Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlistairMcMillan (talk | contribs) at 18:30, 6 April 2006 (→Hacking Mac OS X for installation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Links to support info

Could someone place a link of some sort to this article that shows the accuracy of the information therein? It's not that I don't believe what's here, I am just curious to see where it comes from. I am particularly interested in hearing about the PowerPC/x86 support that is going to be simulataneously supported in this new OS. I was under the impression that Tiger was going to be the "end-of-the-line" OS for PowerPC systems. It's very interesting to see things stating otherwise. mdjkarazim 2005-07-07 18:27:25 (UTC)

Jobs' WWDC keynote address would be a good first reference: FYI, Apple continued supplying OS updates that would run on their old 68K machines for almost four years after introducing the PowerPC architecture, and they've been more than happy to sell $129 OS X updates to G3 owners for the last few years. They might conceivably drop support for the old G3 models in Leopard, but they're not about to abandon people who are just buying G4 PowerBooks and G5 PowerMacs this year. Tverbeek 7 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Hardware before software

New Intels coming out by June, 2006. New OS coming out by end of 2006. So the Intels are going to be running Tiger for 6 months? That doesn't seem right somehow. Although maybe it's best to stagger the transition ... a new chip AND a new OS all at once might be a bit too much ... :) --Kwnd 22:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether it "seems right" or not, that's evidently the plan. The developer Intel machines are already running Tiger, so it's actually more like 18 months of Tiger-x86. Tverbeek 02:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How about "They're pretty busy"? I mean, making everything but the PowerMac and XServe Intel by Leopard is widely expected, and PowerMacs may be Intel by year's end. That's 4-5 lines to redo drastically, as well as porting their other software over to Intel. Toss in the iPod based stuff, and Apple would appear to be running at top speed all year long. I don't see how Leopard could get out the door before MacWorld San Franciso 2007.

Wait, 4-5 lines of code? How long does it take to retype 5 lines of code? And Tiger and all the apps are already rcompiled. Ccool2ax 14:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumours/Anticipation/Guesses

Put any ideas, rumours, or hopes about features in Leopard here. -Technomagus 10:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's hoping that it comes out for "Mac + PC" ;) Who wouldn't want to run OS X on their own non-Apple PC? I know that Apple has been telling us that there's no chance it'll happen, but I think that if they're not already working on it then they're seriously considering it. -Durandal2005 8:30, 6 February 2006

They probably think that Mac OS X on ordinary, big white/black boxes is an insult to the OS. Perhaps they think that part of the 'Mac feel' is the all-in-one elitism in both hardware and software, and I don't think they want to lose that. It's as though they have a child that they're reluctant to let out into the big, wide, scary world of ugly boxes. Also, it's not too difficult to customize Windows or Linux to look exactly like Mac OS X. That's just a jocular opinion, by the way! Anyway, I shouldn't be talking about that because this page is for discussion about the article itself! Sorry. --Baryonic Being 17:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Who else can't wait?

I have a Dell Dimension 2350, Windows XP SP2, and I'm due for a new type of system. I've been falling for a Mac system since seeing the Mac Mini. I don't have a problem with Windows security, using a Linksys NR041 hardware firewall, Mozilla Firefox, and not running random .exe's. Otherwise I'd just get a Mini right away. What I hate is the reputation of Microsoft being way too controlling, which Windows Vista looks to be even more of. I'm really looking forward to the end of 2006, and reading the reviews of the two systems. The next system I'm getting in early 2007 will be based on those :) 24.164.252.36 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

First, the discussions are intended for discussing article edits, not anticipation of softwarre. And it won't run on your Dell. Windows users... Ccool2ax 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Rumors

AppleInsider came up with some patents (including images) Apple filed at the end of 2005, regarding the new Finder being based more on Spotlight technology. Maybe it is worth mentioning in the article itself that a revamped Finder based on metadata is becoming more and more plausible. The article on AppleInsider can be found here. | mensch 17:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Do rumors belong in an encyclopedia? Personally I think they should be removed, its pure point of view, speculation and doesn't belong here until the information can be verified. — Wackymacs 17:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

