“Apple is marketing the idea of there being “no new features” for Snow Leopard and instead promising an overall improvement in how Mac OS X works under the hood, thanks to a diligent code optimization and refactoring cycle discussed in the previous article. At the same time, there are plenty of significant new features coming in Snow Leopard to look forward to. Here are ten big new features (plus a few minor ones) that you probably haven’t heard much about from anywhere else,” Daniel Eran Dilger writes for RoughlyDrafted.
Dilger looks at many new fetaures and techinologies, including:
• LLVM (Low Level Virtual Machine)
• CUPS 1.4 (Common Unix Printing System)
• ZFS support
• QuickTime X
• Grand Central
• OpenCL
• Multi-Touch™ support
• Resolution Independence
• Code optimization
Full article here.
If all of those “hidden” features are implemented in Snow Leopard, it will be released at MacWorld (January) 2010, not during 2009. Which is perfectly fine. Make it truly revolutionary for Intel Macs while not adding any “eye-candy” bloatware “new” features. There’s no threat from Windows or Linux, so let’s have some OS change stability with Leopard for a while.
There’s always a scaling back of features before release, but if Apple does not feel pressured to release earlier, I think it can do most of the things mentioned in this article.
It’ll be more extensive than the optimization Apple performed between 10.0 and 10.3, squeezed into one major release.
Vaporware, dimwit, is anything promised and not delivered for commercial sale. Remember, moron, Vista was in beta, too.
So, by your definition, Firefox is vaporware because it’s not offered for commercial sale. Sure you don’t want to refine that definition just a little.
It’s funny about WinDroids: their masters in Redmond finally manage to ship Vista (after five years) and a service pack (which doesn’t actually help the product that much and takes longer to install on one system than it takes to install Leopard on THREE Macintosh systems) and suddenly they feel they have bragging rights to lecture the users of other operating systems about vaporware.
Obviously, Apple is so lame that Apple requires IBM to provide them will the basic building blocks for software development. Not too much innovation in Cupertino if outside help is needed.
You’re right: open-source is such a stupid way of developing software. Much better to use the Microsoft model of taking something originating as open-source and then subverting it or even just hiding it. TCP/IP stack…Windows/XP, I’ll leave it at that.
Why couldn’t Apple release earlier versions of Leopard with these promised enhancements?
Why won’t Microsoft release Aero as a patch to Windows 2000? When are we going to see WinFS? Will it be available to Windows/XP?
With every one of your statements, you display your colossal ignorance of software development especially in a commercial context.
Are you suggesting that Snow Leopard will only function on Macs with Nehalem chips? Gee, that makes sense….to morons. Since Apple promises Snow Leopard will function perfectly on existing machines with Core 2 Duos what has prevented Apple form providing these invisible features months or years ago?
Reading comprehension not high on your accomplishments, is it?
This is what I wrote at 5:26pm last night…
Well, in the world of Apple, Nehalem represents the boundary between 8 cores or processors (the present) and the world of 16 cores or more (the future). Nehalem will be superseded by a process shrink (Westmere) prior to being replaced by Sandy Bridge which will have 32 cores organised, so I’ve read, in 8 groups of 4 cores.
In this brave new world, Apple has to find an elegant method for developers to make their applications work on anything from a dual-core CoreDuo iMac through a dual Sandy Bridge Xserve.
They also have to find a way which abstracts the management of processors, cores and cache memory so that modern, highly-threaded applications (and indeed the operating system and its components) utilise the available resources in the most efficient way possible.
Let’s be clear, the real benefits of Snow Leopard will show themselves on densely mutli-cored machines although it will be compatible with simple dual-core Intel-based Macs. By densely multi-cored, I mean 8 cores and above.
Why would you develop an OS that is years ahead of any hardware that might leverage the functionality? Oh, I forgot – you’re a bozo who knows nothing about concepts like return on investment and scope management.
So, you agree with me! Apple’s newest software innovation is likely to be completely intangible and indescribable, just like the elusive snow leopard.
