Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Unveils Extra Leopard-isms To Developers

Hemos posted more than 6 years ago | from the look-what's-coming dept.

181

devilsecret writes to point out that some of the new Apple capabilities for developers on Leopard have been unveiled. The most interesting parts appear to be the opening of more of iLife to other programs, and the inclusion of Ruby on Rails.

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

No comments, but Slashdotted? (0, Offtopic)

yroJJory (559141) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643295)

Wow.

Re:No comments, but Slashdotted? (3, Funny)

acaeti (770512) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643453)

I felt a great disturbance in the Internets, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:No comments, but Slashdotted? (1)

j0nkatz (315168) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645781)

Shouldn't that be "silentized"?

Re:No comments, but Slashdotted? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643489)

I was more impressed by the short summary and it somewhat made sense. I guess there's a first time for everything!

Re:No comments, but Slashdotted? (1)

gumbright (574609) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643703)

It was on Digg (that brain damaged half child of Slashdot) too.

Re:No comments, but Slashdotted? (2, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644725)

It should be noted that one of the reasons Apple is shipping Ruby on Rails is that Rails was developed on Macs, all the major Rails developers use Macs, and the preferred editor is a Mac application called Textmate.

RoR bandwagon? (2, Interesting)

not already in use (972294) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643321)

Anyone think Apple jumped on the RoR bandwagon a little too soon? The whole "movement" has lost a lot of steam and it doesn't appear to be the silver bullet everyone originally thought it was. Also, is this just part of the developer suite, or is RoR support somehow built in to the OEM OS?

Re:RoR bandwagon? (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643417)

Anyone think Apple jumped on the RoR bandwagon a little too soon? The whole "movement" has lost a lot of steam and it doesn't appear to be the silver bullet everyone originally thought it was.

Wouldn't that mean they jumped on the bandwagon a little too late?

Anyway, RoR isn't the solution to all programming problems, but it seems to have enough steam that it's going to stick around. OSX comes with Apache, and it's not hard to get PHP, MySQL, or whatever else installed. There's a ruby interpreter in the OS already, and a lot of the prominent people in the RoR community are OSX users.

I can't RTFA to know what they've actually done, but why wouldn't they support RoR? In spite of not finding the meaning of life, solving world hunger, or finding hot women for me, it's a pretty good tool. Something can be useful without solving every single problem, you know.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (2, Informative)

larkost (79011) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645461)

A couple of notes:

RoR is simply going to be included. Nothing more at the moment on that count. Apple already has a easy-to-use database solution for Objective-C applications in CoreData (though I wish they would make it multi-user/computer capable).

And PHP is already included in the OS, you just have to turn it on. This is somewhat good from a security standpoint, but I wish they would put in a button to turn it on (next to the one to turn on Apache).

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16646071)

I find it very odd that CoreData can't do multi-user stuff, they already speak SQL to interface with SQLite so I don't see why they couldn't throw in an option for ODBC or something. Here's hoping 10.5 has this.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

mblase (200735) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643459)

Anyone think Apple jumped on the RoR bandwagon a little too soon? The whole "movement" has lost a lot of steam and it doesn't appear to be the silver bullet everyone originally thought it was.

So, did they jump on too soon, or too late?

Re:RoR bandwagon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643469)

I believe Perl, PHP and Python are included along with GCC and others...I just checked the terminal and without having installed the developer tools on my new(ish) MacBookPro I see ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25 build) is already installed.

Apache is installed by default.

It isn't an interface to anything required by the OS, but as Apple is a *nix and these scripting languages are pretty damn small, it doesn't take much to have them installed, so why not.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644031)

"I believe Perl, PHP and Python are included along with GCC and others..."

$ uname -srp
Darwin 8.8.0 powerpc
$ whereis python
/usr/bin/python
$ whereis perl
/usr/bin/perl
$ whereis ruby
/usr/bin/ruby
$ whereis php
/usr/bin/php
$ whereis apachectl
/usr/sbin/apachectl
$ whereis nfsd
/sbin/nfsd
$ whereis gcc
/usr/bin/gcc

OSX gives you many OSS tools out-of-the box which is more than can be said for the Redmond camp.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643495)

Anyone think Apple jumped on the RoR bandwagon a little too soon? The whole "movement" has lost a lot of steam and it doesn't appear to be the silver bullet everyone originally thought it was. Also, is this just part of the developer suite, or is RoR support somehow built in to the OEM OS?

Do you have concrete links and facts to support your observation? I'm working (for a few months now) on a slightly RoR-like extension to PHP5 (and later), and I've also noticed some weaknesses of RoR which I'm trying to avoid in my designs.

