MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Say, isn't this "collaborative work throughout the OS" concept the very thing Microshaft just announced it was DROPPING from the first iteration of VISTA?

Bend over, MS. Here it COMES!

"Probably?"

I can say, "probably ______" all day long.

Give or take a month or two, and you're right five out of 12 months.

agreed with "TheConfuzed1"

"precise" and "probably" don't exactly go together.

It makes sense that Apple is going to introduce Leopard at MWSF with immediate shipping. At this point, it doesn't really matter what Leopard can do, 2007 is supposed to be the year that Apple scores BIG. Q2, following the Christmas quarter as it does, almost always slumps. The revenue boost Leopard will produce will mean back to back screaming quarters, and will diminish anything Microsoft does with its Vista rollout.

It's a mad, mad world when confusion and realism agree with each other.

Realist only appear real because everyone else is confused.

Can't be sure about this.

Wasn't it not too long ago that developers were complaining they didn't have enough time between the rapid-fire releases of OS X.

Then with Tiger, Apple gave developers so much time, most developers were Tiger-ready with compatible apps before Tiger was ever released.

If Leopard is beta'd in August, that gives developers, what...less than 5 months before MWSF.

Interesting question.

You guys are harsh...

I think he means the source gave precise info, and that he thinks the source is probably correct.

"Surprised Apple has chose a similar time frame for releasing Leopard as Windows has for Vista".

Ha! 'Similar time frame'. The time frame for Vista has been 2000-2006.

What could look like a redesigned Finder to ? I'm wondering.

Launching at the same time as VISTA will give rise to millions of articles that will be ranking VISTA as 5.5 out of 10 and Leopard 9.5.

Roll it on, Leopard is going to become a juggernaut that crushes VISTA on every measure barring large corporates. And even they will start to take notice as..

Surprised at Apple?

They mentioned this a few months ago. They were going to embarrass MS. This was planned well in advance.

Guess you didn't watch last MacWorld. Whatever.

iWork '07 to be released at MWSF in January, well isn't that a change from the norm.

Collaborative software is totally feasible now (and has been around since Panther), SubEthaEdit is a case in point and a great piece of software.

However applications would have to be rewritten to take advantage of collaboration, so you ain't gonna be able to share InDesign, or Word docs.

I expect that Pages & Keynote will have this when the next upgrade ships.

Im thinking they are going to release a Pages Pro edition at Macworld.

something to compete head on with Adobe.

u heard it here first.

It makes perfect sense for Apple to release Leopard around the same time that Vista is released. As the Vista release draws closer, Microsoft will be spending vast amounts of money on publicity.. undoubtedly, they will try to make this release a bigger event than Windows 95. This will result in a lot of news coverage for Vista. Most news sources that report on Vista will a) compare it to the previous version of Windows, and b) compare it to the "competition"; OS X.

By holding out a little longer to release Leopard, Apple will have more time to refine it and add functionality. In particular, look for Leopard's visual presentation to be stunning. The Vista publicity machine will then also publicize Leopard, and look for Leopard to get an extensive amount of free media exposure as a result.

delays are okay when its apple, terrible news when its microsoft.

LOL.

No one knows all the functions Apple drops off its OS before it is finally released.
Top secret.

"Recently sources have been indicating that Leopard will feature easy collaborative work throughout the OS,"

If only 2% of the market has an Apple very few people can use this.
If it works with Windows too, then why would an Windows user need to switch to Apple?

I wouldn't be surprised if SubethaEdit developers are working with Apple. As far as the release schedule, Vista is a moving target now heading towards the 2nd qtr 2007 for general distribution. Apple has been on schedule with Leopard. A few months ago I heard an Apple programming head at a college seminar mention late 2006 early 2007 for Leopard.

Hopefully Apple will release a full iWork suite to rival MS Office, and price it fairly!
And also something to rival Adobe/Photoshop etc

@ Macfanboy #12

If Apple does ship Leopard in January, having launched it at WWDC in a couple of months time, not only will it be on schedule, it will probably be ahead of schedule (given that I thought the release was supposed to be in April 2007).

Whereas Vista was launched as a brand nearly a year ago, and is still 9 months from shipping and is still having features removed.

But thanks for your trollish contribution.

I don't normally do this, but my magic word is "Children": which pretty much sums up some of the Windows droids who come on here with their half-assed opinions which match their half-assed operating system.

Hmmm...sounds very cool and hopefully very enticing to the enterprise. It's crazy because Microsoft bought Groove last year which I thought would give them this capability without much effort. Once again Apple will show just how more nimble they can be than Microsoft. It's like a snow speeder swarming around an AT-AT.

Secret Agent Man....

"If only 2% of the market has an Apple very few people can use this. If it works with Windows too, then why would an Windows user need to switch to Apple?"

Because you could outfit everyone in you organisation with macs. You know, if you had a few small offices in various States, or people who travel alot etc, and if there is a need to work collaboratively.

Market share is completely irrelevant to the concept.

