[Luca Rescigno]

I'm not sure they're saying that Carbon support will be gone. Just that the carbon APIs will be gone so developers can't write any new carbon apps.

[hmurchison2001]

I'm certain the Final Cut Studio 3 will be Cocoa. I tend to doubt that the Finder will make the leap and I give it a 75% chance of iTunes 8 being a Cocoa app.

FCS will certainly be Cocoa and I surmise Apple has been working on the Cocoa port for quite some time as they did not exhibit at NAB this year and many don't expect FCS 3 until next year. Larger apps that need to move to 64-bit must be rewritten in Cocoa

[lpkmckenna]

I could see Apple providing a "special build" of Leopard (hence, "Snow Leopard") that supercharges the OS by leveraging 64 bit, or leveraging SSE4, or whatever. I could even see a 64 bit kernel with an entirely new set of the standard drivers that Apple already provides, but that's really iffy.

But Apple isn't gonna rip out Carbon. That's pure insanity. And the transition to all Cocoa apps is gonna be really slow. For instance, iMovie'08 is a ground-up, Cocoa rewrite. I could see Apple replacing a few other apps this way, but only for a complete re-conceptualization like iMovie'08.

[analogika]

Logic 8 is a complete re-write, AFAIK.

[TheoCryst]

Does anyone know if the rest of iLife '08 is Cocoa? I'd imagine so, but I've been surprised before.

We know that iWork is Cocoa, as is Safari. Most of the smaller OS components are also Cocoa (iCal, iChat, Mail, Preview, etc).

[CharlesS]

Here's the quote that everyone's getting into a tizzy about:

Originally Posted by ArsTechnica

Something else that may happen is that Apple may eventually wrap everything in Cocoa—things that are currently only Carbon accessible will be no longer.

Note that this doesn't even say that Carbon will be removed or deprecated - it only says that everything will be wrapped in Cocoa, and things that are only accessible via Carbon will not be any longer - that is, Carbon will no longer be the only way to access them. It doesn't necessarily mean that Carbon will not be a way to access them at all - just that they won't be Carbon's sole domain.

The use of the word "wrapped", to me, implies the opposite of what many are reading into this - if these functionalities were being eliminated from Carbon and put into Cocoa, that would be moving these functionalities, not wrapping them. Wrapping is when you offer an alternate, usually higher-level interface to something. For example, the Foundation classes such as NSString, NSArray, NSDictionary, etc. are wrappers around CFString, CFArray, and CFDictionary. They provide an Objective-C interface to the CF* pseudo-objects, but the CF* parts remain available for direct use if desired. Similarly, NSFileManager is a wrapper around the BSD file manager APIs, and Leopard of course includes Ruby and Python wrappers around Cocoa itself. In these cases, the wrapper provides a higher-level interface to certain functionalities, but one can still access the lower-level interfaces if he/she wishes.

Basically, my guess is that things like IOKit and CoreGraphics which have heretofore been C/Carbon only (although accessible from Cocoa apps via the regular C API) will finally get nice Objective-C wrappers around their functions. Hopefully, the various and sundry features of CFString, CFURL, et al. that are currently only available via the C-based API would get added to the NS classes as well. This would be very nice news for Cocoa developers, and very neutral news for anyone else. I doubt it would be enough to sell many copies of a $129 OS upgrade, though, which makes me skeptical of this whole rumor.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Logic 8 is a complete re-write, AFAIK.

No, I've got it right here. It has a new default interface, but all the old interfaces are still there. Logic is still Carbon.

[danuff]

As someone who is a new developer for Apple products, I personally hope that they pick one language (i.e. Cocoa with Objective-C). It would make developing for the Mac much easier if we only had one choice to develop in. While it is true that some games and apps would stop working if Apple went to all Cocoa, the companies were faced with a challenge before with going from the PPC chip to the Intel chip, I think these same companies would face the challenge with converting any current apps over to Cocoa.

I wonder what percentage of apps are made in Cocoa, and what are not.

As for going all 64 bit, and them dropping the PPC chip, not a chance.

-Dan Uff

[Big Mac]

Dismantling the Carbon APIs would be outright suicide as far as developer relations is concerned. The platform would be abandoned over night by most high profile developers.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

No, I've got it right here. It has a new default interface, but all the old interfaces are still there. Logic is still Carbon.

