In Short: 10.4.4 and Dharma. Oh, and Woz speaks.

............................................

Just to chime in on the which OS X86 version be the first public release question.

I am sticking with my 10.4.5 prediction that I made before, however Takuro certainly could be right!

Although I have yet look at the Yellow Box / "Dharma" rumors cited by Mashugly, this sounds like total nonsense to me. Strategically it makes no sense, OS X and Macs are sold in some large part to run Cocoa programs. Licensing OS X to Dell and HP clearly would make much more sense. I am glad to see Takuro agrees with me here.

One more thing... is Apple going to can FireWire with the Intel Macs? Probably, but this is a big deal for some Mac hardware people here:

http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2005/12/...fe_support.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/09/apple_firewire_plan/

Furthermore, for the majority of people here who do not run Apple hardware, FireWire is much better than USB 2.0 in a lot of different ways. It certainly will be missed by the Mac faithful.

Although I have yet look at the Yellow Box / "Dharma" rumors cited by Mashugly, this sounds like total nonsense to me. Strategically it makes no sense, OS X and Macs are sold in some large part to run Cocoa programs. Licensing OS X to Dell and HP clearly would make much more sense.

It could be a strategy to counteract the much discussed danger that comes from Windows software running on future macs, not only in a separate boot environment, but simultaneously to Mac OS via a virtualization layer. Just think of the support of Windows 16-bit apps that basically killed OS/2. Developers could be tempted to drop their native Mac OS software and just keep Windows versions.

With the Yellow Box strategy, i.e., Mac software running on Windows, Microsoft and Apple are on par in this respect, developers could as well kill the native Windows ports of their software. I believe that could be quite a clever (yet venturous) move by Apple, but with Windows being the dominant OS, it remains to be seen how this would work out in the end.

Actually I don't really know what to think. On the one hand this "letter" which started it all looks very much like a prank to me, but on the other hand I find the strategy that it outlines perfectly plausible, even though it is (just like the whole Intel transition) not without risk, of course. I'd give it a 50:50 chance that it will indeed happen.

Btw, in the short time that this rumor has been in the wild, I was able to witness that unlike the old stories of Apple possibly switching to x86, this outrageous news was dismissed only by very few people... I guess this indicates that people are now much more open to change and believe that after WWDC 2005, Apple has entered a new era in which nearly everything is possible, even a direct confrontation with the Windows world.

In my opinion, on a short-term scale there is a much higher probability of Dharma coming to Windows boxes than Apple entering again the licensing business of their OS. Think of it: This way, Apple would not only appeal to developers, but also to the crowd that has become interested in "the other OS" in the course of their contact with Apple's iPod and iTunes. If you can have some selected apps and you like them, why not finally buy "the real thing", Mac OS X? With universal binaries, you could of course continue to use exactly the same Mac apps you bought to run under Windows, you just have to exchange the underlying OS (and hardware, as long as Apple doesn't change its licensing policy and thereby risks to be forced into the software-only market, which I still regard as very unlikely). Sounds quite attractive to me, provided that such Yellow Box "Dharma" apps play nicely under Windows and offer a good preview(*) of what it would be like to switch to OS X completely. And of course iTunes and Quicktime are the perfect devices to bring the "Dharma" framework to a large number of Windows PCs without most of the average users even knowing what's happening there under the hood... just wondering that all out of a sudden they could miraculously run Apple Mac software... ;-)

(*)As we know it from OpenStep and Yellow Box for Windows, "Dharma" apps would not feature the full look&feel experience of MacOS on top of Windows, but appear pretty much like standard Windows apps, so running these apps on MacOS instead of Windows would still offer some additional value. With the other option you mentioned -- licensing the complete MacOS to selected hardware manufacturers, who could probably sell their MacOS-enabled hardware at much lower prices -- there would no longer be a reason to buy hardware or anything else from Apple except of the OS.

One more thing... is Apple going to can FireWire with the Intel Macs?

Huh? Why do you think so? Just because the developer transition kit has no Firewire ports?

How could Apple continue to be strong in the digital video editing world without Firewire support?

Would be quite funny if Apple dropped Firewire, considering that nowadays more and more Windows machines have Firewire support out of the box, and even Intel incorporates one little port in its tiny Golden Gate Viiv media center PC design study.

It might vanish from entry-level hardware, but it will continue to stay with the professional lines.