MDN readers seem to forget that MS Sharepoint services has been around since 2003; easily allowing document collaboration. Net Meeting has been included free for at LEAST five years and allows desktop & application sharing, whiteboarding, chat, etc. in a peer to peer fashion. Apple is in no way breaking new ground; instead they're way late to the table.

Reality Check quit telling the Macdroids the truth.

They think everything Apple does is the first and has never been done before. Macdroids wear their Appleblinders and rose tinted glasses and just can´t understand why billions of people work effectively with Windows computers every day.

Macs are cool for sure; but lets get real people.

Exactly 60 days until the Leopard preview.

(Thank you Countdown widget!)

Brad T: "Because you could outfit everyone in you organisation with macs."

So you can´t do that now? Ahhhh...now we know.

P.S. you can already do this with Windows computers.

The problem with the existing MIcrosfot solutions is that nobody knows how to use them. I'm aware of this netmeeting thing, but have never had an instance where anone wanted to use it, and I'm using Office every day.

Check out the app called SubEthaEdit. It fully supports collaborative docs using OS X's currently available API features.
Collaborative documents already exist in OS X framework. Looks like Apple has decided to spoon feed the concept to the lazier of its developers, that's all.

Oh come on, people. This is MacOSXRumors. They just make crap up!

Yes of course you have the functionality within windows to collaborate but is it readily accessable ? By that I mean is it obvious, logical and intuitive? If it were, I think we'd all be alot more productive in the workplace. Sure sharepoint has been around for some time but it sucks donkey balls. Trust me, I'm a Lotus Notes guy and I've seen my share of Sharepoint migrations. People just don't use it. It's conveluded and messy. Microsoft themselves even thought so highly of it that they went and bought Groove to implement integrated collaborative functionality into their OS. Microsoft has never "gotten" collaboration and it looks like they won't anytime soon.

Apple's greatest successes weren't inventions. They're absolutely brilliant when it comes to popularizing things. They were late to the game with an MP3 player but they popularized it...to the point where the term iPod is to MP3 player what Kleenex is to tissues. Everyone knows what the Mac did. I think they "get" collaboration too. People will NOT collaborate if the technology is cumbersome to them. I've experienced this first-hand - I'm constantly trying to find new means to get folks in our various org to collaborate using IBM/Lotus technology, which is fantastically intuitive...in places. The fact of the matter is that people are lazy. They want things that just feel familiar and logical so they don't have to stop and mess with a bunch of logins, buttons, folders and gobbeldy goop to get their stuff done. If anyone can make collaboration intuitive, it's Apple.

"delays are okay when its apple, terrible news when its microsoft."

Who said anything about a delay. Selective hearing I suppose.

Reality Check & Halla Loo Ya >

You guys are truly deluded!

If what this article is saying is true, then Leopard will build in support for collaborative working at the OS level using Bonjour (or the only decent implementation of ZeroConf, as I prefer to call it).

This has nothing to do with the limited whiteboarding in NetMeeting or indeed building a whiteboarding element into iChat AV and if you people had the ability to think outside of the little unimaginative boxes that Microsoft forces you to live in, maybe you'd have chance of understanding that.

But then, maybe it's not just Microsoft's programmers who have no imagination - maybe it's their customers as well.

>It's conveluded and messy. >

convoluted.

Reality Check and HLY: You could say that through VNC this functionality has been around a long time, for free, on the Mac as well. But as HLS pointed out, the question is not whether this is a brand-new concept, but whether Apple's implementation will be better than others'. And, IF this rumor is true, there is a good chance the answer will be yes.

One thing everyone can be sure of is that those who have switched to Apple's know why they did. I personally believe the only thing MS has to look forward to is a life of B.O.H.I.C.A. If someone likes to constantly reboot, scan for spyware, upgrade to remove the malware and virus problem, watch the blue screen of death and finally format and reinstall his operating system; That's great! That's innovative and productive!! It makes one wonder how many monkee-boys are out there. Can anyone say, puttin on the Ritz?

Great. Sounds like the virus writers will have another possible avenue to exploit.

Gee, and here I sit sharing documents using the Windows Collaboration application in Vista Beta 2 which dynamically finds sessions available for authentication.

I'm so glad Mac OS X did this "first".

Oh...wait.

jay:
Great. Sounds like the virus writers will have another possible avenue to exploit.

Yes, because as we all know, we are plagued with them now.

The main reason we're safe at the moment is that most of the holes/ports are closed. This feature opens one up. Still safe? Sure. As safe as today? Logically, no.

I should have said one of the reasons. Maybe I'm confused. How , potentially, is this any different that the iChat fiasco? That involved open ports which "something" attacked, componded by dufus users. That attack was a dud, but it's simply inevitable that OS X will be exploited in a way that can't be explained away, as the past two "somethings" were. Doze sucks and I don't run anti virus software, but OS X absolutely will be compromised at some point. Again, granting internet access to your machine, no matter how well intentioned or work-related, is asking for trouble.

Reality Check - I think if the past is any indicator - we'll find that it may not have been first but it will definitely be better. And enjoy it while you can...M$ might just pull the feature prior to release.