Well, all software is intangible: that’s why it’s called software. As for indescribable – only to those of limited intelligence or to certain sorts of plant life, I leave you to select the group you wish to belong to.
You’re right, Snow Leopard is Apple’s version of Vista…without the eye candy.
Actually, I NEVER said any such thing! Are you sure you’re not taking lessons on distorting facts from the Rush Limbaugh Correspondence School of Hyperbole.
It’s laughable how little boasting Apple has made regarding Mac sales. This obvious and protracted omission is raising suspicions that all is not well in Cupertino.
Afib/Ha, Ha/Ho, Ho, you reveal yourself again: how many more times…http://www.apple.com/investor.
Mac sales last quarter increased over 50% compared to the same quarter in 2007 and portable sales were up over 60%. Revenues stable ± 3% except on desktops where average revenue per sale increased by 8%.
Massively increased sales in outgrew the market average by around 3.5 times and stable or increased revenues per unit.
Yep, sounds like things are really struggling. Combined with that 91% approval rating of Steve Jobs as a CEO by Apple’s employees and it makes you wonder how they get the strength to get out of bed every morning.
Add to this the featureless version of OS X and it is clear why Apple has been harping about iTunes and iPhones, Mac sales are slumping and/or stagnant. Of course, if you have any hard evidence to the contrary from reliable and independent sources, please, share.
Reliable and independent, like Gartner or IDC or Apple’s auditors.
Go buy a fucking report, you dipstick.
I’ve told you on another thread: if you feel you have evidence that Apple is defrauding its investors by making fraudulent claims about Macintosh sales, you should put your money where your mouth is and publish a website with your claims and then communicate those claims to as wide an audience as possible, including the SEC along with any evidence you have.
What’s that? You don’t have any evidence. But surely that makes you some sort of tin-foil hat wearing lunatic. Oh, I see the problem.
Depends on a definition of “feature”. These are no features for users, all this definitely new and cool stuff needs somebody else to make use of it to create the features that bring the real user value.
Zao…
There are multiple definitions of “feature”.
In some of the dictionaries in Washington State, it’s defined as a noun meaning “something we’ve copied from a far more talented and resourceful team of developers working for another company or open-source project and then claimed as our own”.
Mac Venom:
OS X 10.1 was free, because OS X 10.0 was a crappy as manure pile.
MCCFR:
You’re still a fanboi, a rambling, irrational, excessively boring fanboi, but a fanboi nonetheless.
No one conceals good news, but Apple has been conspicuously silent regarding Mac sales. For example, my longwinded dimwit, Steve Jobs said nothing regarding Mac sales at WWDC as he normally does when he has an opportunity to brag about Apple product sales during his keynote address. Nope, no <strike>Power Point</strike> Keynote presentation at all, just 40 minutes of applications from third parties. And what a collection of software, too! Sooper monkey Ball and Cro-Mag Rally. Nothing like a little mind-numbing nonsense to keep the fanbois distracted, you were distracted and still seem distracted.
You haven’t provided any links to any evidence that disproves my my contention that Apple Mac sales are tanking. Again, what’s so difficult for you to post these links so everyone can read these “wonderful” sales statistics reported by Apple (certainly not a reliable and independent source) and Gartner and IDC. Go ahead, link them, do it, fanboi. It only takes a few seconds, do it. It will take less time than posting more of your gibberish.
Snow Leopard will be the OS on the new tablet mac….whatever it is
John Gee:
Vaporware designed for vaporware. No compatibility issues, I’ll bet.
WWDC 2008 “keynote”, the world’s longest informercial.
Ho, ho…
I have posted the link and I’ve posted it three times.
I can’t help it if you can’t or won’t read.
Of course, you could say that Apple’s sales data which is announced every quarter and posted at http://www.apple.com/investor is fraudulent, but then we could same the same about HP or Toshiba.
However, if Mac sales are tanking, where has the $17.2 billion in revenue come from in the first six months of fiscal 2008. Why has that figure increased from $12.38 billion for the first six months of fiscal 2007.
