Will Apple’s Leopard Leap Ahead?
The very appropriately named Leopard is fast approaching. And just as Leopard sounds like “leap ahead”, the expectation is that with 10.5, OS X will really leap ahead of Windows, including Vista. By all reports, Vista should bring Windows up somewhere near Tiger’s standard. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Apple has another cat to let out of the bag at the same time as Vista.
Unlike the previous iterations of OS X, which produced some noticeable advances, Leopard may produce some revolutionary advances. Strip away the eye candy from Tiger such as Expose and Dashboard, and Spotlight is the only revolutionary advancement since the original OS X. (Some people might like to argue for things like CoreImage, CoreVideo and some other under the hood stuff.)
Some of the rumors re: Leopard improvements could be considered evolutionary. MacRumors provides a list of some of these such as: enhancements to Finder and Spotlight; integrated geographical mapping; collaborative editing; and resolution independence. Checkout the MacRumors Leopard page for more info on each of those.
But one rumored enhancement will be revolutionary. Although Apple may surprise us all and produce something else, or take any of the evolutionary steps so far ahead that we’d have to call them revolutionary. Fingers crossed that Finder and Spotlight might receive the revolutionary treatment.
In its 22 year history, the Mac has always labored under the limitation of having no built-in compatibility with Microsoft OS-based software. What if that changes with Leopard?
Virtualization
The big leap, the revolution, is rumored to be virtualization. That is, running multiple OSes side by side. Okay, so we’ve been able to do it for years (provided you’re the sort who watches snail races for excitement) and Parallels Desktop provides the functionality already for Intel Macs. But what we really want is it to be inbuilt into the operating system.
In the 21st century, the ideal computer would run any operating system thrown at it - and what’s more, side-by-side, with no rebooting. Apple is closer to the realization of that grail than either Linux or Microsoft. Of course, Apple does make it easier by threatening to sue the butt off anyone who tries to run OS X on anything besides a Mac.
How will this happen in Leopard? We already know about Boot Camp which allows dual-booting and Parallels offers its application for running OSes side-by-side on Intel Macs. But a question arises. What’s going on between Apple and Parallels?
Many folks on the web have pointed out that Apple is promoting Parallels, instead of Boot Camp or Virtual PC, as the solution for running Windows on Macs. The web is buzzing with pundits theorizing if it’s possible Apple will buddy up with Parallels—either a takeover or some other sort of relationship. Given Microsoft took over Virtual PC, it is possible Apple could also take the same path and buy out Parallels. The reasons would be different though. Microsoft wanted Virtual PC so it could provide backward compatibility with legacy Windows applications rather than having to continually build it into future versions of Windows. Apple on the other hand, would want Parallels to allow you to run non-Apple OSes, Windows in particular, on Macs.
Will Leopard include not only Boot Camp, but Parallels? Will that be Apple’s solution for virtualization that has been rumored ever since Apple went Intel? Even if Apple only has a partnership with Parallels to provide virtualization for Leopard, that is going to get a lot of press, and maybe even then my former IT peers might take notice.
Leaping ahead
Tiger is more advanced than Windows XP - although there is still functionality in XP I’d like to see on OS X - and Vista at best will be on par with Tiger. Events at Microsoft indicate as much. For example, it dropped WinFS (first from the first release of Vista, and now altogether) which would have put Spotlight in the shade, plus with Virtual PC Express, Microsoft prove it is legacy Windows applications that is the focus of its virtualization efforts - no great advancement there… “Oooh! I can run Windows applications on Windows!”
Anyone who doubts Leopard will be revolutionary should consider this press release from Apple:
Apple® today announced that CEO Steve Jobs will headline a team of Apple executives, including Philip Schiller, senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing; Bertrand Serlet, senior vice president of Software Engineering; and Scott Forstall, vice president of Platform Experience, to kick off the company’s annual Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) with a keynote preview of Mac OS® X “Leopard” on Monday, August 7, 2006
How long since an Apple keynote has packed that much executive grunt?
Leopard will be the next generation, containing more significant advancements than Panther or Tiger. With improvements to Finder and Spotlight; a few Apple surprises; and when you throw in virtualization, which is looking more and more a certainty and probably via Parallels, Leopard will leap ahead in the 21st century OS wars.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Apple will most definitely leap ahead technologically, but will still be left behind in the dust by whatever crap MS pushes through the door with Vista.
Sad, but true. People don’t want to run whatever OS you throw at a computer, they want to run Windows. Adn even if they don’t ‘want’ to run Windows, they want to run Windows because they don’t know any better.
There will be no exodus to Macs and our platform, despite pushing the entire industry (almost singularly) through its innovations in OS technology, will remain niche.
And I really hope that there are more revolutions in Leopard than running Windows apps. That’s not really a good selling point for most of the Mac community which has no interest in running anything Windows. A real coup would be putting hooks into gut technologies like Core Data and Core Image and Bonjour so that Applescript can get a hold allowing mere mortals (rather than only programmers) to take advantage of those technologies. All this hype about running Windows apps on OS X, despite being revolutionary, is getting old, and if that’s the best that Apple can do with Leopard, this user won’t be updating, nor will many others I imagine.
most of the Mac community… has no interest in running anything Windows.
Unless they can pull off gaming. Now there’s a challenge.