@ RC >

Once again. Windows Collaboration is a conferencing environment that allows you to share activities within that "conference". It's just NetMeeting updated for the 21st century, which is almost current technology for Mediocresoft.

As likely as not, Apple's technology will merely require you to "share" your document and either invite or permit your co-collaborators to receive their own copies of your document and then subsequently modify them for the benefit of all collaborators. No conferencing required, although I'll wager that collaboration within an iChat session will be massively enhanced and I'll also wager that the power of the Core Duo and Leopard will be utilised to increase the maximum number of participants in a conference.

Interestingly - in Windows Collaboration - if you wish to share your document over a wide-area Internet link, you have to use IPv6 addressing which - depending on your infrastructure - may require you to implement ISATAP on Windows Server 2003.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts right now that, if these reports are true, wide-area collaboration in Leopard will be far more plug-and-play than the Windows equivalent, and - furthermore - I'll bet you that the technology will be based far more on open standards than Microsoft's normal "embrace, extend, extinguish" philosophy.

If you want more info, go have a look at <a >this document</a> so you can start planning for wide-area collaboration when Vista starts shipping sometime in 2007. We look forward to you joining us, although - as ever with you guys - be careful when you're opening up your firewall.

One last thing: how about a sportsman's bet that Windows Collaboration will only be in so-called "professional" editions of Vista whilst Apple will ship its collaboration software as standard.

this document

Sorry about that!

Oh, let me tell my funny "MSFT are a bunch of incompetent money-grubbing bastards" story for today.

One of my customer's runs WIndows Small Business Server 2003 Premium Edition - now remember that "Premium" bit, it means they've already paid a premium to get certain enhanced functionality.

So, MSFT finally release SP1 for Windows SBS 2003 (God knows, it's only 2006) which is nice because my customer wishes to implement Symantec (née Veritas) Backup Exec 10d in all its glory and that requires SP1.

Approximately, three weeks ago I started to download all the SP1 components and then discovered that the SP1 updates for the "premium" elements were only available if you requested the physical CD for which there was a charge.

My first attempt to register for the SP1 CD was aborted when MSFT's web server told me "there was a problem". My second attempt then told me that my license key had already been registered. An e-mail to Microsoft Direct Services over a week ago failed to elicit any response. So I finally managed to track down a phone number today which appeared to connect me to someone in The Netherlands or somesuch judging by the accent.

Firstly, I was told that they apologised for not responding to my e-mail, but they received a lot of e-mails and couldn't respond to all of them (why have an address then?).

Then I was told I'd have to dig out the original invoice from the distributor (Ingram Micro) which is nice and convenient because it was only 18 months ago that we purchased it, so we don't mind having to dig through our dormant accounts records.

Then I was told we'd have to pay £7. And then whilst I was trying to pay the £7, I had to supply our postcode at which point their server crashed.

The sooner I convert this customer to Macintosh the better.

And I'm sure there's no connection between how difficult it has been to organise this service pack and the fact that MSFT are about to release a "paid-for" upgrade to SBS 2003 R2. After all that would be a cynical thing to imply.

Secret Agent, it's actually slightly over 3% - and that's of all systems purchased. Apple markets primarily to the 1/3 of the market - the consumers - so they are actually at about 10% of their market. And add into that the fact that Macs have half-again the expected useful life of your typical PC and you see that the number of actual Mac users is comfortably in the double-digits (of consumers. But ... their share of the total market is growing, even as the market is growing, so "we're good".

gagravaar said: Collaborative software is totally feasible now (and has been around since Panther), SubEthaEdit is a case in point and a great piece of software.

However applications would have to be rewritten to take advantage of collaboration, so you ain't gonna be able to share InDesign, or Word docs.

I expect that Pages & Keynote will have this when the next upgrade ships.

Pages, Keynote, and iChat! And iCal? How about the bulk of the iLife '07 bundle? GarageBand, iMovie and iWeb - maybe iPhoto? Given extended linkage - like that already in place with iLife '06 - four 'board members' could get together (iChat) to build a (GarageBand) video podcast to go over the calendar (iCal) for the group's outing - then publish it (iWeb) for the rest of the membership.

Just a few thoughts.

I simply don't trust Microsoft. Until there is a law that prevents them from collecting private information, I will never buy or use Windows or any net collaboration software.

I thought we were supposed to be "security conscious" after 9-11? Giving Microsoft access to all my personal information doesn't seem like a very wise thing to do - no matter how many times they keep saying "just trust us".

MCCFR--

Does the client need you more than you need the client? If so, tell them that a switch is mandatory.

||To add to DL's list, I could see perhaps some Pro apps going for this collaborative thing without a problem. If GarageBand and iMovie do, then it would be feasible to see Logic and Final Cut do it as well, and while they're at it, Motion, Shake, DVD Studio Pro, Soundtrack, and Aperture have it inborn in their next versions as well.

I'm easy...


All I want in Leopard are the following two things:

1) Lables that shade the folder (as they do in classic) AND with the ability to set the label colors to your preference. (I can't stand these fruity label colors in OS X).

2) A "Taskmenubar" like feature.

- Mark