Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X Snow Leopard 10A432 Installer Tweaks, Public Launch on August 28th?

Sorry if someone has already asked this question. (There are 6 pages to read through)

I have seen a few people mention clean install or just simple upgrade. If this is possible is it better to do a clean install of sl or upgrade the existing leopard?
My system seems fine at the moment, but incase there are any hidden problems, it may improve my mac and its life?

Thanks
 
OSXBoxes.png
;)
 
ACW said:
Just installed this "GM" and even my brand new 13" MacBook Pro doesn't run with the 64Bit kernel and extensions.

Looking in system profiler their are only 3 extensions not made for 64Bit and all of them are made by Apple.

Surly this cant be the final code if even the new Macs cant run in 64Bit?
Click to expand...

Then you have me worried as I'm running the Macbook that came before the 13" MBP.
 
ACW said:
Just installed this "GM" and even my brand new 13" MacBook Pro doesn't run with the 64Bit kernel and extensions.

Looking in system profiler their are only 3 extensions not made for 64Bit and all of them are made by Apple.

Surly this cant be the final code if even the new Macs cant run in 64Bit?
Click to expand...

I can confirm it does NOT boot into the 64-bit kernel on the 13" Unibody MacBook (not named Pro...). I've tried forcing it holding 6 and 4 at boot, and via the com.apple.Boot.plist file.

And don't call me Surly.
 
At the Snow Leopard keynote you are going to hear why all-64 is not the best for everybody. 32-bit code is smaller and can be more efficient for specific parts of the system and Apple will praise itself for having made sensible choices about it to deliver the best experience possible for its consumer products. Full 64 bit is going to be available for machines that officially support more than 4GB RAM, where it really makes sense.
 
rpp3po said:
Full 64 bit is going to be available for machines that officially support more than 4GB RAM, where it really makes sense.
Click to expand...

You mean that if you have 4 GiB or less, you don't need the added performance or security of the 64-bit kernel?

By the way, your "32-bit is better for some" applies to applications, with both the 32-bit and 64-bit kernels.
 
monksealpup said:
I can confirm it does NOT boot into the 64-bit kernel on the 13" Unibody MacBook (not named Pro...). I've tried forcing it holding 6 and 4 at boot, and via the com.apple.Boot.plist file.

And don't call me Surly.
Click to expand...

This would be complete BS if the final build of Snow Leopard didn't support 64-bit booting on the 13" unibodies, especially considering that our hardware is almost exactly the same as the 15" models. It would be just another false limitation implemented by Apple, like the fact that we can only upgrade to 4GB, even though our hardware supports much more than that.
 
If you guys are devs, check out the compatibility forum on apple's dev forum regarding 64 bit and how to boot. If I recall properly, you have to enable the 64bit kernel through command line. It is disabled by default.
 
do we know if this is a solid gold master, or at least a stable release? i'm getting ready to move my stuff to a snow leopard partition
 
yettimillan said:
Sorry if someone has already asked this question. (There are 6 pages to read through)

I have seen a few people mention clean install or just simple upgrade. If this is possible is it better to do a clean install of sl or upgrade the existing leopard?
My system seems fine at the moment, but incase there are any hidden problems, it may improve my mac and its life?

Thanks
Click to expand...

well, what i'm doing is a clean install, and backing up my music and other media. i'm not sure if a time machine restore would replace the system files, and i don't want all that extra crap i have on my backups. i plan on only having things i access on a regular basis, instead of having all these poorly uninstalled apps and their remnants.

but if you feel fine with it, i'd do a clean install and restore what you want from a backup (apps, media, etc.)
 
So a couple sites say that the GM has been sent to the manufacturers; I dont know what turnaround on that is- But Aug 31 seems very likely
whoohoo
 
raggedjimmi said:
Then you have me worried as I'm running the Macbook that came before the 13" MBP.
Click to expand...

Seriously for the last time. If you were a developer that has proper access to the dev build then you would know which machines are capable of running the 64 bit kernel on the DEV builds. This is a limited subset of all the machines that will be able to run it once released.
 
nws0291 said:
Seriously for the last time. If you were a developer that has proper access to the dev build then you would know which machines are capable of running the 64 bit kernel on the DEV builds. This is a limited subset of all the machines that will be able to run it once released.
Click to expand...

