Talk:Leopard

From Mac Guides

Jump to: navigation, search

I have to say I object to references to macosrumors. it became clear at a certain point that they were simply making stuff up. as a result, I don't include references to them in the main site, and dont' think it warrents linkage here either. --Arn 12:54, 22 November 2005 (EST)

You're right, saying it is not quite the most reliable site would be an understatement... BTW, I think this page was a prefect example for the misuse of stubs. Currently there is no info to be added and yet it still was marked as a stub, I think people are (or have been) using stubs way too generously.--Diatribe 13:30, 22 November 2005 (EST)

Well, I have to say I object to rumors being on any of these pages, not explicitly for rumors and speculation. These pages should be strictly factual. If you want to include rumors, do so in a manner consistent with what has already been done with the hardware, i.e., make a Leopard (Rumored) article, in the tradition of Intel PowerBook (Rumored) and Intel iBook (Rumored). The last thing we need is for some net reporter, out doing research on some fluff piece, to quote a "Fact" from the Leopard page, when in fact, they may not be facts. I'm all for consolidating Leopard rumors, but let's let Leopard be purely factual, like all other non-Rumor articles. --Mainstreetmark 13:59, 22 November 2005 (EST)
That might make the most sense. --Arn 14:28, 22 November 2005 (EST)
Will the pages that are rumored be deleted after the products are announced? Or should the Intel PowerBook be a section in the PowerBook page and then marked with a new template for rumors? That could make things easier if we want to include rumors and speculation but do not want to have them as separate pages. --Mechcozmo 19:24, 22 November 2005 (EST)

I think as long as they are marked as being rumors and are just links to other sites I think it is perfectly fine including them.--Diatribe 14:55, 22 November 2005 (EST)

In the public gcc documentation the Objective-C option "-fobjc-gc" is discussed: "Enable garbage collection (GC) for Objective-C objects. The resulting binary can only be used on Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) and later systems, due to additional functionality needed in the (NeXT) Objective-C runtime." There is additional technical information, but that is mostly unrelated to Leopard.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes they opt for another cat name. Like "Saber" or "Lion" It might be time to end the cat pedigree altogether. 208.47.17.91 00:48, 9 March 2006 (EST)

Contents

iSight

Most new Apple hardware contains iSight, does this mean we might see new features in the OS that use the iSight system. Like menus working because the OS knows your looking at it.

i think that's a bad idea for a lot of reasons. and it'd be near impossible with a 640x480 camera to be able to detect what part of the screen you're looking at, even if you're a few inches from the monitor. 68.35.201.102 16:19, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

features

i really hope the features mentioned aren't all that's new with it. this doesn't excite me at all. multiple desktops i'd never use, virtualization technology i'd only barely use, but what i would like to see is a greatly updated iChat, a new finder, the ical/addressbook app (preferably with mail, too, like outlook), an updated sherlock (and a sherlock dashboard widget), an actually useful spotlight, a new front row, better CD burning, a refined apple networking with workgroups and all, and much better server side stuff. 68.35.201.102 16:19, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

There will undoubtedly be several hundred new features in Leopard. The ones listed on this page as "Possible features" are just those that have been rumored at some stage; most of them probably won't even be in the final product. --HexMonkey 18:28, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

iBook G4 compatiblity?

I have been living in a cave. Will my iBook support Lepoard? Do I have to spring for MacBook?

64 Bit?

"Full support for 64 bit applications while maintaining 32 bit support. Leopard would be the first mainstream operating system to go completely 64-bit."

That is a bit misleading. Leopard has not gone "completely 64-bit". It's not even gone a little bit 64 Bit. The kernel and system and most libraries are 32 Bit. Leopard is a 32 Bit OS that can run 64 Bit applications. And even that is not complete. There is no support for 64 Bit Carbon (or 64 Bit Java on PowerPC).

Furthermore, all statements regarding Mac OS X being the "first mainstream operating system to [anything]" are misleading. The only other mainstream OS is apparently Windows. And, ironically, there is a completely 64 Bit version of Windows (i.e. with 64 Bit kernel and system and support for 64 Bit variants of everything 32 Bit in 32 Bit Windows). Linux is completely 64 Bit, as is Solaris and all other Unices.

It would be more correct to say that Mac OS X is the _last_ mainstream OS to support 64 Bit applications, and mainstream would be Windows, Linux, and UNIX.

Leopard does not "maintain" 32 Bit support, Leopard adds some 64 Bit support, as did Tiger. It will be a while yet until we get an actual 64 Bit OS, and once Apple do that, the advantage with 32 Bit driver support and great compatibility with 32 Bit will be gone.

User:ajbrehm