It'll be interesting to point out what the RoR community is griping about.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (4, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643551)

Do you have concrete links and facts to support your observation?

This is Slashdot. What do YOU think?

Re:RoR bandwagon? (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643905)

Do you have concrete links and facts to support your observation?

This is Slashdot. What do YOU think?

Sure. If he's anything like me, he probably just doesn't remember what they were. He could find them with Google, but doesn't feel like it and suggests you go Google it for yourself.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

el_womble (779715) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643559)

It might not be all things to all web developers and its far more of a paradigm shift than a casual glance at the syntax would have you believe. As a Java developer I expected to jump into Rails and be competent almost instantly. The reality was that there was a very steep learning curve when you wanted to stretch the framework away from a SOA portal or yet another blog, but IMHO it was well worth it. There are many things in Rails that make you start to wonder why J2EE wasn't designed in a similar vain. Perhapps the most gauling aspect of Rails is that it does impose a lot of 'good practice' on you: REST is pretty much compulsory; as is having a single primary key and it encourages you not to use session variables. The way I think of it is that Rails answers the questions that J2EE developers are asking 5 years on.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644199)

Sorry, but requiring integer surrogate keys and failing to support composite keys is not "good practice", it's a design limitation of ActiveRecord.

There are many things in Rails that make you start to wonder why J2EE wasn't designed in a similar vain.

Because J2EE was designed for people that demanded things like clustering and distributed transactions. I'm not saying J2EE's initial iterations weren't a complete clusterfuck, but they did have different design goals.

I have an app that requires submitting content snippets in about eight different languages, including Japanese and Chinese. It requires multi-step "wizard" workflows with their own transactions, as well as optimistic locking that catches stale edits. Ruby doesn't even support Unicode, and the hacks to make it do are grossly inadequate. The transactional features I would most likely have to laboriously recreate by hand. Rails and almost every other MVC "framework" out there were just complete non-starters.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644233)

Now if it only had a decent high-performance cross-platform engine beneath the hood...

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644317)

``There are many things in Rails that make you start to wonder why J2EE wasn't designed in a similar vain.''

I think part of the answer may be that Java and Ruby are very different languages. Java is fairly static, rigid and verbose, with lots of redundancy in the code. Programs are typically designed top-down, along language features, so that the program is made to fit the language.

Ruby is almost the opposite: it's very dynamic, very succinct, and there's virtually no redundancy in the code. Programs can be built bottom-up, with the design evolving with the program, and the language being made to fit the program. Rails is a prime example of that.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644059)

Too soon -- as in, got caught up in the hype before it became a time tested, proven and successful development platform. But that's really beside the point. From what I've seen with rails, read on forums, etc, there are a lot of ways to do something the wrong way. What you may initially learn in some tutorial or book doesn't necessarily transcend to the real world, with certain features and methods not scaling well when brought into production. I've seen this in other similar frameworks, like Prado for PHP. Yes, initial development time is cut down significantly, but then you spend a lot of your time working on caching techniques and scaling in order to improve performance, which is often gonna be the case when you have a framework doing so much of the work for you.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644673)

Anyone think Apple jumped on the RoR bandwagon a little too soon? The whole "movement" has lost a lot of steam and it doesn't appear to be the silver bullet everyone originally thought it was.

Normally, I demand facts and evidence to back up assertions, but because you wrote it so eloquently and described something shiny, I think I'm going to let it slide this time and simply believe everything you say.

Re:RoR bandwagon? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645327)

Apple's not on the RoR "Bandwagon". It's just another of the the widely-used UNIX apps that they include on the OS X disks, just like Python, Perl, Apache, BASH, PostFix, etc, etc.

-jcr

Re:RoR bandwagon? (2, Funny)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645511)

But since they name all they releases after large cats, they had to go "RoR!"

Ehm. Ok, I know the way out...

???????? Link working? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643337)

3 browsers and 2 OSes, no luck loading the link yet.. anyone else?

Re: ????? Link working? (5, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643367)

3 browsers and 2 OSes, no luck loading the link yet.. anyone else?

The problem is clearly that you're using the wrong browser and OS combination. Keep on trying different ones. One of them will get the link to load.

Re: ????? Link working? (1)

waif69 (322360) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643657)

Yes, the site has been slashdotted!

Re: Link working? (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644893)

If you just stuck with one OS and one browser maybe it'd reduce the load on the servers and you'd give people a chance to read the article.

How utterly ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643343)

Yes, let us link to a Mambo/Joomla powered site that's slashdotted without any comments, OR, link to Apple's high powered, easily accessible: Leopard Developer Overview [apple.com] that was recently posted.