And you know this.... how?
 
a couple of observations

an install of the os without printers, languages, x11, rosetta or quicktime on an unibody macbook is a whopping 8gb. that's at least two more than the most recent developer update.
after the post install welcome movie a voice comes on offering to talk you through setup. not sure if this is new, but i've never seen it before (and thats going all the way back to system 1)
the gui is still mired in the glassy (and way outdated) aqua look. no attempt by apple to unify the os with ilife and itunes.
the icon resizing slider is still here, as i recall, it was in the pre-releaseversions of leopard and taken out for the release version. unless things have changed, that leads me to think this isn't the release version.
some of the pattern desktop pictures are gone (i rather liked the red one) though the uninspiring abstract images are still there.
if you are on a macbook and connected to an external monitor(probably only non apple ones) you need to disconnect and reconnect the monitor before it shows up in displays - not sure if this is a bug.
this is interesting - initially installed onto an existing 10.6 partition and the install quit due to it being unable to delete parts of the installed os. had to erase the partition and the install went fine (took 15 minutes)
 
About a month late

This article is not news when it comes to the DVD labelling. This appeared in Server 10A425 which was out about a month ago. At least it feels like it.
 
realfx said:
The Shirt but not the os? Why?
Click to expand...
It doesn't look like it's enough of an improvement over Leopard for me and I'm not fond of the upgrade version.

Maybe in late 2010 or 2011 when I might consider buying a new Mac. I never bought retail Leopard at all. I did stand in line for the shirt.
 
For those that may choose not to install Rosetta and then try to install Office 2008, be warned...the installer is NOT a universal binary (at least, with Office 2008 Standard Edition with no SP updates):
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2009-08-14 at 11.17.59 PM.png
    Screen shot 2009-08-14 at 11.17.59 PM.png
    39.1 KB · Views: 120
  • Screen shot 2009-08-14 at 11.29.50 PM.png
    Screen shot 2009-08-14 at 11.29.50 PM.png
    49.1 KB · Views: 122
Hey guys it may be a dumb question, but im a newbie anyway..

By installing 10a432 as a clean install and after that i back up from Time Machine (10a421) in order to get all my apps installed, wouldnt it replace those default apps like Mail, iChat, etc????
If one of those apps have been upgraded in this version of SL will it be replaced for the previous one that is in Time Machine or it just keeps the newer version???

I question it because im in doubt about back up from Time Machine or re-install all my apps.

Thnaks for any help.
 
neo25 said:
Hey guys it may be a dumb question, but im a newbie anyway..

By installing 10a432 as a clean install and after that i back up from Time Machine (10a421) in order to get all my apps installed, wouldnt it replace those default apps like Mail, iChat, etc????
If one of those apps have been upgraded in this version of SL will it be replaced for the previous one that is in Time Machine or it just keeps the newer version???

I question it because im in doubt about back up from Time Machine or re-install all my apps.

Thnaks for any help.
Click to expand...

I assume it is smart enough to do some checks and not replace the newer versions.
 
rpp3po said:
At the Snow Leopard keynote you are going to hear why all-64 is not the best for everybody. 32-bit code is smaller and can be more efficient for specific parts of the system and Apple will praise itself for having made sensible choices about it to deliver the best experience possible for its consumer products. Full 64 bit is going to be available for machines that officially support more than 4GB RAM, where it really makes sense.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about? Santa Rosa (and newer) support more than 4GB of memory and they aren't booting into 64bit. You can access more than 4GB of memory with a 32bit kernel. 64bit applications running on a 32bit kernel can address more than 32bits of memory; the operating system itself is able to address more than 4GB of memory.

According to "Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach":

Although the kernel manages as much physical memory as the system can support, it does not directly address more than 4GB of physical memory concurrently. To achieve this, the kernel uses appropriately sized data structures to keep track of all memory, while itself using a 32-bit virtual address space with 32-bit kernel pointers*
Click to expand...

The problem is people look at Windows; Mac OS X is an entirely different beast to Windows and thus any knowledge gained form Windows should be instantly thrown out as it is of little use in the Mac OS X world.

* This was related to 10.4, but I think things haven't change all that much when it comes to the 32bit kernel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back