stuff... Yet, they practically destroyed Apples sales. And that was on the PPC architechture! God only knows what would happen if it was x86!!

Also, Apple would have to sell one hell of a lot of OS X's to get the same income they do from a Powermacs... is the market out there? How do they do it? Most PC buyer get their machine and then don't change a thing form the out of the box setup, Let alone switch operating systems...! Microsoft would fight them tooth and nail in the OEM market to make sure OS X wasn't on any machines from Compaq, Dell, HP etc etc... I doubt anyone would cancel their Microsoft supply deal for an Apple one, on an 'untried on x86' OS...

Once the genie is out of the bottle on this, Apple would never be able to put it back in...

I see the Marklar/x86 card as a 'last chance saloon', that Apple will only play in an emergency...

Peace,

Marc

godzookie2k · Apr 23, 2003, 08:18 AM

wouldn't x86 OSX be sort of 'admitting defeat'? I don't reckon Steve-o will let that happen over his dead body.

voodoo · Apr 23, 2003, 08:21 AM

Steve will never surrender. I also think he learned his lesson about x86 when he had NextStep ported to that platform.

Putta · Apr 23, 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Marc2211:
It is a valid argument, but unfortuately, 'looks' don't sell machines. It comes down to Pounds, Shillings, and Pence (Excuse the 'Englishness' of the statement!!) in a lot of cases...

Apple has always been a hardware company. Pretty much all of their money came from their machines... if they lost that income they would be in a very, very tight spot, It would be financial suicide...

A few points which I guess may be relavent;

I can't see Apple releasing a crippled OS... They are after all, not microsoft... Nobody would stand for it for one moment.

Also you get a whole host of driver, peripheral, and component issues which you never had before when you 'controlled' what the machines contained... Has Apple got the R&D money to sort it all out?

IMHO, if OS X ran, no matter how badly on an x86 machine, people will go that route purely because of cost. For exampe:

�100 for OS X and �300 for a self build 3 gig P4 machine? OR �2000+ for a Powermac? You get the same 'core' functionality on both machines... Hmmm. I think it is safe to say, no sale for Apple. So they get only �100 income instead of a machine sale...

When you increase this to an office environment, woud you spend rather �8000 on 20 'inferior' machines, or �40,000 on Apples machines... Assuming your 'slower OS' idea happened, �32,000 can make you put up with a lot... let you employees suffer while you take a holiday in the Bahamas...

Look what happened with the clones... They sold for cheaper, and were to some extent inferior to Apples own machines in terms of stability and stuff... Yet, they practically destroyed Apples sales. And that was on the PPC architechture! God only knows what would happen if it was x86!!

Also, Apple would have to sell one hell of a lot of OS X's to get the same income they do from a Powermacs... is the market out there? How do they do it? Most PC buyer get their machine and then don't change a thing form the out of the box setup, Let alone switch operating systems...! Microsoft would fight them tooth and nail in the OEM market to make sure OS X wasn't on any machines from Compaq, Dell, HP etc etc... I doubt anyone would cancel their Microsoft supply deal for an Apple one, on an 'untried on x86' OS...

Once the genie is out of the bottle on this, Apple would never be able to put it back in...

I see the Marklar/x86 card as a 'last chance saloon', that Apple will only play in an emergency...

Peace,

Marc

Granted, and I see your point. However, at $130 per upgrade (and people upgrade OS versions more often than machines), Apple would get huge revenue from OS sales to a much wider audience.

However, I have to agree with the general trend here that it is unlikely, if for no other reasons than Steve's ego....

voodoo · Apr 23, 2003, 08:38 AM

oh, and the headache of backwards compatibility with OS X on Intel -- wow.

rmendis · Apr 23, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Putta:
This may be a bit amateurish of me and I may be missing apoint but surely the thing to do is get Mac OS X to run on Intel machines but make it inefficient enough thatthe Mac always retains the performance advantage.

I think Mac OS X for Intel will appear at a WWDC (as that's the most appropriate venue) maybe this year or next.

But what is for sure, is that if it does, it will be for IA64 and not x86 (IA32). That means Itanium.

Intel have said that they plan to bring 64bit computing to the desktop in about 3-4 years. It will most certainly be IA64 even though it may not be called Itanium (which Intel may reserve for the Enterprise space) but instead may even bear the Pentium or Xeon moniker. This gives Apple time to:

1. Migrate apps Carbon and Cocoa to 'fat binaries' supporting both IA64 and PPC. First server apps are likely to be ported.

2. Reduce its dependency on hardware *end* commodotize the Macintosh line of machines to be more in line with PCs (in terms of price, margins, etc.) before IA64 is released for consumer desktops.