Cool (1)

mjjw (560868) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643405)

This is actually quite cool news. I use Macs to develop websites and I also use RoR so to see that Leopard (Server) will come with RoR pre-installed (from the APpl e Leopard overview) is really cool news for me.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643457)

May I ask why? It's not like it's superhumanly hard to install it yourself, and if you don't need RoR, it's just another thing that can go wrong.

I wish MS would come out with something like this (1)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643461)

These development tools look great. Particularly Interface Builder and XRAY. I've never used Mac development tools, so it's possible that looks can be deceiving ... but seeing this really makes me wish that MS would start to push their IDE forward rather than adding minor enhancements with each .NET release.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (4, Interesting)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643573)

I use both XCode and Visual Studio. I much prefer XCode and Interface Builder. There are also a lot of other very nice tools that Apple bundles for free. They are nicer to use than what Microsoft gives you, plus there are a lot of things that you get for free on Apple that you would have to buy third party on Windows such as the coverage tool (gcov) and the profiler (Shark). So, yes, Apple's tools ARE as nice as they appear to be.

Unfortunately, today I have to use Visual Studio and I'm trying to figure out how to get my program to run in a Release build. It runs OK in Debug, but for whatever reason I'm getting an error dialog about not having a manifest file to load the C++ runtime DLL (?). I wish I could use XCode to write Windows apps. Or alternatively that our Windows users would just all buy Macs.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16645061)

Unfortunately, today I have to use Visual Studio and I'm trying to figure out how to get my program to run in a Release build.

I have had zero problems getting even very complex programs built and deployed using Visual Studio. Sounds like you are just another incompetent Apple fanboi.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (2, Interesting)

tconkling (658345) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645071)

I'm a die-hard Mac user at home, but I write games for Windows (using MS's dev tools) for a living. As a Mac development hobbyist, I spent years using Metrowerks' CodeWarrior IDE, and -- more recently, and to a lesser extent -- Xcode.

Although I prefer the look and feel of Apple's dev tools to Microsoft's, I find that I get work done more quickly with Visual Studio than with Xcode. More accurately, I get work done more quickly with Visual Studio and the excellent third-party plugin Visual Assist [wholetomato.com] , which provides a number of important code navigation shortcuts including code completion that completely eclipses VS's IntelliSense.

Visual Assist is one of those tools that's painful to be without once you start using it. It sounds like the company isn't planning on a Mac version, which is a shame... do any Mac devs out there have tips on how to make the Xcode development experience less painful -- specifically, how to deal with its poor code completion facilities and slow text editor?

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645161)

It sounds like the company isn't planning on a Mac version, which is a shame...

If you are talking about my case (the GPP), then yes, actually I am doing a Qt application that ships on Mac, WIndows, and Linux. And Windows is a fscking pain in the ass. What I meant was that if the WIndows users would just switch to mac, I wouldn't have to screw with Windows and could just do Mac :-)

Today (and I literally mean today), I am working on a specific issue in Visual Studio. But we DO have a Mac version.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (1)

tconkling (658345) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645295)

No, I was talking about the Visual Assist plugin for Visual Studio. The company that makes Visual Assist, Whole Tomato Software, apparently has no plans to produce a Mac version of the plugin.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645771)

But there are lots of similar things for the Mac, editors, etc. Have you looked at TextMate?

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644377)

You can call me a Microsoft fanboy, but I think Visual Studio 2005 is one of th best development environments out there. It has Intellisense, debugging (done right!), great project management (if you use it correctly). Not to mention a lot of .NET stuff like an API for saving application settings in an XML file (no registry keys and just as easy as adding a component to a form).
The only IDE I think is just as good is NetBeans.
Oh, and if you develop non-C# applications you probably won't notice half the features, because C++ doesn't seem to be updated a lot since VS 6.0

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (2, Interesting)

drakken33 (859280) | more than 6 years ago | (#16646411)

I'm a Linux and Mac user at home with almost no MS software (I have played with Vista RC1 recently and have Win2k in a VM for web site testing). I'm not a fan of MS or their software but I have to use XP at work. I think it's important that I say this up front because of what is to follow.

We have VS 2005 at work and I recently got permission to install it (no one else was using it as our resident Windows dev has gone back to Delphi) to create some tools to make my life easier. I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. I can make my tools very quickly indeed with C# and .NET and the IDE is pretty good.