All this hype about running Windows apps on OS X, despite being revolutionary, is getting old, and if that’s the best that Apple can do with Leopard, this user won’t be updating, nor will many others I imagine.
Are you kidding? Even having “ordinary” windows applications (i.e. not games, which would be extremely challenging to run in emulation) installable & running… well, in terms of technical impressiveness it would blow away every single other feature added to OS X in its half-decade existence. The fact that the hordes have been clamouring for it doesn’t mean it would be any less awesome an achievement if they could make it work.
(By the way, I’m really talking about API-stylee virtualisation here - the ability to execute windows programs from within the Mac environment, i.e. “implementing the windows api as a part of OS X”. Judging by Apple’s decision to advertise Parallels, I personally doubt there’s an Apple-written similar solution forthcoming in Leotard.)
But a question arises. What’s going on between Apple and Parallels?-CH
I’ll say buy ‘em and have your developers improve a concept that really works! I am still amazed by how Parallels give me >90% juice to run <gasp> XP to examine its technical innards.
And I really hope that there are more revolutions in Leopard than running Windows apps. That’s not really a good selling point for most of the Mac community which has no interest in running anything Windows. - e:leaf
Exactly! If I want to run XP games or apps, I would go via Boot Camp or Parallels. It is not worth Apple genius developers’ time to implement the old “red box” idea that Amelio and the gang was proposing.
It is most worthwhile for these highly paid, creative artists to brainstorm the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X, be it eye candies or more palatable features under the hood.
If I have to “fork” $129 to the cult of the Mac, it better be revolutionary than my previous one - in this case, sweet Tiger.
It is most worthwhile for these highly paid, creative artists to brainstorm the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X, be it eye candies or more palatable features under the hood.
Did you just call eye candy “the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X” or am I a hover-squid?
Did you just call eye candy “the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X” or am I a hover-squid?
Heh.
These are the things which seem to fascinate those who confuse real innovation and featurs with shiny metal objects. It’s like the criticism of not being able to run Vista on older machines simply because the new eye-candy interface will be disabled on older graphics cards.
I’ve gotten to where I turn most of that stuff off now anyway (or simply don’t care enough to notice). It’s fun for about the first five minues, and after that I have more important things to do.
Did you just call eye candy “the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X” or am I a hover-squid? -BH
A nobleman would know the answer, right Ben? Or are you using that antiquated System 6 on your Fat Mac again?
Any TRUE Mac faithful will be happy to have a long conversation that the OSX UI is revolutionary.
I’ve gotten to where I turn most of that stuff off now anyway (or simply don’t care enough to notice). It’s fun for about the first five minues, and after that I have more important things to do.-Bbx
Or perhaps you have only the capability to “switch on” your undistorted senses for five minutes, give or take a few seconds? Hah!
Gentlefolks, I give you the tag-team duo of distorted senses: Beeb & Ben.
Any TRUE Mac faithful will be happy to have a long conversation that the OSX UI is revolutionary.
As well you know, I’m not talking about the OS X UI which I adore although it’s not without its issues [1]. I’m talking about you calling “eye-candies”, which is normally taken to mean such things as ripple effects, window effects etc. the next big, revolutionary idea for OS X.
[1] (Read that, it’s very insightful.)
I would add to that that I would be very happy to have a long conversation about the OS X UI, preferably one which touched upon its worse aspects as well as its best ones.
I would add to that that I would be very happy to have a long conversation about the OS X UI, preferably one which touched upon its worse aspects as well as its best ones.-BH
Ben, I will be happy to grant you that very request when I see Leopard’s “eye candies” with my own eyes. Then we shall have a long one-on-one talk here or in my blog (Macolania Extreme at Blogger.com)
I am glad you are well-armed and loaded, so am I. Until then, load up some more “eye candies” factual data.
preferably one which touched upon its worse aspects as well as its best ones.
I can see that going down productively on this site.
“The worst thing about OS X is that it’s TOO awesome, and my eyes fill with tears of joy every time I look at it, making it impossible to get any work done!”
I can see that going down productively on this site.
“The worst thing about OS X is that it’s TOO awesome, and my eyes fill with tears of joy every time I look at it, making it impossible to get any work done!” -Beebx
Beeb, it’s best to improve on your script (that would improve you in your job in Hollywood 1000%) if you remove predictability and add some dash of suspense. Faithful Mac commandos are unpredictable as you have witnessed in the past two weeks of battle.
As for productive discussion on this site, it has never been as productive and inviting since I have joined the battle of truth and reason. Now, you finally have a Mac commando worthy of leading my elite Mac faithfuls against all your twisted analogies and reasons.
I really don’t see how Apple would be able to get away with running Windows programs within the OS without Microsoft getting a cut. The one thing about WINE (WINE Is Not an Emulator) as far as I know is that it’s free so it can get away with it (same as GNU, GNU’s Not Unix).
Here, Apple would be profiting off of Microsoft’s work, so one would figure that they might leave it open to virtualization but you would need to provide your own copy of Windows (like how OS 9 is not included with newer PPC macs but can be emulated if you were to install it)
I really don’t see how Apple would be able to get away with running Windows programs within the OS without Microsoft getting a cut.
I think regardless of the licensing issues, I don’t see Apple allowing .exe files to run under any circumstances. Is the compatibility (which would have obvious advantages) worth the security risk?