I know. They must be selling more iPods. Yes! That’s it, They sold 27 million more iPods between October and March 2008 than they did in 2007. Actually, that’s not it – sales of iPods only increase by 1.15 million and the average per unit only increased by $15 so that only accounts for just over $17 million.
Here’s an outrageous theory that would appeal: maybe they’re a front for the Colombian cocaine cartels and all of that cash is being made up by people buying two ounce bags of Peruvian marching powder.
Of course, Dell sold nearly 11 million computers in the last quarter: shame it only made 4.9% net income on all that hard work. There are some countries where you can make more than that just by sticking the money in the bank.
@HOHO, HAHA, and other idiots.
How many horrible reviews for VISTA?
How many corporations are not upgrading to VISTA?
How many new PCs are being downgraded to XP?
How many Windows experts have said VISTA is a train wreck?
What a fabulous OS.
Go back to your paper route.
Ho, Ho…
I’ve decided I’ve been too hard on you! Being dropped on your head or having a chromosomal problem is the kind of thing that deserves sympathy.
It’s not that you cant or won’t read, it’s simply that Internet Explorer is too difficult for you to use.
Here are the links for the last couple of quarters. All you have to do is click on the links at the top (Data Summary and Financial Statements) and you’ll get all the data you need.
First of all, you’ll have to install a piece of software called Acrobat which is something that Windows users need to read a PDF document. If that’s too complex for you, get someone who really knows how your computer works and get them to do it for you.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html
By the way, the problem could be even worse than you think: if Apple are lying, so are Quanta in Taiwan and Intel. They’re probably using the empty boxes to ship drugs and arms all over the place. This thing could blow the whole Western commercial world wide open. You’d be like the Bob Woodward of your grade school class.
Then again, maybe I’m patronising you.
I love leopard… but it is sluggish, if snow leopard can bring the speed back to how tiger performed I will be all set..
without PPC support I am a little dissapointed.. I have a handful of older G4 powermacs.. and tiger is the only useable os on them imho… leopard works.. but its a dog.
in closing let me say that Windows completely sucks on all levels.
Viktor
If Apple Apps are crashing under Leopard you should try backing up your data and then re-install the OS (either archive and install or clean install).
“Then again, maybe I’m patronising you.”
I’ve always appreciated your comments but right now, I think you’re arguing with a mental patient with a disturbing god complex and delusions of grandeur. He has never, ever been wrong. What does that tell you?
MCCFR:
That’s it? That’s all you’ve got? Where are the statistics, graphs, charts, and tables? Where are the analyses comparing quarterly and yearly sales for all Mac models? You fanbois have been adamant that these rigorous and detailed studies, reviews, and interpretations of Apple’s sales data are available to all.
No, all you have “provided” are carefully edited, extremely manipulated, greatly abridged, uninformative, ambiguous, and desperate public relations rubbish directly from Apple’s Ministry of Propaganda. Moron, you would believe the moon was made of cheese if Apple said so.
Read the follow slowly and carefully, my comprehension-limited cretin, I need independent (meaning unbiased, impartial, and unhindered by self interest) and reliable (I mean trustworthy, proven, and dependable) resources. That means more detailed information from sources other than self-serving Apple propagandists.
I already explained to you, my witless wonder (I’m surprised that you can even ties your shoes by yourself), what data I want, what statistics I demand, and what analyses I expect.
You mentioned Gartner and IDC as independent and reliable sources of Apple sales data, so provide links to their analyses.
Get to work, fanboi. As Ricky said, “You (still) have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.”
Ampar…
There are a couple of courses of action open to us.
1) Track him down and have him sectioned under mental health legislation, for his own good as much as anything else.
2) Offer to send him happy pills.
3) Humiliate him until he goes away.
Afib’s problem is that – like a lot of WinDroids – he can see a different future coming and he’s not good with change. For instance, it worries him that – in a few quarters – Apple will be putting OS X into the hands of more consumers than either HP or Dell manage to do with Windows.
He knows that those sales will evoke a developer halo effect and Windows will look increasingly like the piece of shit that it is.