The underlying heavy lifting has been completely rewritten, though - the audio and midi engines are entirely new (which explains why it also sounds much better than it did before).

[Horsepoo!!!]

Ok...people here have so far mentioned that Carbon support won't be removed but the APIs will (this makes a lot more sense)...and all Carbon-only calls will now have a Cocoa equivalent (this also makes a lot more sense).

That said...64-bit only makes zero sense (unless Apple wants to follow Microsoft's mistakes of making a 64-bit-only OS). Is it humanly possible for Apple to create 64-bit versions of all its apps by January? The answer is most definitely 'NO'. Nor is it possible for 3rd-party developers to do so.

If Apple wants a platform with a handful of drivers, zero games, a dozen apps? Then YES, by all means, Apple should create a 64-bit OS and market it to all 3 people that are interested in this wild and crazy project. Apple should however expect to take ridiculous losses on this though.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

What's still 32 bit? The Leopard kernel. Moving to 64 bit means driver nightmares, worse than Vista. Apple's not stupid.

All 64 bit? All Intel? All Cocoa? None of these things will happen.

According to Apple, Leopard's kernel is already 64-bit (when on 64-bit machines.) It also dynamically loads 32-bit or 64-bit device drivers based on the hardware detected.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Intel only? Maybe, but why? I thought Apple was planning on keeping platform flexibility (PPC, x86, ARM) so they can choose the best CPU for each application.
64-bit only? No way.

Exactly. PPC was phased out less than three years ago. I doubt the next version of OSX will not support that even.

[imitchellg5]

I would hate for Apple to not support PPC, but I can see them doing that. It will suck, there are still a ton of G5s in the professional world.

[Luca Rescigno]

I could see them dropping support for G4s, but G5s? Man, imitchellg5 is right, there are a lot of G5s out there. Many are running in dual- or even quad-processor configurations at 2 GHz or above and they have access to a huge RAM ceiling. And they were purchased at great expense by people who thought they would be good to go for a solid 5-6 years (like pretty much every Power Mac in the past).

Another thing to consider—Xserve G5s. However, I think having access to new OS versions is less important for these, as long as Apple continues to provide security patches far into the future for the last PPC-compatible versions of OS X.

[peeb]

Nah, not yet. They'll continue to support it precisely because of all the G5s. If they don't, developers will be reluctant to make use of new features because of the install base.

[besson3c]

Does it even matter if the kernel is 32 or 64 bit? 64 bit does not equal faster, and the operations that the kernel performs are designed to have a very light footprint for obvious reasons.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does it even matter if the kernel is 32 or 64 bit? 64 bit does not equal faster, and the operations that the kernel performs are designed to have a very light footprint for obvious reasons.

But that's the kool aide everyone has taken. People see that their CPUs are 64bit so they want a full 64bit OS

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

But that's the kool aide everyone has taken. People see that their CPUs are 64bit so they want a full 64bit OS

You're right, just like many people want ZFS without having an inkling of a clue why they want it

[analogue SPRINKLES]

If anything I can see apple making Carbon UI eliments a thing of the past. I don't know if Carbon is the reason that both the Spinning wheel of death AND the OS 1.0 wristwatch shows up in iTunes and Photoshop but I hope they clean and sort that one out.

I can also see Apple coming out with OSX and OSX Mobile which is iPhone like UI and app dev on other Apple portable devices.

[besson3c]

It would be nice if that wristwatch showed the correct time!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It would be nice if that wristwatch showed the correct time!

It does, twice a day.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It does, twice a day.

Good point!

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I could see them dropping support for G4s, but G5s? Man, imitchellg5 is right, there are a lot of G5s out there. Many are running in dual- or even quad-processor configurations at 2 GHz or above and they have access to a huge RAM ceiling. And they were purchased at great expense by people who thought they would be good to go for a solid 5-6 years (like pretty much every Power Mac in the past).

10.6 SL != not supporting G5s

Nobody is talking abut dropping support for anything. The G5s will continue to run 10.5 Leopard as well as they do today. Just like G4s and Tiger Macs are still supported.

[peeb]

But the problem with that is that software writers will not write for 10.6 if it means their g5 customers can't use it.

[Simon]

Nobody said they would have to. Just the way MS or Adobe don't write Intel-only apps today. There's much too much knee-jerking going in here. And this over an unconfirmed rumor. I can't imagine what this place will look like if any of this gets confirmed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

10.6 SL != not supporting G5s

Nobody is talking abut dropping support for anything. The G5s will continue to run 10.5 Leopard as well as they do today. Just like G4s and Tiger Macs are still supported.