The downside is that .NET can make you lazy because it does so much for you. It does 90% of what I need but the last 10% has me spending too long looking through the docs to see if there are properties, methods or events that let me do what I want easily. For example, I'm using a TabControl but I couldn't find a way to detect right-clicks on a TabPage's tab so I could pop up a context menu so I wrote some code to loop through all the TabPages, see if the right-click was on each TabPage in turn and if so pop up the context menu. I'm still learning the framework but that seems like a round about way to do things and something that should be there already.

Next to VS 2005, Xcode/Objective-C/Cocoa feels quite "old school" but I like that. It's more like the way I was taught. It can be hard work but it's worth it. I think Apple's approach may be less RAD but it maybe a more flexible approach. It's too early in my VS 2005 usage to be sure. At least Apple provide dev tools with their OS. If you want to attract the home coder you need good free dev tools so I'm glad MS offer the Express versions of VS and I plan to look at at least Visual C# Express to see how that compares to Xcode.

Re:I wish MS would come out with something like th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644643)

You should try cocoa bindings and interface builder... makes .Net look outdated!

Instant slashdotting! (1, Funny)

Xyde (415798) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643509)

BOOM!

Boom! (2, Funny)

zoeblade (600058) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643563)

BOOM!

Boom... Boom [youtube.com] .

Re:Boom! (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645965)

that clip gives me RainMan flashbacks "97X...BAM...the future of rock and roll"

Re:Boom! (1)

tbone1 (309237) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645969)

Boom ... and boom goes the dynamite [youtube.com] .

You're way behind the times, Mr Area-56 (1)

frankie (91710) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643545)

Ruby on Rails was announced back in August [rubyonrails.org] , and I (et al) added details about the rest of the dev overview to Wikipedia 5 days ago [wikipedia.org] . Personally, I thought the most interesting new part was Mandatory Access Control.

Why do people pay for this stuff? (2, Interesting)

Channard (693317) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643821)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why would anyone pay the asking price of just under a hundred quid for a minor revision? No, this isn't intented to be flamebait - I'm a new Mac Mini owner myself and it's getting way more use than my PC. But I can't understand how Apple can charge for what is a pretty damn small upgrade. There were some major major differences between XP and 2000, and I can understand Microsoft paying for these. I can also understand Apple charging for the jump from 9.x to 10.x. But from 10.4 to 10.5? What am I missing here?

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643933)

First of all, Mac OS X.5 will be 64 bit. Also, there will be boot camp built in, a couple new apps, new features. Oh and it's a fraction of the price of Windows.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643947)

It's not a minor revision, but a lot of the improvements are visible only to developers. The Tiger upgrade was the same way: from the user's point of view, the only improvements were Spotlight and Dashboard, but from the developer's point of view there were some substantial kernel architecture changes, the advent of Core Data, and the improvement of Core Image and Core Audio.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644743)

...and the biggest difference to developers, years of whining "Why won't your program work with 10.3?"

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 6 years ago | (#16643981)

Uh, the changes in leopard are pretty huge. I'd pay a hundred bucks alone for something like Time Machine, not even counting the huge additions in developer tools and whatnot. I gladly forked out the cash for tiger, and the add-ons like spotlight, which made my life a whole lot easier. Plus, leopard will be truly 64-bit capable, from top to bottom, so that's a huge change. No, not all people will see enough value to upgrade, but then again Apple isn't a software company now is it? I personally will be right there to pick up a copy of Leopard as soon as it comes out.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644473)

Well, Vista's .NET approach to 32/64bit compability seems a more elegant approach to me than Apple's Universal Binaries. Firefox 2 for MacOS X s a 18Mb download (compared to 5 Mb Windows and something like 7 Mb Linux). Are we going to see universal binaries that contain the PPC, Intelx86 and Intelx64 versions?

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644931)

That download DOES include the PPC and Intel versions of Firefox 2. I don't quite know why the Mac version is triple the size of the Windows or Linux version, it should be at most double the size and probably a lot less. The way Universal Binaries are supposed to work is that each version of the code shares the same resources (graphics, user interface files, etc) and only the actual compiled code is different.

For most applications compiled code is quite small when compared to the graphics and other resources, which means that a Universal Binary should only grow by a small fraction of its size for each new architecture it supports. If Firefox 2 for the Mac is double or triple the size of Firefox 2 for other platforms then I'd suspect that there was some other reason for it than Apple's Universal Binaries system.