Furthermore, for the majority of people here who do not run Apple hardware, FireWire is much better than USB 2.0 in a lot of different ways.

Sure, no question about that.

It certainly will be missed by the Mac faithful.

Not only. External USB 2.0 hard drives suck in comparison to Firewire connected ones.

That woz interview was an interesting read. I find his answer reguarding open source software notable.

I just favor the whole concept of open source as being a way that companies can be not entrapped by proprietary software. And one thing we do find is that anytime you're using something that's proprietary, you do wind up being pretty trapped, as much as they can trap you.

And his wish to allow the artists to choose thier song prices. It just makes sense. It would be great if any DIY/independent artist (that met sometype of production standards) could distribute thier music via iTunes.

Damn, they better not be dropping Firewire or I just might have to kick steve's ass! We use firewire at work all the time and man, USB is shiznit in comparison. Firewire is just way faster. I use a Lexar Firewire CF reader for my digital camera and love it.

As for the Dharma thing, I'd say it makes some sense. This functionality was available back in the Rhapsody days and getting developers on the XCode/Cocoa bandwagon can only be good. The reason m$ is so successful is that they get all the devleoper mindshare.

The more I look at it, the more I think that the Intel decision was made for good reasons at the right time. Apple is doing very well right now. The iPod is selling great and it's really helped their brand recognition and computer sales. Microsoft on the other hand can't seem to get anything significant out the door, they're plagued with security problems and viruses, and WXP looks like {censored} in comparison to OS X Tiger. In short, Microsoft is vulnerable right now. For some reason, more people are interested in Apple machines now too because they are going to have Intel in them. I guess it's just the Intel brand name. This seems like the perfect time to try and take share away from m$.

I love the hoax discussions. "Darmah" "John Locke""somewhere near Hawaii" ever watch "Lost" on ABC?

PowerPage doesn't have much credibility anymore.

Also, while USB 2.0 is the standard for connection devices, almost all digital camcorders are FW400. I could see Apple replacing FW400 with FW800, but dropping firewire altogether would pretty much negate the usefulness of iMovie and iDVD. The developer machines not having firewire doesn’t mean much. They are designed to port programs from PowerPC to intel, not be fully functional PowerMacs.

We know all that iPhoto is about to be ported under windows. It's a question of software marketing after freewares like Quicktime and iTunes. So, why be surprised ?

Also, while USB 2.0 is the standard for connection devices, almost all digital camcorders are FW400. I could see Apple replacing FW400 with FW800, but dropping firewire altogether would pretty much negate the usefulness of iMovie and iDVD. The developer machines not having firewire doesn’t mean much. They are designed to port programs from PowerPC to intel, not be fully functional PowerMacs.

word to that... most digital camcorders that have USB is for streaming only and it looks like {censored}... I waould be VERY sad if apple dropped firewire... didnt they kind of pioneer firwire years ago?

Being French I read the Dharma thread on macgeneration.com forums. It can be a prank but the theory is worth to be considered.

In that thread I wrote this reaction :

I heard from a developper friend something about porting Safari on Windows : he was rather convinced himself that it was already beyond the mere rumor (be it leaks from Webkit developpers on a selected ML or forum or whatever) and spoke about code snippets found in Safari linked to te Wintel architecture. And we spoke of that well before the Great Intel swicth announcement.

 

In fact I found that made sense : I thought Webkit was already in use in iTunes for iTMS display purposes and because IE 7 was still in the works, having a linghtning fast Safari available quickly on XP was a way to ensure a decent marketshare for this browser, thus pressuring web designers in improving their site compatibility with Safari which still remain the browser main weakness.

Even with numbers as low as 3-4% on PC, 2% on Mac (mid-2006?) and 1% on Linux, the KHTML engine would then become with 7% an opponent to reckon with.

 

We can surely imagine other Apple killer-apps on Windows to help improve interroperability between Macs and PCs, thus easing possible switchs. Currently we are in an opposite scenario with technologies like VoIP or videochat only partially available on Macs, thus discouraging their PC users to switch.

 

We can easily see how critical apps (Office suite, IM clients, browsers, mail clients, iTunes, an iMoviestore frontend) available on both Win and Mac OS would help switchers to stay in a familiar environement though they switch OSes.

