Slashdot Mirror


Apple to Unveil New Leopard OS in August

Max Fomitchev writes "Looks like Apple is going to reveal its new cool and fast Mac OS code-named 'Leopard' in the upcoming World Developer's Conference in August. Good news for Apple! And terrible news for Microsoft. If 'Leopard' is really what it claims to be, i.e. fast and efficient, in sharp contrast to slow and resource hungry Windows Vista, we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year."

19 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Who writes this junk? by vought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean c'mon. A day's worth of submissions, and you can't do any better than information that's been on the street for over a week, rewritten by a fifth-grader?

    If "Leopard" is really what it claims to be, i.e. fast and efficient in sharp contrast to slow and resource hungry Windows Vista, we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year."

    Maybe the reason fewer people are taking Slashdot seriously is because Slashdot doesn't seem to take itself seriously.

    Hire a f-ing editor to check out and rewrite the most egregious but still post-worthy submissions. No, a real editor, not one of your friends.

    1. Re:Who writes this junk? by Rosyna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean c'mon. A day's worth of submissions, and you can't do any better than information that's been on the street for over a week, rewritten by a fifth-grader?

      By week, I think you mean year. The fact leopard would be announced at WWDC was pre-announced at last year's WWDC. I'm not sure how this is news.

    2. Re:Who writes this junk? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Seconded. This is rubbish in every sense - writing, grammar, analysis... it's all crap.

      While Microsoft was battling with Vista that is a dog slow and resource-hungry Apple it would seem was focusing on speed, performance and elegance.

      Since when have Microsoft OSs not been slow and resource-hungry? And when did Apple ever not prioritize elegance and performance?

      The upcoming "Leopard" OS is expected to be even slicker and faster than its predecessor OS X.

      Careful - your fanboyism's showing.

      And with Macs running on Intel hardware, how long will it be before Mac OS "Leopard" or its successor spreads out into the PC realm?

      Erm, a long time. Apple needs to differentiate itself from Microsoft to retain its market share. Moving to an Intel architecture was a risky step, as it deprived them of one of their major differentiating factors, PPC architecture.

      The minute Apple runs on commodity PC hardware no-one has any reason to buy expensive Mac hardware, so they won't. This takes Apple out of the hardware game, and makes them entirely reliant on software and iPods. Mac OS/X will then compete directly with Windows, and though it's faster, more stable and more secure, Windows has that whole 90%+ market share thing going for it. Apple would be squished in short order.

      Some think this would never happen, but I have a feeling that it will. When Microsoft attributes a bunch of its Vista problems to backwards compatibility issues Apple would not suffer the same when expanding to PC platform.

      Sorry? If Apple wants to make OS/X run on commodity PC hardware it's going to have exactly the same problems. Sure, it could arbitrarily draw a line in the sand and refuse to support hardware older than X years, but that's not going to impress anyone used to Windows' (at least passable) support for legacy PC peripherals.

      And even if the problems weren't as severe as MS's in the short term, by giving up control over the hardware OS/X runs on, Apple will be ensuring it only gets worse in the future, until within a few years they'll be just as stuffed as MS.

      Perhaps transition to Intel's hardware was the first step for Apple. Perhaps Jobs wants to strike Microsoft when it is the weakest and not as paranoid as ever (due to stepping down of Gates).

      Riiiiight, because Ballmer et al are reknowned industry-wide as cuddly, fluffy-wuffy teddy-bears.

      Certainly MS is looking shakier than it has for a long time, but I doubt the paranoia level's decreased much since Bill left.

      Perhaps a mouse will overcome a dinosaur repeating the course of natural history in the IT arena.

      Very poetic.

      Except, of course, the dinosaurs actually kept the "mice" down for millions of years, and it was only once the dinosaurs had already naturally gone extinct on their own that the mice even had a chance. There's nothing like a bad analogy to really demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about...

      Who knows. But I think that the departure of Gates and Vista debacle proves that the time is ripe for someone to seriously take on Microsoft's monopoly.

      This is probably the only mildly sensible thing in the entire article.

      And can anybody name a better candidate than Apple?

      What, you mean the guys who failed to put a dent in it for the last twenty years? Sorry Mac guys and girls, but when a cash-poor FOSS operating system written by a bunch of hobbyists frightens MS more than a long-term competitor, you obviously aren't competing quite as hard as you think.