Also, there is very little difference in actual code between 32 bit and 64 bit support on the Mac. For most applications you gain a lot of 64 bit support just by using the proper libraries. There are very few applications out there that would need both 32 bit and 64 bit versions of their code, so that probably wouldn't add to the size of the Mac version of Firefox 2.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645941)

Firefox 2 for MacOS X s a 18Mb download (compared to 5 Mb Windows and something like 7 Mb Linux). Are we going to see universal binaries that contain the PPC, Intelx86 and Intelx64 versions?
Let's just hope OS X isn't ported to Sparc, Alpha and MIPS...

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643995)

what you are missing is that this will NOT be a minor update, Apple's and MS's version number systems are different, MS changes the name with each major revision, Apple changes the number after the ., for instances 10.4.5 to 10.4.8 is a minor change, but 10.4.x to 10.5.x is a major change, when 10.5 comes up, you will be dealing with a different OS

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

wiml (883109) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644005)

There are some user-visible changes from rev to rev, like Spotlight (the desktop-grep thing) and Time Machine (versioned filesystem and backup) and fast user switching and iChat and so on. But there are also a ton of developer-visible changes; developers will rely on newer revisions because they have features that make writing programs a lot easier and/or allow writing much better programs; users then have to move to a newer rev in order to run programs which require them. And, of course, plenty of people don't pay for it. You can more or less get by buying every other OSX upgrade. I hear there are some people still running OS 9.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (4, Informative)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644021)

In the jump from 10.4 to 10.5 you get:
You get built in backup and restore software
You get automatic backup functionality
You get virtual desktops
You get built in remote presentation and remote control software
You get new Widgets plus the ability to turn any webpage into a widget
You get a new mail program with increased planning functionality
New group management functionality in Mail and in iCal

Under the hood you get:
New animation libraries
New 64 bit CPU optimizations
New resolution independent ui

You pay for this stuff because you find it useful.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (3, Informative)

NivenHuH (579871) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644927)

You forgot a biggie...

Now in Leopard, the Objective-C runtime has been updated to include a thoroughly modern and high performance garbage collection system, making memory management a thing of the past.

Garbage collection is included as part of the Obj-C 2.0 runtime... Say bye bye to most memory leaks.. :) I think this is turned on by default and is an opt-out option for your code.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Fahrenheit 450 (765492) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645581)

Does this mean Safari will finally stop eating memory like a Langolier?

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

AhtirTano (638534) | more than 6 years ago | (#16646011)

Never has your sig been more appropriate.

Mandatory Access Control (1)

alxtoth (914920) | more than 6 years ago | (#16646317)

Mandatory Access Control is another compelling reason, at least for me. Currently there are no viruses in the wild, but few trojans and some proof-of-concept Bluetooth exploits. Anyway, the risk is there, and this particular implementation (derived from TrustedBSD) looks promising.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

theparag0n (944733) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644023)

You're missing the fact that the jump from 10.4 - 10.5 is pretty much as big as the jump from 2000 to xp was, improved kernel, better support for new hardware, lots of new software, full native 64bit support, Time machine, virtual desktops, built in programming languages... i'll be upgrading :)

So does this have a performance impact? (1)

Channard (693317) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644139)

If this is as big a jump as from 2000 to XP, is there likely to be a performance hit as there was with XP? Did OSX 10.4 run slower on Macs than 10.3 did?

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

avalys (221114) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644335)

New versions of Mac OS X have always run faster than their predecessors, because Apple is continually including optimizations. I believe that was also the case with the 10.3 to 10.4 transition, although it was less noticeable speedup than from 10.2 to 10.3.

I doubt Apple will be able to keep it up forever. I haven't heard anything on what the early builds of 10.5 are like, but (being early builds) it's probably too soon to draw any conclusions from them. Still, eventually they'll run out of things to optimize, and all the new features will catch up to them.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644509)

Actually, Spotlight and Dashboard have been known to slow down Tiger considerably on older systems with low amount of RAM. Tiger would pretty much kill my Pismo/400mhz/192mb, but it showed great improvements from 10.3 to 10.4 on my mac mini (I had the early model where I got a "Free 10.4 when it's out" coupon). Also.. Many mac users would agree 10.2 really sucked.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644721)

I expect 10.5 to be much faster on Intel, particularly the core 2 systems that support 64bit processing. However, those systems are already so responsive that it won't feel much faster. Optimizations just give Apple the headroom to squeeze in more features without slowing things down.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644349)

"If this is as big a jump as from 2000 to XP, is there likely to be a performance hit as there was with XP? Did OSX 10.4 run slower on Macs than 10.3 did?"

No, in fact from 10.1 to 10.2 and 10.3, OS X has been running faster, which is true on older machines too. It appears that Apple is continually optimizing the code for performance, which doesn't appear to be what Microsoft does.