Running an old version of an operating system is not the same thing as having support in new versions. By that logic, the original Macintosh would have just as much current support as a hot-off-the-assembly-line Mac Pro since it can still run its original OS and programs!

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Simon 

10.6 SL != not supporting G5s

Nobody is talking abut dropping support for anything. The G5s will continue to run 10.5 Leopard as well as they do today. Just like G4s and Tiger Macs are still supported.

It kind of does mean just that. On the one hand, obviously anyone with a warranty will still be able to get warranty service. And yes, many people bring up the point that old hardware won't just immediately turn obsolete and stop working.

Yeah, it'll keep running old software for as long as the hardware holds up, but that's of little comfort. Apple's OS updates are never just OS updates—they include updates to all the built in applications as well, and most of their pro apps require a recent OS release. Luckily, their current pro apps all seem to support Tiger, so their next round (once the next major OS X version comes out) should still support Leopard. But Power Macs are supposed to last a long time. As of now, the newest Power Mac G5s are still less than two years old. It's going to suck when the supposedly "long haul" computer you bought just two or three years ago is already unable to run Apple's latest software.

Like I said, Apple does at least seem to make a lot of their software updates available to people running the next oldest OS X version, so that's a good sign. But it seems too early to start cutting off G5 owners.

As a Power Mac owner yourself, you should understand. They're not disposable computers that you replace every 2-3 years to get the next best thing. They're not appliance computers that have a set functionality when you buy them and are never capable of doing anything beyond their original intended uses. Power Macs are powerful, flexible computers designed to grow with their users and allow them to complete their work with a minimum of fuss for a long period of time. Pro users don't like upgrading hardware all the time because it means migrating EVERYTHING over to a new computer, getting everything set up the way they like it again, and in many cases, buying new software. That takes a lot of time.

[Big Mac]

You're completely right, Luca. The tired old argument that it's not forced obsolescence since all the previous versions of the software you're currently using will still work on older hardware the day a new OS comes out is cold comfort that doesn't hold very much water at all. The same can be said for any old computer hardware - it will still run the software that was current at or near the time of its original release. An original iMac will still run software contemporary to it, as will an 8600, a Quadra, a IIci, an original Mac. So will a Pentium II, a 486, a PS2, an Osborne, an Apple II, so on and so forth. Big deal. That simple truism has nothing to do with current OS support for given hardware. It matters a substantial amount to PPC Mac owners whether or not Apple will choose arbitrarily to abandon the platform in the next substantial release of the OS. Of course, you shouldn't waste too much effort trying to convince others of this because most people really don't care.

If PPC support is completely eliminated in the next major release of OS X, a declining but still substantial portion of Apple's user base will now have older, abandoned hardware. One of the biggest practical effects of such a move (aside from not having access to the latest OS features) is that Universal Binaries will dry up. We also won't have access to the next major milestones of important software like Safari. Unfortunately, the odds are good that PPC support is indeed going away in 10.6 as these rumors suggest. For a supposedly environmentally friendly company, Apple seems to enjoy foisting obsolescence on even its high priced, high quality, recently sold hardware. It's really a signature trait of the "new Apple." The "new Apple" likes to sell its customer base new hardware as often as possible, and forced obsolescence is a mildly coercive way to achieve that goal aimed at informed stragglers who would otherwise be much more likely to hold on to their older Macs.

[mduell]

Even if 10.6 dumps PPC, you can still write software that will run on 10.6/Intel, 10.5/Intel, and 10.5/PPC. If there really are that many 10.5/PPC users (I have my doubts), companies without conflicting motivations (unlike Apple) will continue to write software for them.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Even if 10.6 dumps PPC, you can still write software that will run on 10.6/Intel, 10.5/Intel, and 10.5/PPC. If there really are that many 10.5/PPC users (I have my doubts), companies without conflicting motivations (unlike Apple) will continue to write software for them.

Yeah, but there are some major problems with this reasoning as well:

1. A lot of the most popular Mac software is written by Apple. This ranges from basic things like Mail, iChat, and Safari all the way up to Final Cut Studio and Logic.