By porting Mac OS X (Server?) to Itanium, Apple automatically obscures those Intel users as each Itanium costs $4000+ and Intel has pledged to maintain that price for 1-2 years. So no Apple Mac user is going to go out and buy Mac OS X on an Itanium box. Well, not unless it was a server (from say IBM or SGI or HP say).

I'd say that it would only make sense to announce/port Mac OS X to Itanium, once it has a partnership/deal with one of the Itanium server vendors - IBM, HP or SGI.

I personally hope it is SGI and that Apple purhases SGI outright and sells Mac OS X on SGI's Itanium servers. That way no complicated licensing/deals that may fizzle out. Remember NeXT-IBM, NeXT-HP and NeXT-Sun deals...they all cooled off after awhile though NEXTSTEP was ported and ran on POWER, PARISC and SPARC really well. Not to mention on x86 as well

MacGorilla · Apr 23, 2003, 08:54 AM

x86 Mac OS X? Ha! If it happens, or is even announced this year, I will sell my dual 1 Ghz Mac for $1 to the first person who says 'I told you so' (plus shipping, natch!)

DoctorW · Apr 23, 2003, 08:56 AM

What a load.

Sharky K. · Apr 23, 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
x86 Mac OS X? Ha! If it happens, or is even announced this year, I will sell my dual 1 Ghz Mac for $1 to the first person who says 'I told you so' (plus shipping, natch!)

I told you so

WJMoore · Apr 23, 2003, 09:24 AM

Well I had a nice post typed out saying how I will echo other ppls thoughts that this is just a big collection of everything people want OS X to be but it SBoD on me and I had to force quit it...

Wesley

Powaqqatsi · Apr 23, 2003, 09:37 AM

10.3 Includes the ability to lay windows out with rich HTML based on the webcore.

Please god,noooo !!

"start menu" like mode for people who prefer windows. dock is very slick in this version, better than the start menu.

The old Apple-menu ?

new quicktime, very very nice player, apple went all out! even supports nonstandard divx format and wierd avis, it's new billing will be "anything motion" (not those exact words)

yeah, right...

new iphoto (very very very very very very very very fast)

well, let's hope...

And about OSX on Intel, no way. Not even OSX Server. And Like Gul Banana said: Bundles already exist, they can't give it that name.

For the rest: let's hope, it sounds feasible.

biscool · Apr 23, 2003, 11:42 AM

Not going to happen. This topic is not worth talking about. It will not happen...

KidRed · Apr 23, 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Marc2211:
I too think it is bull... especially the bit about an x86 release of OS X. I read the original post when it was made, and it is buried away in a thread that has nothing to do with the subject of Panther or OS X at all... Smells like a 'Walter Mitty' type to me.

And how many real 'insiders' are there left at AI? Dorsal has gone (did he ever exist?!)... AI has become all lies, and half truths.

However,

'Insiders' post where ever they wish. This guy says he has info and he posted to the boards. If he posted here, I don't think guys over at AI would say "macnn has never had any 'insiders' so it's gotta be crap!".

Take the info and believe it or not, no need to delve into anything more then it is. A rumor.

lookmark · Apr 23, 2003, 01:56 PM

My first thought was that this was made-up, as some of the bolder details -- os x for intel especially -- have been fodder for rumors sites for months (if not years) now.

But some of the UI details are interesting, with nomenclature and ideas that haven't been discussed much, especially lately. The idea of a button to change cursors and go into the Finder to "spot" a folder sounds very Apple -- sort of an enhancement of the classic Click-and-there-it-is! 3rd party extension from OS 9 (which works very well, along with some tricky flaws) and an attempt to avoid reproducing and duplicating Finder-like functionality in a navigation dialog, the kind of thing Apple abhors.

But I'm still skeptical. Whoever inkhead is, he's either a complete poser -- he swore in another thread that Apple will buy Universal, and it'll be announced on the 28th -- or he has some serious inside information.

I suppose we'll know soon enough.

In the meantime, some questions for inky, if he'd care to answer.

- Why a button to "spot"? Why not just go to the Finder, and drag the folder or file into the open/save dialog?
- How are dialog windows better?
- What are the "new themes"?
- How exactly does a split, or text-based Dock work? What does the Apple Start menu look like, how does it work?
- care to provide a screenshot?

The Placid Casual · Apr 23, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by KidRed:
'Insiders' post where ever they wish. This guy says he has info and he posted to the boards. If he posted here, I don't think guys over at AI would say "macnn has never had any 'insiders' so it's gotta be crap!".

Take the info and believe it or not, no need to delve into anything more then it is. A rumor.

I never said it was crap! far from it... I'm a long term member over at AI and have been for years...

However, can you say there are any 'real' insiders in the mould of Workerbee et al that post regularly to the boards? I can't...

We had Dorsal, Mr NSX and those guys, but info seems very thin on the ground as of late, for whatever reason...