(It could also mean that earlier versions of OS X were sufficiently inefficient that it wasn't hard to make later versions run a little faster!)

I've been very happy with the continually improving performance of OS X on my older Macs which are at the edge of the compatibility list.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644411)

With the conspicuous exception of 10.3 to 10.4 (which added Spotlight file indexing), each release of OS X has been faster than the previous one.

Turn off Spotlight, and 10.4 continues the trend. It's up to the user to determine if the utility is worth the slight performance hit. I find it very, very useful.

If you don't percieve the utility, I recommend not buying the upgrade. However, my guess is that you don't own a Mac, which makes me wonder why you care.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644431)

Believe it or not, generally each revision to Mac OS X GAINS speed rather than slows down.

The engineers at Apple have been tightening up their code with each release, finding new and better ways to do things. With each new release I've been finding my systems gaining reliability and speed. Memory requirements have slowly been climbing but overall CPU usage is steady or even a bit lower.

On older systems you might not be able to use some of the new technologies in the newer releases but it shouldn't affect your ability to run the latest version of Mac OS X. The newer graphics and such that won't run on older systems will just fall back into a simpler mode and will continue to work just fine as they did in past revisions.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645245)

You are right, but I wish they would stop offering the 512MB option on products. I upgraded to 1 gig, and still find it limiting. And that's with all compiling done on a linux box.

Re:So does this have a performance impact? (1)

mstroeck (411799) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644437)

Probably not, though it's hard to say without having seen the current builds of Leopard. So far, every new incarnation of OS X has been faster and more usable on the same hardware than its predecessor. 10.4 for example, is just as fast as 10.3, while having stuff like Spotlight and Dashboard going on in the background all the time. I know people who happily run 10.4 on G3 iBooks(!). They don't get all the 3D-accelerated eye-candy, but all the rest works.

Keep in mind though: Even if there is no performance increase (or a slight decrease), 10.5 will be a different beast altogether from 10.4 usability and feature-wise: Time machine. Resolution-independent user interface. Cocoa will be fully garbage-collected(!). 32 bit and 64 bit and applications on the same machine, running right next to each other. Insane screen-sharing technology via iChat. All that in addition to the stuff that's already there in OS X and all the power of most UNIX applications ever written...

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644075)

This is not meant to insult you personally, but it's getting pretty old, in my anoncoward opinion, to keep hearing this question four to five years after Apple has set a precedent for performance and functionality gains in each "minor revision."

Each OS X revision Apple has released has genuinely improved upon its predecessor. 10.2 Jaguar and 10.3 Panther improved performance, 10.4 Tiger added features and major under-hood improvements, and presumably 10.5 Leopard, 10.6 Kittycat, and 10.7 Newton (Huey P) will add various mixes of features and under-hood improvements. As the underlying OS solidifes, future releases will likely bias toward user features and away from developer gimmes.

Like with all operating systems.

The problem with (relative) honesty is that people don't get excited by (nominally) point release; most people are gullible (or worse), and want COOL-N-AWESOME XP VISTA PRO DELUXE ULTIMATE MEDIA CENTER GODBOX IPOD EDITION UPGRADE 95! even if the "point release" is an entire OS rebuild and the ULTIMATE product is some kind of massively delayed retread of more of the same.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

System.out.println() (755533) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644157)

Just because it's out, doesn't mean you have to buy it.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

AliasN (907773) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644593)

Yeah.. but you sure WANT to..

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644221)

Don't tell me you actually believe that those revision numbers mean something? The reason people pay for these is that there are performance improvements and new features in every release - if "Time Machine" in Leopard is as good as it looks its more than worth the dough by itself. not to have to dick around with some crappy backup software.

What you are missing is that these updates should not be characterized as "minor revisions". There are real user-visible features in each one that people want. If you don't want them - don't upgrade.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Graff (532189) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644279)

here were some major major differences between XP and 2000, and I can understand Microsoft paying for these. I can also understand Apple charging for the jump from 9.x to 10.x. But from 10.4 to 10.5? What am I missing here?

Apple uses a different numbering scheme than most software manufacturers, at least for the Mac OS X releases.

You see, the "X" in Mac OS X stands for the number 10. When Apple does a major release they don't want to have to go to Mac OS XI, Mac OS XII, etc. What they do instead is Mac OS X 10.0, Mac OS X 10.1, and so on. Each 0.1 release is actually a major release, not a minor one. When Apple goes from Tiger (Mac OS X 10.4) to Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) it is similar to Microsoft jumping from XP to Vista, it's a major upgrade and you are charged for it. When Apple does a minor release they do it in the form of Mac OS X 10.x.y, those are free to download.