2. There are far fewer software developers for the Mac OS. There are still a lot, no doubt, but not as many as there are for Windows. And because Apple dominates so many areas of software for the Mac platform, a lot of developers have never bothered to even try making certain types of software, particularly music management. There are third-party options available for most things, but not all, and there aren't as many as there are for Windows (granted, most Windows software is crap, but the selection is still there).

3. Many of the Mac software developers out there are comprised of Mac geeks who have probably already transitioned over to Intel machines and will wholeheartedly jump on the Intel-only bandwagon that Apple's driving. This is in sharp contrast to Windows, where MS can't seem to get many developers at all on board with Vista. I'm not sure which one is better, actually, but I don't think either extreme is particularly good. A lot of software just doesn't get developed for PPC anymore because so many Mac programmers have already switched to Intel and simply don't want to bother with making a PPC version.

[mduell]

What's even being discussed here? Would Apple dropping PPC support in OS X hurt the PPC user base? Absolutely. Is it going to end software development for PPC? No, as long as there are still a substantial number of PPC users demanding software.

All of the apps you mentioned have competitors, many of them open source. As far as Apple dropping their media management software for PPC, excuse me while I .

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

All of the apps you mentioned have competitors, many of them open source. As far as Apple dropping their media management software for PPC, excuse me while I .

I assume you're ing at the fact that you just suggested there's a viable open-source competitor to Final Cut Pro. No, there is no real competition for a lot of Apple's apps. There is good competition out there for iChat — some of it actually better. Firefox is an OK replacement for Safari, albeit one that feels like the Web-surfing equivalent of driving a bathtub on wheels. Otherwise, slim pickins.

[TheoCryst]

Wow, people are getting pretty worried about what currently amounts to unsubstantiated rumors. Let's see...

The one I can speak most confidently about is the Carbon issue. Apple already made it clear that Carbon is a sinking ship, and that everyone needs to be bailing ASAP. And the 3rd parties are listening: Adobe's CS5 is slated to have a Cocoa UI, as is Microsoft's Office 14 (note that there will be no Office 13 for Mac OR Win). Since Adobe and Microsoft are the two largest Carbon-using developers out there, that cleans out the vast majority of Carbon users. Apple is also reasonable on occasion, and understands the value of these two suites to its users. No one is interested in a Mac that can't run Office or Creative Suite. Apple already has what they want: the slow death of Carbon is well underway, and it's Cocoa full-steam ahead on virtually all fronts. So they aren't likely to kill Carbon outright quite yet, for the same reason that they created Universal binaries for 10.4/10.5: big ports take time.

That also ties in directly to the 64-bit issue: a pure 64-bit OS would be Carbon free. So that's not too likely yet either, based on the aforementioned reasoning.

Intel vs PowerPC? You got me. I can't quite predict Apple on that front.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Wow, people are getting pretty worried about what currently amounts to unsubstantiated rumors. Let's see...

If you're talking about Big Mac, he's been making these predictions since the Intel switch.

[Brien]

It's not like Apple would be the only company to use forced obsolescence, either - just look at Blu-ray, I'm sure in a couple of years the CE's will start doing it to DVD.

I do have a couple of PPC machines I still use, though, and I'd hate for Apple to drop PPC support so soon. I've no doubt the Carbon APIs will be gone, and I think Intel only is more likely than 64 bit intel only - CD Macs are only 2 years old.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I assume you're ing at the fact that you just suggested there's a viable open-source competitor to Final Cut Pro. No, there is no real competition for a lot of Apple's apps. There is good competition out there for iChat — some of it actually better. Firefox is an OK replacement for Safari, albeit one that feels like the Web-surfing equivalent of driving a bathtub on wheels.

I never suggested there is a FOSS competitor to FCP (reading comprehension seems to be at an all time low around here lately); the competition there is obviously Premiere. I was laughing at the idea that Apple would drop iTunes for PPC.

This is getting off-topic, but Firefox 3 (and really even 2) is so far beyond Safari it makes your analogy absurd. I've tried Safari for a day on three occasions and went running back to Firefox the next day; the feature loss and resulting productivity destruction is unbearable for me. Safari 3 is like going back to Internet Explorer 4 with tabs. I'm sure webkit is a few milliseconds faster than gecko, but that's not one of my CTQs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I never suggested there is a FOSS competitor to FCP (reading comprehension seems to be at an all time low around here lately); the competition there is obviously Premiere. I was laughing at the idea that Apple would drop iTunes for PPC.

This is getting off-topic, but Firefox 3 (and really even 2) is so far beyond Safari it makes your analogy absurd. I've tried Safari for a day on three occasions and went running back to Firefox the next day; the feature loss and resulting productivity destruction is unbearable for me. Safari 3 is like going back to Internet Explorer 4 with tabs. I'm sure webkit is a few milliseconds faster than gecko, but that's not one of my CTQs.

Yeah, I'm really happy with FF 3. For those bitching and screaming about non Aqua form widgets, FF 3 has those now, but I like it because even the release candidates seem far less memory leaky than any other Mac browser. That is, I can keep it running for several days without having to quit it because it feels sluggish.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I never suggested there is a FOSS competitor to FCP (reading comprehension seems to be at an all time low around here lately); the competition there is obviously Premiere. I was laughing at the idea that Apple would drop iTunes for PPC.

I think FCP's main competitor (in terms of market share) is Avid and not Adobe.

Originally Posted by mduell 

This is getting off-topic, but Firefox 3 (and really even 2) is so far beyond Safari it makes your analogy absurd. I've tried Safari for a day on three occasions and went running back to Firefox the next day; the feature loss and resulting productivity destruction is unbearable for me.

What features are you missing?
The only thing I can come up with is that I'd like to be able to save sessions … 

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What features are you missing?
The only thing I can come up with is that I'd like to be able to save sessions … 

Quick searches, Awesomebar, Pornzilla (really useful for things other than porn!), a password manager that works with MacNN Forums, zooming all elements on a page instead of just text, opening a folder of bookmarks in tabs, and a lot of addons that either don't exist for Safari or the Safari version isn't nearly as good (AdBlock Plus, ForecastFox, Google Gears, Gmail Notifier, Tmo minutes used).

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mduell 

a password manager that works with MacNN Forums

, zooming all elements on a page instead of just text,

opening a folder of bookmarks in tabs,

Safari has remembered my password for the MacNN forums for as long as I've been using it - which is since the very first public beta, IIRC.

Full page zoom I gather is coming in a future update (it's in WebKit already).

Opening a folder of bookmarks in tabs has been possible since Safari added tabs, which has been a couple of YEARS now...it also saves tab-sets as bookmark folders with the "open in tabs" checkbox set.


As for saved sessions - a recent version of Safari added "open all windows from last session" which is useful, but I can see how saving different window/tab set combinations can be even more useful.

[OreoCookie]

@mduell, analogika and myself
Let's move the discussion on Safari vs. Firefox here … 

Edit: I see you've found the thread already

[analogika]

One thing to keep in mind when talking about competitors to Apple's own offerings is price.

Cubase Nuendo is €1700 in the basic version.

Logic Studio INCLUDING a brand new MacBook w/ SuperDrive on 4GB of RAM is €1700.

I have no idea whether it's a similarly absurd situation in the video market, but for audio, Apple has just undercut the competition like a machete hit to the nuts by taking a €4000 package and reducing it first to €1000 and now to €470.

[ApeInTheShell]

Here's a feature: A new Finder

[ApeInTheShell]

As long as they still support the Dual Roar processors I'm game. See Apple - Intel

[msuper69]

oops!

[lpkmckenna]

WWDC 2008: Is Mac OS X 10.6 the Death of Carbon? — RoughlyDrafted Magazine

In addition to continuing work under the hood in the areas of resolution independence and kernel level security, sources report that 10.6 Snow Leopard will also introduce the new concepts of Layers and Slices, which will be covered in more depth at WWDC.

Now what could those be?

Another benefit to moving decisively to Cocoa is the prospect that Apple could port the Cocoa API to other platforms, allowing developers to create applications using Xcode that could be deployed on both Mac OS X and Windows. Such an effort would pull wind from the sails of Microsoft’s .NET while focusing more attention on Cocoa just as developers are expressing a lot of interest in the iPhone.

It's Rhapsody Reloaded!

[Chuckit]

Moving OS X programming to Cocoa doesn't make it any more likely that Apple will release Cocoa for other platforms. In fact, I'd say it makes it less likely. If all OS X programs are Cocoa, opening Cocoa up to other platforms is basically giving away the farm.

[Simon]

And to go with 10.6 SL...



Now back to reality.

[OreoCookie]

Fresh from the reality distortion field™