I am in no way having a go at the members of AI, indeed some of them are the most highly critical, innovative and intellegent people in the ways of the Mac I have ever seen... However, in this case, the 'poster' has posted no previous info on anything that has proved right, and as such has no track record...therefore to me, their info should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism...

I may have sounded harsh to AI, but it wasn't my intention...

Peace,

Marc

RMXO · Apr 23, 2003, 02:33 PM

you need to cut back on the crackpipe & layoff on the rumor sites

thanks for the laughs though

Mediaman_12 · Apr 23, 2003, 03:19 PM

You'll see IBM 970 64bit w/ "Altivec Velocity Engine Extreme"
You will see Mac OS 10.3 available on x86 Intel Processors. At first it will run in server enviroments only (because apps will need to be recompiled with a simple tool) Later on you will see apple release it for sale with certian OEM computers. They have a way to limit it for testing acceptance to only those OEM machines. If it goes as planned OS X will sell to anyone with a x86 box. This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors really hard on this.

There is also OS X 10.3 being ported to the 64bit offerings to be forthcoming from AMD. I cannot confirm it this version of OS X will ever be released.

This bit just doesn't add up at all.
Apple is going to spend time optimising is for the upcoming 970. But is also going to be creating a entirely seporate version that is so well optimised for Intel's x86 that it wont run on any AMD chips, a feat that all the other makers of x86 OS's (even M$, who are practically in bed with Intel) seam to manage. And if it won't run on the very similar AMD chips what hope is there for Itanium.

barbarian · 06:27 PM

Sounds like wishful thinking, although wouldn't it be nice...

This said, I'd bet apple is planning some big hardware announcement in the very near future (at the music for your ears press conf). My guess is that they will release the successor to the G4 tower. New music service + new ipods + new g4's = a pretty interesting monday. Let's see.

I have friends at apple who are very excited, very distracted, and working overtime every night.... they keep telling me that very soon all will be revealed.

This would also explain 10.2.6 rearing it's head so closely on the heels of 10.2.5.

Sarc · Apr 23, 2003, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by android8:

This wasn't ever supposed to actually happen, but the CEO of Intel has been pushing Apple's board of directors.

What power has Intel's CEO over Apple anyway ?!
What can Apple loose if they say no ? USB ? Centrino ? sounds like way too little since Apple has FW and 802.11g ... strange

Another thing, why would Apple have the 970 tailor made when they could have used Opterons or Itaniums, or Pentiums, you name it.
If IBM was looking for OS X Server then why no optimize it for Power4 instead of building a processor for it ?! I'm quite sure it's cheaper.

Some hardware related issues. Apple is a hardware company, and like Marc said, the ammount of sold Panther copies needed to cover the lost of this income would have to be enormous. How many would change to OS X on the Intel side granting that the OS is fast ? I dunno, not many I think ... it would be like releasing 10.0.0 on a totally different scale. No software and little hardware support ... I mean how does Apple pretend to cover all the PC hardware drivers ? Maybe it has something to do with that old rumor of a central dbase running alongside Software Update that contains all drivers.

just my two cents

brainchild2b · Apr 23, 2003, 05:53 PM

God forbid apple could do anything that would suprise and shock you. That's usually Apple's trademark.

It's funny how it's so hard for everyone to believe that OS X for intel might be released. I mean if Apple truly is using 970, then why is Marklar continuing to be developed and maintained?

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Apr 23, 2003, 05:55 PM

Even Mac clones didn't work as they did nothing but take sales from apple and not increase marketshare.

PC servers with OSX would kill iservers.

brainchild2b · Apr 23, 2003, 05:57 PM

Well maybe the guy does know a thing or two? Register has a story that might help add fire to what the guy at appleinsider said about AMD. wierd stuff:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/30372.html

Mediaman_12 · Apr 23, 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
if Apple truly is using 970, then why is Marklar continuing to be developed and maintained?

Safety net. If the 970 quickly hit's a wall (aka the g4's 2 years at around 1ghz) Apple can bail out and think about switching proc's.

sambeau · Apr 23, 2003, 06:45 PM

Whether it's true or not - IBM selling OSX on it's hardware would be a genius move. Big effoff servers and ultra-hig-end digital video boxes.

Then Apple gets to sell more high end software like shake for them. IBM gets to sell more chips.

Someone else could do something similar with AMD.

But I doubt we'll see OSX on intel - and never on a third party consumer 'clone'.

my 10¢

sambeau · Apr 23, 2003, 06:47 PM

Pleeeeeeease! no html in the effing finder. NOOOOOOOOOOO!

keep it in a browser where it belongs.

CharlesS · Apr 23, 2003, 06:54 PM

That same guy at AppleInsider also posted this:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=23582

I believe the appropriate classification for this guy's rumors would be