I'm sure that eventually Apple will eventually come up with some sort of new numbering scheme once they get to Mac OS X 10.10 because that will just be EXTREMELY confusing to the consumer. For now their numbering scheme is just a little different from what you'd expect but it makes sense once you understand it.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

t_c_gull (180834) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644357)

I mostly agree with you. All of the new features are just bells and whistles except for Time Machine. Having backup and restore features built into the OS make it worth the price of the upgrade.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (2, Informative)

ckelly5 (688986) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644381)

FWIW, I also have to mention that the upgrade from 2000 to XP was also technically a minor revision (2000 is Windows NT 5.0, XP is Windows NT 5.1).

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644393)

Skip it then if you got a problem and wait for Lion.

What major differences between XP and 2000? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644407)

why would anyone pay the asking price of just under a hundred quid for a minor revision?

I don't know... I don't normally bother upgrading unless I need to, I'm still using Panther at home and the only reason I upgraded from Jaguar was that I bought new hardware.

There were some major major differences between XP and 2000

I'm still using 2000 because I've yet to find anything in XP that I actually need. The only thing that I've even missed is Bluetooth support. If they'd put a full Citrix server in there instead of ripping so much out that it's basically a low-bandwidth VNC plus virtual consoles... maybe.

And the icing on the cake is: XP Pro *upgrade* costs as much as OS X, and is still bundled with a remote destruct switch in Microsoft's hands.

I can also understand Apple charging for the jump from 9.x to 10.x. But from 10.4 to 10.5?

The jump from 9.x to 10.x was like the jump from Windows 9x/Me to Windows NT/2000. Whole new OS, from the ground up.

The jump from 10.x to 10.y is much more like the jumps from NT4 to 2000 to XP to Vista. New frosting on the same cake. If you need the new features, get them. If you don't, don't. You don't need to jump if you don't want to.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644679)

There are quite a few things like Time Machine, Spaces, significant upgrades to Mail, iCal, iChat, Dashboard, resolution-independent interfaces, plus a lot of under-the-hood enhancements like 2D Extreme, Core Animation, 64-bit, and so on.

Go to the OS X page on Apple's site to see most of the announced "user-side" improvements, and here [apple.com] to see the developer stuff. Just simple stuff like the iCal store can mean lot's of nifty little utilities being generated for that system.

And to reiterate, those are just the "announced" features. SJ implied that there are some other "surprise" features waiting...

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644843)

Well, say what you like, but OS X is a very good system, and you get a lot of value for your hundred quid. Lots of applications and tools are bundled with the OS or available at the cost of a registration and a download, all of it made for and/or packaged for OS X. Try to get a GNU/Linux or Windows system up to the same level, and see how much that costs you in money and effort. Apple is also a major innovator in the desktop OS sphere, which means some features they offer may not even be available for Windows or GNU/Linux yet.

Of course, it's not all great for everyone. I prefer Debian over OS X, so I won't be paying for OS X. If all you want to do is run Windows apps, OS X may not be worth the price, either. But for some people, Leopard is well worth what Apple asks for it.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644845)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why would anyone pay the asking price of just under a hundred quid for a minor revision?

Because it's not a minor revision. Maybe you should take a look at some [arstechnica.com] Arstechnica [arstechnica.com] reviews [arstechnica.com] to see how much changes in each OS X release.

You also have to remember that Apple doesn't reveal their products until just before release, and we've only been given a developer API peek at Leopard. MacWorld '07 will be the big Leopard reveal.

There were some major major differences between XP and 2000, and I can understand Microsoft paying for these.

And then you make this inane comment. There were major differences between XP and 2000?

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644867)

Yeah, you are missing something. Release versions have nothing to do with how big a release is in terms of new functionality. Keeping the Major version number the same signifies a level of binary compatibility for the API. If Apple were to radically change the API (like they did between 9.x and 10.x) you would see virtually all binaries breaking. Apple did get around this by providing Carbon as a bridge API but the native Cocoa API and related frameworks would not be backwards compatible to Mac OS 9.x nor were non-Carbon apps compatible directly in OS X.

I really would suggest first RTFA, as it explains some of the updates being provided to the core of the OS for developers to harness. Each so-called point release of OS X has provided us with a full version kernel revision and although Apple tries to maintain some backwards compatibility, many drivers written against previous release fail to work in the new release. Sometimes all that is needed is a recompile while at other times, the drivers have to be modified.