      A better candidate than Apple?

      Linux (free, doesn't have to worry about profits or budgets, has been eating MS's lunch for years on the server-side

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    3. Re:Who writes this junk? by ladoga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mac OS/X will then compete directly with Windows, and though it's faster, more stable and more secure, Windows has that whole 90%+ market share thing going for it.

      I wonder where people get the idea that OSX is fast. Apple marketing?
      Most benchmarks that i've seen seem to indicate the opposite.
      http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/macosx/

      Even my X41 Thinkpad with it's Pentium M 1.6GHz running debian testing with stock kernel does time echo "scale=5000; 4*a(1)" | bc -l faster (1m9s) than MacBook Pro 2GHz running OSX (1m18s). The very same MacBook Pro does (0m52s) when running linux.

      Not very good benchmarks I know, but i'd like to see some prove that OSX does anything faster than windows or linux.

  2. This is just NOT news. by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it weren't for the fact that this was announced, what, a week ago, it doesn't take a genius to realise that Apple will talk about their next OS at the forthcoming WWDC. It's what they've always done. Duh, that's what it's FOR. And those who care will know about it, and those who don't will ignore it. Just like THEY'VE always done. Fuck me, Slashdot gets lamer every day with shit "stories" like this. And I speak as a nominal Mac fan.

  3. Yet another Apple commercial by boaz112358 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neither the submission nor the article actually says anything about the OS, yet we're told the Leopard is "cool and fast" without any evidence whatsoever. Yet somehow this magic OS, which we know nothing about, is going to cause "remarkable market share gain next year." Nope, never heard that before.

  4. Year of the Mac? by i_should_be_working · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems as if journalists (or Apple proponents in general) have caught whatever afflicted the Linux fan-boys. Every release or change in Apple software/hardware is seen as something that could trigger a whole bunch of Windows users to switch.

    Seems a bit out of character..

  5. Remarkable Market Share? by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year." Remarkable market share? Ok, I'm a Mac guy - have been for ... too long, but are you kidding? 3-5% is remarkable? Well, maybe in so much as how small it is given how good it is, but I don't think that's what you meant when you used "remarkable market share..."

  6. Wow, Slashdot is really falling apart. by NYTrojan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did the submitter even READ what he wrote?

    If "Leopard" is really what it claims to be, i.e. fast and efficient in sharp contrast to slow and resource hungry Windows Vista, we certainly would see Apple's remarkable market share gain next year."

    WTF is that? First off, it's wrong. It's very very wrong. Tiger is better than XP now, but did we see 'Apple's remarkable market share gain this year'? No. There is nothing certain about Apple and 'market share gain' no matter how superior their products. Forget 'remarkable'. Second off, it's written so badly I had to go over it three times to make sure it really said what it said.

  7. Re:Stock Tip by jmp_nyc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One of the reasons that MacOS can provide a relatively consistent stable experience is that there is a limited range of hardware on which it is expected to run. Sure, Macs don't always have the very fastest of graphics chipsets (although we'll see what comes with the new PowerMac replacements), but the Apple engineers working on drivers can know exactly what chipsets are out there.

    If Microsoft could seriously limit and control the hardware on which Windows would run, they could probably do a lot better with drivers, too.

    These days, now that Apple is using more standardized Intel chipsets, they are able to pick a few configurations that are identical to perfectly good PCs out there and develop for those machines. As technology advances, they'll still have a limited group of configurations to develop for. (And yes, they aren't putting out high powered gaming configurations right now, but they will have high powered graphics workstations when the high end desktops come out.) If they had to start supporting everything, they would be opening a Pandora's Box of compatability issues. Dealing with the required driver variants would eat up the same resources they're using to innovate.

    Besides, the reason Apple sells OS updates for $99 is that they know that everyone buying a copy has already bought a machine they produced.
    -JMP

  8. Empty Article by Kichigai+Mentat · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did anyone else notice that the article was practically empty? That it was maybe, at most, five hundred words? Sorry, correct that, I just ran it through a word processor: 240 words in the article, not counting title, byline, or advertising.