While I think it would be obviously wrong to talk about rumors as though they are already confirmed, I think it is still factual to say that 'this rumor exists', so long as it does. It's just a question of using the right wording, and presenting any evidence that the rumor has. The rumor may not be true, but the fact that the rumor exists is still a fact, and can therefore be noted as such. --Baryonic Being 17:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"In addition, Leopard will support "themes", similar to Windows XP. One of the themes is very glossy, shiny, and aqua-like. The other will look like the iTunes 6 interface." There is no source for this information and it is presented as though it is a fact. Shall I add a or remove it, or reword it? --Baryonic Being 17:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Remove it, that is pure speculation - I haven't even seen that rumor before! — Wackymacs 18:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. That would be the best thing. --Baryonic Being 18:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The rumors section seems to have grown once again, what do we do now? None of it is referenced. — Wackymacs 07:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the content of the article is not even "official rumours", something believed by the major rumors sites like appleinsider.com or thinksecret.com. I would remove almost all of it or at least qualify a handful of them (like resolution independence, because it was a bugged feature of Tiger that was turned of by default etc) — 22:36, 12 March (CET)

I was a lttle redundundant with my "rumors" section down at the bottom. Whoops. I think everything except references to the MacOSXRumors article on "Chardonnay" should be removed. Misplaced Pages is not a place to speculate. It is a place to cite speculation. Ccool2ax 14:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

According to this APC article, Vista does not support EFI booting. --Steven Fisher 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

According to this presentation from Microsoft (WinHEC 2005), and to the December CTP 2005 disks, Vista does and will support EFI in IA-32, AMD64 and IA-64 architectures.

Until Microsoft states other thing I think that is the most correct information, and not a third party source. —Claunia 00:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but hear the IDF Speach of Andrew Ritz or read this german news site article. It´s true, only the server version will support EFI.

I also read that APC story and was completely shocked to find that Windows Vista at least looks like it will support EFI. You can check this yourself when you install Beta 2...There are references all over and when the installer blue screened at a mates we used a lot of the features to try and recover his destoryed mbr (to get the old copy of xp booting again) and we noticed several tools for EFI things. So yeah, if Vista isn't going to support EFI they have a lot of removing and cleaning up to do. -- Eps 08:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Chardonnay

This idea that the new version of the Finder will be called "Chardonnay" keeps getting echoed around the blogosphere, and it's simply incorrect. Apple uses the wine names before the "official" code name of a release of OS X is chosen. "Pinot", "Merlot", and "Chablis" were the initial names for Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger. "Chardonnay" was the name for 10.5 before marketing settled on "Leopard".

The "Chardonnay" thing was originally from a MacOSXrumors article. They got it wrong, and all the bloggers refence them. Blogosphere is a cliché, by the way. Ccool2ax 14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Rumors"

I havent seen most any of the stuff under "rumors" anywhere on the internet. That is all speculation except that bit about the MacOSXrumors article. I've never seen anything about Front Row bundeled with Leopard, iCal/Mail "getting integrated", etc. Ccool2ax 14:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone mid if i delete everything except the MacOSXRumors article contents? ccool2ax

I've deleted all the unsourced speculation. And I'm going to continue deleting all speculation unless it is sourced. AlistairMcMillan 17:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hacking Mac OS X for installation

Someone removed this insertation with the claim it is factually wrong:

As some version of the Leopard retail release DVD will be compatible with Intel processors, it is speculated that will provide hackers who wish to run Mac OS X on their Intel and AMD based computers with a simpler and for some, more ethical way to obtain a DVD which can be used to install Mac OS X onto their unauthorised systems with appropriate modifications. However this practice may still be illegal even if the DVD was legally purchased and the OS is not installed on any other system. Currently, most hackers obtain a copy of the developer install kit for said purpose.

I clearly specified that the practice may be illegal, therefore the claim it is factually wrong because the Apple license specifies you may only use it on one Apple computer is rather bizarre. It is a undisputable fact that some people currently are uncomfortable with installing a downloaded developer kit version of Mac OS X for ethical reasons. Most anecdotal evidence suggests a number of these people would feel more comfortable if they could legally acquite a copy of Mac OS X which they could then install on to their unauthorised machines, even if such a practice is technically illegal.

Okay the next issue is why I say it "may" be illegal. Although the Apple license clearly forbids this practice, this doesn't necessarily make it illegal. In most countries (don't know about the US), legal agreements can't violate local laws, if they do, these terms are void. There is speculation that various license terms which forbid a user from installing software on unauthorised systems may be in violation of local laws. AFAIK, this has never been tested in court either way. Therefore, we can't say for sure that it would be illegal just because the Apple license agreement applies it is... Nil Einne 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this speculation? Or is it just your personal opinion? AlistairMcMillan 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)