I've written about this subject many times on Slashdot and elsewhere that I almost feel like I should write up a FAQ on what version number mean. Had MSFT marketed Windows 2000 Pro NT 5.0 and XP as NT 5.1 would you all be crying about paying for a point release? Open up the About Windows dialog on a Win2k Pro machine and on an XP machine and tell me what version you see.

In a nutshell, the 10.2, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 monikers are just names for marketing purposes and to denote compatibility.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (2, Insightful)

lurch_mojoff (867210) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644987)

...No, this isn't intented to be flamebait - I'm a new Mac Mini owner myself and it's getting way more use than my PC. But I can't understand how Apple can charge for what is a pretty damn small upgrade...
How is this not a flamebait? First, you bring up a question that has been answered about a jazillion times already - Steve Jobs is in lovez with the number 10 (or in Apple lingo "X") and from now on for Mac OS the major version number is the one after the first decimal point. And second, even if you actually believed that the numbering scheme proved that this is a minor update you didn't even bother to check what is the new and improved stuff in Leopard, yet you felt the need to post a comment titled "Why do people pay for this stuff?". This is definitely a textbook example of a flamebait.

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645249)

You do realize that the major change between 2000 and XP was in the user interface, right? And that 2000 was NT 5.0, and XP was NT 5.1? I'd argue that the real "major" OS change was from XP to XP SP2. Oh, and the charge for the 2000 to XP upgrade was $200; the charge for the OS X upgrades is usually $129.

Apple charged for all X.Y changes under OS X except for the leap (and it was a leap) from 10.0 to 10.1. These changes are significant version changes (heck, 10.4 includes a whole new architecture).

Re:Why do people pay for this stuff? (1)

Tom (822) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645409)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why would anyone pay the asking price of just under a hundred quid for a minor revision?

Because Apple's minor revisions contain more updates and changes than a completely new windos version, for example.

Check the list of changes, not the number that changes in the descriptor.

Only in the SERVER version. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16643967)

Ruby on Rails is only going to be installed on OS X server. Not the regular user version. Pretty important to note considering the install base of SERVER vs. regular.

Re:Only in the SERVER version. (1)

horati0 (249977) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645551)

Wrong [rubyonrails.org] .

RoR was developed on Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16644343)

Need I say more?

Re:RoR was developed on Macs (1)

BrianPan (786919) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644853)

Need I say more?

yes

Quartz 2D Extreme (1)

X_Caffeine (451624) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644579)

Has anyone figured out if Quartz 2D Extreme is enabled by default on the Leopard edition? Does it work any better than the Tiger version?

Re:Quartz 2D Extreme (1)

Drizzt Do'Urden (226671) | more than 6 years ago | (#16646093)

It is enabled if your video card supports it.

ichat improvements (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644657)

The iChat improvements (being able to do presentations, etc.) look really neat. But I have to assume there's a typo in the description: "Another new feature in the Instant Messaging framework is the ability to manage presence. This means that your application can query the iChat status of the user, indicating whether they are available or busy and what their status message is, as well as manipulate it. " That can't be right, can it?

Re:ichat improvements (1)

quoll (3717) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644975)

I don't see the problem. If an application is presenting in full screen mode, I would find it useful for it to mark me as "Occupied" or something like that. As for the status message, there is already a link to iTunes to get the song that is currently playing.

Re:ichat improvements (1)

bjackson (576750) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645207)

I think that it is - similar to what iTunes does now - for example, changing your status message to the currently playing song / movie / tv show. New functionality - maybe WoW could display the server you're playing on, etc...

"Only for the developers" is an oxymoron (1)

mstroeck (411799) | more than 6 years ago | (#16644705)

People in these discussions keep moaning about how various changes "are only really any good for the developers"... That's kind of dumb. Developers, duh, develop the applications end-users rely on. The under-the-hood changes in Leopard are bound to benefit everyone. Garbage-collection, better debugging, 64 bit, a crazy animation toolkit, etc. (if you don't know how that impacts the user, try this for example: http://www.discoapp.com/ [discoapp.com] . It's a new disc-burning application with one of the most interesting work-flows I've ever seen).

Best news for me is Ruby and Python... (1)

jocknerd (29758) | more than 6 years ago | (#16645329)

become 1st class languages on OS X. Apple is adding the ability to write cocoa apps in Ruby and Python. Sure, you could do it in the past, but Apple wasn't very supportive to the PyObjC [sourceforge.net] and the RubyCocoa [sourceforge.net] projects. But from what I saw on the demo's, Apple has been working hard to make Ruby and Python a legitimate choice for cocoa development. So now you'll have 3 choices: Objective C, Ruby, and Python. By the way cocoa development with Java is canned.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>