    The article had NO MEANING. It was one of those things you say to your buddies while hanging around. "You know, if Leopard is as fast as Apple says so, MS could be in deep [insert colorful adjective here]." Then you're promptly shot down by your friends, reminding you that the masses have a "Crapple" frame of mind because their last experience with Mac OS was with the pizza-box LC IIs running System 7 from back when they were in high school, and they don't care any more.

    Not only does this bode poorly for Slashdot's credibility as having important and accurate information, but what does this say about journalism in general, when this passes for a good article. Oh, wait, it's not even an article! It's a blog posting! Do we even know who this Max Fomitchev is? I've never heard of him. This place is slowly becoming a rumor mill full of dupes.

    Come back when you've got an article from a credible source, no less than 500 words, with some real analysis, facts to back it up, and maybe a cool graphic or charts or something. Until then, stop wasting my time.

    --
    Rawr
  9. Re:Stock Tip by gantos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because Apple is a HARDWARE company. They want to sell BOXES. To make OS X available for other hardware would mean the inclusion of countless drivers, support for vitually limitless hardware configurations, and the hiring of a huge support staff to manage the problems associated with a market that is far from manageable (among other things). These are just some of the problems Microsoft must deal with on a daily basis. But because Apple is a HARDWARE company, they can keep a short leash on the hardware they support, which helps keep their OS lean, the development cycles short, and launches rock-solid.

    --

    "How do you expect me to see the forest with all these damn trees in the way?!"
  10. Re:My feelings on OS X by drgreg911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I felt the same way until my Windows PC broke and I was forced to borrow and live with a PowerBook for a couple weeks. At first, I hated it, until I got over my Windows habits and started to get used to the new UI. I absolutely hated Apple products, but now I'm more efficient and can't live without 'em. In any case, my advice to anyone thinking about switching is to spend more than just an hour with the thing. Force yourself to use it for a few days and actually be honest enough to give a go at learning how it's supposed to work. It may not fit your needs better, but then again, it might. You'll never know if you only try it long enough to get frustrated or you go into the experience planning on hating it.

  11. Re:Huh? Wanna say that again? by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    every version of OS X has been faster than the predecessor.

    I suspect that has something to do with the fact that, with Apple, you constantly have to upgrade your hardware as well as your software. It's not like you can go back and install OS X on your 1998 PowerPC 740 and expect it to run faster than the OS it originally came with.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  12. Re:More Speculation by rgravina · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes I agree. The article had no substance, and now this Formitchev guy earns thousands of pageviews worth of ad revenue from all the Slashdot users expecting to see something new and interesting about Leopard. Seriously, what a scam. The editors are supposed to filter out submissions like this. How did this ever get through?

    I've had with these editors. I'm assuming they get paid for their work, yet they can't even check articles like this for substance, or spot that the sumitter and blog owner are the same person and probabably looking to get some quick ad revenue.

    And even if the editors work for free, you'd at least expect they had enough pride in their work to do a decent job.

  13. Re:More Speculation by anethema · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd say mod parent up here because this is important.

    Slashdot stories are almost always links to blogs which links to reprints of stories. Half of them are uninterestingly written or contain nearly no information. BUT

    Even if there was no link, if it was just a headline: Apple to soon release OSX Leopard!...without even an article..it wouldnt matter because slashdot is about the discussion. I want to see what people think about leopard..i want to see people uncovering cool features that arent mentioned in most stories..i want beta testers to come forward and tell about their experiances...THIS is why slashdot is great. Much more interesting than sites with many stories, but no usable forum to speak of. (digg,etc)

    That beeing said, I have no idea why anyone would subscribe. I just block ads and get the stories ad-free anyways. And as for seeing them early...who to discuss with..yourself?

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  14. IBM tried this already with OS/2, it failed by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, I'd say that implementing Win32 on Mac OS X would be a way that Apple could screw Microsoft, but good. A second implementation would freeze it: "Why aren't you using the normal win32? I want to use your app on my Mac!"

    This was already tried with IBM OS/2 and it failed, and IBM was even requiring that users have a real copy of Windows. The future is vitualization and being able to run any version or patch of Windows. BootCamp is cool but it is temporary.

  15. Re:More Speculation by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, I think you'll find that most /. readers looked at the blurb and thought 'this article probably has no content, but the discussion might be interesting' and came straight here without R'ing TFA.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Re:List of OS X Code Names by nutshell42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage