9 Mac OS X Leopard Rumors

by Devanshu Mehta Jun 29, 2006

WWDC will run for 5 days starting on the 7th of August. In anticipation, here is a run down of the coolest Leopard rumors circulating on the Internet.

While I may be fueling the rumor mill that I complain about, we are now within five weeks of the day when most of these will be proven right or wrong. Or at least, will be postponed until the next version of Mac OS X.

So here are, in no particular order, my nine favorite Leopard rumors:

1. Bit Torrent
Of all the Mac OS 10.5 rumors, this one is my favorite. The rumor is that Apple is going to include a Bit Torrent client as part of the new operating system to distribute iTunes music/video and software updates. The benefit of sharing your bandwidth to offset Apple’s costs is that- according to the rumor- you will receive credit based on your participation. These credits could be for the iTunes store, the Apple store or something else. This is a great idea, as long as it is turned off by default and people are well-informed before they opt-in.

2. Virtualization
While Boot Camp was a great development, the true Mac-switcher-drool-inducer is virtualization. With the full product launch of Parallels for the Intel Mac, and Apple’s quiet endorsement of it, running Windows (or Linux) within OS X just got simple, inexpensive and impressive. Support for virtualization within the operating system would take it one step further, though recent mentions of Parallels in Apple literature makes the picture murky.

3. Windows API
The strangest- and strangely appealing- rumor may be the one about native support for Windows API in Leopard. That would mean that you could run most Windows-only applications in Leopard the same way you would run a Mac application.

4. Geographical Mapping
Then, there has been talk of the inclusion of geographical mapping software with the operating system. I am not sure at all what the benefit would be, except for some cool integration with Address Book, but with Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth already out there, Apple may just be throwing their hat in to the ring.

5. Not Called Leopard
The most basic and appealing rumor I have come across so far is that the new operating system may not be called Leopard at all. Apple may move to a new naming scheme (dogs, maybe?) or a different cat (OS X Cheshire), but it seems like the world of marketing and re-branding may influence this decision more than an innate love of cats.

6. Living Elements:
A few rumor sites have been talking about ‘living elements’ within OS X. While the descriptions are vague, I think we can be quite confident that Mac OS 10.5 will include a lot of eye-candy and graphics that will introduce a host of new visual cues in to our jaded ways of using the Mac.

7. A New Finder
This one has been long overdue. The shortcomings in Finder are legendary and have spawned a cottage industry of small applications that overcome them. Of course, an improved Finder would kill that industry, but when has Apple shied away from introducing features that make entire companies redundant?

8. Improved Dashboard
The Dashboard has been one of those things that people either use rabidly or not at all. My reasons for not using it are numerous, but some small tweaks to the speed and usability could get me to use it. This may be one of the smaller updates to OS X, but I expect some changes here.

9. Collaborative Documents
Some rumors speak of collaborative document editing features. While these features would make more sense as part of the iWork suite, operating system level support could also be introduced.

And then, there are a few rumors that do not excite me a lot yet, but could in the future. TUAW recently reported that the OS X servers could move to Sun’s ZFS file system. Also, Mac OS X may be moving towards resolution independence, but I will hold off judgement on that until someone can explain the excitement about it. And finally, there are rumors about full-screen applications in Leopard that could allow you to do things like have your iCal calendar in the background of your desktop at all times. Nice, but not quite in the awesome category yet. Use the comments to point out why I should be excited about these features or to point out all the cool rumors I may have missed.

So there you have it—a round up of all the rumors that will keep me going until the WWDC conference in San Francisco, California this August. Apple Matters will have regular coverage from that event, so stay tuned.

Comments

  • A question: We keep hearing that Parallels can run Windows and Linux on OS X, but can it run OS X on OS X? Does anyone know?

    If Parallels emulates generic hardware, it doesn’t stand to reason that OS X would install unless Apple specifically allowed it to, which is possible if Apple works out something with Parallels.

    Otherwise, you’d be able to run OS X on any PC hardware.

    I wish.

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • The resolution independence is a great thing, especially if you want to run os x on different devices, for instance a next generation ipod or a pda or the like, as well as larger monitors. Using a universal display API for rendering would make development a lot easier for apple.

    musonica had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 2
  • Otherwise, you’d be able to run OS X on any PC hardware.

    I wish. -Beebx

    Wishes do come true, Beeb, when the perfect time comes at Steve’s immaculate convenience. Now, that would make the likes of you, white-box bottom-feeders, rejoice at the truth of finally tasting the sweet nectars of OSX.

    Robomac had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 846
  • Another use of a virtual OS X in Parallels is backup testing. That is restoring your backup to verify it all works. -C.H.

    Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you a bit Chris. Why can’t you verify your backup on the host OS itself? Or that you are backing-up the whole OS partition and want to restore that on the OSX-loaded VM? Hmmm. Kindly untwist my mind so I don’t end up distorted.