 

And brand awareness would be all the more improved for Apple

 

But developping for both plateforms can cost much to Apple which has limited R & D ressources : having people like Panic, Delicious Monster or Omnigroup playing with a Yellow Box to release their much acclaimed apps on both OSes would be a big win for Apple. Think of a Skype-type developper releasing an app on both plateforms which would work exactly the same with Mac being never again a second-class citizen when the Next Big Thing is released.

 

I don't know if you are legit J. Locke but your anlysis makes a lot of sense and this project is surely very agressive. I don't expect less from a company like Apple.

 

And to those thinking of a new conspiracing theory build around hidden "Lost" references, do you think nobody at Cupertino heard about this show before naming Dharma their new project ? our informer included ?

And yes I have been corrected about the Webkit-iTunes link : Webkit isn't used for it (as said by Hyatt on his weblog). Still I stick to this view.

ok, this Dharma thing sounds very foolish to me now. there is no need or desire for Safari on windows, come on now.

Oh, man. Apple drop Firewire?? Apple is the one who charge Firewire devices manufacturers for it Firewire standards and patents. As I know it about 1$/devices. And Firewire800 is far better than USB2.0

It could be a strategy to counteract the much discussed danger that comes from Windows software running on future macs, not only in a separate boot environment, but simultaneously to Mac OS via a virtualization layer. Just think of the support of Windows 16-bit apps that basically killed OS/2. Developers could be tempted to drop their native Mac OS software and just keep Windows versions.

I was going to say something about the so-called "OS/2 effect" above, so I am glad you brought that up here. Otherwise, I am standing with the "Yellow-Box is dead" consensus here. Furthermore, as iTunes and QuickTime for Windows are both Carbon and not Cocoa, I see no evidence to support the idea of Yellow-Box returning.

How could Apple continue to be strong in the digital video editing world without Firewire support?

While I certainly am not suggesting that Apple is going to this, why not drop FireWire in the Pro-lines in favor of external SATA?

http://www.g-technology.com/Products/G-SATA.cfm

Let the debunking being:

http://wilshipley.com/blog/2005/12/silly-season.html

And as for 10.4.4, Think Secret has some more info, and indicates even more ATi and Nvidia support.

and the original JLocke thread:

http://forums.macgeneration.com/vbulletin/...ad.php?t=120691

And as for 10.4.4, Think Secret has some more info, and indicates even more ATi and Nvidia support.

Yay

I second macgirl. Whoo-Yay!

...when's it leaking?

but it doesn't say if it's a ppc or intel build tho but apple we'll need to support real video cards sooner or later

Yeah, it definitely doesn't say what architecture. But if they are doing ibook or mini to start, that possibly just means they'll have integrated GMA950 or so, which also means no new x86 drivers in that release. No incentive for that to happen until the PowerMac debut.

Yeah, it definitely doesn't say what architecture. But if they are doing ibook or mini to start, that possibly just means they'll have integrated GMA950 or so, which also means no new x86 drivers in that release. No incentive for that to happen until the PowerMac debut.

I think that testing their drivers compatibility with the vast availability of video cards available for the x86 platform before unleashing the mac or powermac is incentive enough. Also since all current macs come with ATI chips (macmini-9200chipset, ibook 9550 mobility chipset), I think that the first intel mac will have an ati display chipset.

Yeah, it definitely doesn't say what architecture.

Unless someone has some very specific information to the contrary, this 10.4.4 seed must be PPC.

But if they are doing ibook or mini to start, that possibly just means they'll have integrated GMA950...

As Mashugly and I were discussing elsewhere, it is very likely that Apple will go with Intel for the these GPU's.

As Mashugly and I were discussing elsewhere, it is very likely that Apple will go with Intel for the these GPU's.

I think that consumers are familiar with (or can easily compare to) ati/nvidia chipsets and Apple will give them one of these, as they have been, to stay competitive. Besides why did ati cards suddenly get support in 10.4.3?

Unless someone has some very specific information to the contrary, this 10.4.4 seed must be PPC.

As Mashugly and I were discussing elsewhere, it is very likely that Apple will go with Intel for the these GPU's.

Of Course, buld with two numbers at end are PPC, with four numbers are X86 or Unibin.

10.4.3 8F46 is PPC

10.4.3 8F1111 is X86

10.4.4 8G17 is PPC, but only for developers.

That's a good point, Macgirl, I hadn't realized that about the build numbers.