It says everything about him that if you show him some figures that broadly agree with the forecasts of Wall St, which in turn broadly agree with numbers published by Gartner and IDC, he won’t believe it. He also can’t explain where Apple is generating all of that cash. And he certainly can’t explain why Microsoft’s MacBU is hiring more developers for a market that is apparently tanking.
I already explained to you, my witless wonder (I’m surprised that you can even ties your shoes by yourself), what data I want, what statistics I demand, and what analyses I expect.
You’ve gotta love someone with that much ego. But, at the end of the day, the best thing for the mentally ill is to have their delusions confronted.
Here’s a better fourth option, MCCFR.
Provide the links to the explicit data analyses for Apple 2007 and 2008 sales statistics that you claim exist.
Ego? You promised me these data analyses! You said anyone with a lick of sense could access them. Well, so far you haven’t provided me or anyone else with links to reliable and independent sources, which, my feeble-minded fanboi, makes you a self-confessed blithering idiot.
Turn on the light, fanboi, it must be dark where your head is located in Jobs’ rectum.
OK, here you go…
Here’s some explicit sales data, well as explicit as I can find.
http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/71/71087/presentations/2Q08EarningsPresentation_2.pdf
I like Page 4, Page 8 and Page 9 myself. All very detailed and all pointing to a company that isn’t building a valuable business and isn’t making any money from selling computers.
Again, you have failed miserably. You are consistently pathetic, repeatedly wrong, and totally incompetent.
You have the requisite qualifications for Director of Apple’s Ministry of Propaganda aka Department of Fibs, Exaggerations, Concoctions, Errors, and Shams.
There was a clown on TV called “Ho Ho” but he was a good guy and funny.
Ask your imaginary clown friend if he/she knows where MCCFR can find the missing Apple 2007 and 2008 sales statistics.
Ho, ho…
Let me ask you some questions.
Why, unlike Apple, don’t HP even publish their unit sales data for each product family? With their desktops business I can vaguely understand it – units only up 2%, revenue flat; but with their laptop business, surely they’d want to publish the units and average revenue figures. Unless they’re not that impressive. Still, at least Apple behaves in a way that allows investors to make an educated decision.
Why don’t they publish their average revenue per unit data, unlike Apple? I have a theory that they don’t want personal customers to find out how much the units are worth in the wider market. So HP, unlike Apple, is trying to hide the truth from its customers and its investors.
Why does HP publish the split between consumer and professional product revenue for its printer systems, but not for its personal systems group (laptops, desktops, workstations and handhelds). Maybe they don’t want the investor community to find out that HP has no consumer mindshare? Something sure smells at HP and it’s not the ozone coming off the big printers.
Why do they list that PSG unit shipments have increased 21% year-on-year, but not the actual number of units shipped either this year or in the previous year?
PSG and TSG (the element of the business that deals with server-room stuff and professional services) recorded hardware sales of $14.9 billion and income from that revenue was just shy of $1.2 billion, a miserable profit of only 8%.
In fact, HP makes as much money from printers and print supplies as it does from computers, with the remaining $600 million or so made up by professional services, outsourcing and consulting and integration.
In short, why is HP – the third most valuable manufacturer of computing hardware after IBM and Apple – hiding so much of the detail on the real state of its business?
And why, when Apple already operates to a higher standard of detail than either Dell, HP or IBM, do you focus so much on Apple’s quarterly reporting? And don’t give me any nonsense about the fact Apple is obliged to do so. As I’ve told you before, it isn’t obliged under law or any other operating standard.
And if such obligations did exist, why don’t the other companies (who all like to portray themselves as being more important industry players than Apple) bother to observe those obligations?
I guess the real question is: why are you such a horse’s ass?
By the way, I can find all of the data.
But I’d have to let you into my .Mac public area (and I really don’t know you that well) and whenever I try to embed all the links in a post, MDN rejects my post.
Why don’t you get off your high horse and also your incredibly lazy arse and just go through Apple’s investor relations site? It’s easy enough.
Oh, I forgot: everything Apple publishes is a lie and everything Dell and HP publish (such as it is) is the truth.
Seriously, why don’t you grow up.