    Robomac had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 846
  • wonderfull!

    ctroom had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 1
  • Robotech Infidel:

    If you want to verify your backup, you don’t want to restore to your original location - what if the backup was faulty?  You’d potentially loose the whole thing, or chunks of it.

    The idea is to restore to an alternate location, then test the restored copy to ensure that the data is all there, and useable, and not corrupted or something.  That way, should your backup fail, you only screw up the VM.

    rahrens had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 18
  • Personally I would figure the one section of iTunes that would truly be changed by the inclusion of bit torrent would be the whole podcasting scene, as most all content made available through a podcast is free to the public, and a move like this could potentially lower the bandwidth bills considerably, making this feasible instead of a ploy to develop an audience that can later be exploited through ads or subscriptions.  Maybe I’m just being cynical…

    Chicken2nite had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 79
  • Yeah that’s a great idea! You could essentially run a podcast or vlog from a home server over DSL!
    Genius!

    Benji had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 927
  • “...making this feasible instead of a ploy to develop an audience that can later be exploited through ads or subscriptions.  Maybe I’m just being cynical…”-C2N

    I would hope that is one of the reasons Apple is mulling to include BT technology in Leopard/iTMS. We can only imagine what Apple/Steve’s real intentions of this as time evolves. Good report, C2N!

    And no you’re not distorted, just good Mac faithful instincts.

    If you want to verify your backup, you don’t want to restore to your original location - what if the backup was faulty?  You’d potentially loose the whole thing, or chunks of it. -rhn

    Thanks, rahrens, for your insightful explanation. That makes a complete sense now - a “guinea pig” guest OS that you can slaughter at will upon a victorious battle. Great!

    You could essentially run a podcast or vlog from a home server over DSL! -BH

    I don’t know why you would do that, Ben. Although it works perfectly well, you are very constrained on you upload bandwidth. You know DSL is a very assymetrical comm link, right? And that assymetricallity will keep on getting worst not better as download bw keeps on increasing while your upload bw is not. Shame on those ISPs!

    Robomac had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 846
  • You know DSL is a very assymetrical comm link, right? -Me

    And that goes to all of you Mac faithfuls with Cable modems. Forget ISDN, although that link is symmetrical but only 128K bw both directions.

    And for Ben only, in the UK this is still a very popular connection for voice/data I read from a tactical note a generation ago so this might be a low-cost option for you.

    If you have the need to host your own b/vlog in the comfort of your garage, let’s say, then get a symmetrical comm link like T1, OC1 (optical version) or better.

    To monitor your actual upload bw, open up your favorite P2P client with statistics capability and aggragate all your upload rates. I use eMule and I don’t see much more than 64kbps although I give it the full 128kbps <note kilobits per secs> default.

    It will work but would not work acceptably. That is where I am coming from.

    Robomac had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 846
  • I don’t know why you would [run a podcast or vlog from a home server over DSL], Ben. Although it works perfectly well, you are very constrained on you upload bandwidth. You know DSL is a very assymetrical comm link, right?

    Thank you sweetums I’m aware of that. The point of my comment was that CURRENTLY using a DSL connection to host a podcast is a stupid idea due to low upload bandwidth. But imagine the possibilities uploading by P2P-enabled iTunes! It could democratise the distribution of vlogs & podcasts in a way I think is really exciting, now that chicken2nite has pointed out the possibility.

    This is going down as my fave idea for Leopard. Bring on the P2P!

    Benji had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 927
  • I would think that a dedicated iTunes P2P system could achieve far better results than eMule. Think of the number of copies of iTunes that must be open around the world right now…

    Benji had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 927
  • This is going down as my fave idea for Leopard. Bring on the P2P!

    I’d love to see how they would implement this feature.  It would have to be totally seamless and just as fast as the current iTunes model for serving podcasts. 

    I like Bittorrent, but it’s still friendlier and more advantageous to the podcaster (saving assloads of bandwidth) over the podcast audience (relying on others to seed rather than a single server).

    Beeblebrox had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 2220
  • I’d love to see how they would implement this feature.  It would have to be totally seamless and just as fast as the current iTunes model for serving podcasts. -Bbx

    It would have to be an independent module - a plug-in to iTunes or a separate app that relies on QT. I am not so sure if the current architecture supports modular, incremental additions.

    Since iTunes uses the QT “wrapper” it is possible to create a distinct layer or “stream” dedicated for vod/podcasts. You ever wondered why QT is installed on every iTunes upgrade? Just wondering.

    I’m glad you like iTunes, Bbx. Now, we can talk singularity any time.

    Robomac had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 846
  • One thing I don’t get about the whole bittorrent for podcasting is the bit about seeding. Don’t get me wrong I’d love to not have to pay bandwidth for the This Day in Apple History podcast (which everyone reading subscribes to and tells all their friends about….right?!) but doesn’t bittorrent rely on numerous people wanting to download a file at the same time? How would that work for podcasting?

    Hadley Stern had this to say on Jun 30, 2006 Posts: 114
  • Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >
You need log in, or register, in order to comment