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

Anyone else think Snow Leopard... sucks?

S

Stachelsk

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 17, 2008
132
0
I'm almost disappointed that I wasted a DVD-DL on it.

I had Leopard running really smoothly... but after I had seen some benchies and reviews on how great SL is, I decided to give it a go. I honestly fail to see what all the rave is about. As expected, all of my drivers/extensions are now broken, but I guess I can't complain because the official OS isn't even out yet.

But... aside from a few UI improvments, I can't see what Apple has been doing with SL. I had Leopard highly customized, but it booted faster, had less quirks about it (but I guess you can always rely on having problems with a fresh build of an OS), used a similar amount of memory, and didn't crash right and left. I deleted all of the PPC code/languages from Leopard, and it was just about the same size as SL, in terms of space requirements, and booted a good deal faster. I don't have VMware Fusion or a lot of other apps installed on my SL installation yet, and SL still takes 40+ sec to boot, while Leopard takes < 30sec with a whole lot more installed.

But boot time really doesn't make a difference. My biggest problems are that: Expose lags TERRIBLY on my MB (Intel GMA X3100), iChat crashes whenever you try to start a video chat, the CPU fans seem to be running a lot harder( and more often), and there's just nothing "new". OpenCL/Grand Central/whatever doesn't seem to be doing anything for me in terms of processing power. I understand that the upgrade would only set me back $30, but I don't want to pay for *just* UI improvements.

I've only been using SL for an hour and I'm begging to go back. I definitely will not be purchasing SL when it comes out, for a long time anyways. I'm a student, and I bought my Mac because it was reliable and fast... and Snow Leopard just doesn't seem to be either.

Thoughts? Comments? Opinions?
I'd like to hear from others who have tried the Gold Master build.
 
I don't think it sucks. But it is definitely not ready for prime time.

You do not have to worry about it though.

Apple will be shipping snow leopard with the 32-bit kernel as the default on all but the latest macs and even those with the GM are reporting that their macs are installing with the 32-bit kernel.

It is funny that Apple produces both the hardware and software (Unlike MS), but MS still can ship a 64-bit OS (Kernel + Drivers) and Apple can't for all it's hardware.

Think about it. Ever since the switch to Intel, with refreshes twice a year (Far less frequent than PCS) and they can't still write 64-bit kexts for all their hardware.

All GMA macs (Intel integrated graphics) will never be able to run the 64-bit kernel. Even those macs with 64-bit CPUs are gimped one way or another.
Some have 32-bit EFI, or no 64-bit kexts.

So just relax. No pure 64-bit OS probably until 10.7. By then apple will not even support these older Intel Macs anymore. What you are getting is exactly what Apple promised, a more refined leopard. Nothing less or more.

You can still run 64-bit apps like tiger or leopard did, but most will use 32-bit kernel and extensions just like leopard. The 64-bit kernel will be used for future macs and xserves.

As far as your slowness. It is a beta with debug code in it. GM will probably be faster.
 
mmoran27 said:
You do not have to worry about it though.

Apple will be shipping snow leopard with the 32-bit kernel as the default on all but the latest macs and even those with the GM are reporting that their macs are installing with the 32-bit kernel.

It is funny that Apple produces both the hardware and software (Unlike MS), but MS still can ship a 64-bit OS (Kernel + Drivers) and Apple can't for all it's hardware.

Think about it. Ever since the switch to Intel, with refreshes twice a year (Far less frequent than PCS) and they can't still write 64-bit kexts for all their hardware.

All GMA macs (Intel integrated graphics) will never be able to run the 64-bit kernel. Even those macs with 64-bit CPUs are gimped one way or another.
Some have 32-bit EFI, or no 64-bit kexts.

So just relax. No pure 64-bit OS probably until 10.7. By then apple will not even support these older Intel Macs anymore. What you are getting is exactly what Apple promised, a more refined leopard. Nothing less or more.

You can still run 64-bit apps like tiger or leopard did, but most will use 32-bit kernel and extensions just like leopard.

As far as your slowness. It is a beta with debug code in it. GM will probably be faster.
Click to expand...

32/64-bit doesn't bother me. Nothing is debug... this is all release code. I've checked.

I guess I'm just a little nervous that I've had all these problems within an hour of using SL...
 
A. It takes up less space than Leopard.
B. It's faster than Leopard.
C. It's 30 BUCKS.

I don't see any reason to dislike it.
 
Brien said:
A. It takes up less space than Leopard.
B. It's faster than Leopard.
C. It's 30 BUCKS.

I don't see any reason to dislike it.
Click to expand...

A) My Leopard installation is smaller. I trimmed out a lot of ****.
B) Maybe. Sure the hell doesn't boot faster. Stability is more important than speed, for me, anyways.
C) I know.. but all I saw was UI improvements (good stuff) and more bugs :(. I'm a college student so I kinda have to be tight with money.

I was not aware that apple had released the source code to the 'public'
Click to expand...
Source code has nothing to do with the build, whether it is debug or release. Debug code is the same code as release code, it just has a lot of symbols that the compiler leaves in the code to make it easier to debug, and thus it's bigger and consumes more memory.
 
I just noticed this also -lame

All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit

If you look at the page for snow leopard, it just says 64-bit apps, not kernel.

So basically you get a more refined leopard with most 64-bit apps, running a 32-bit kernel.

Lazy programming. They could write 64 bit kexts for all their hardware if they wanted to.

They don't. Kernel won't ship 64-bit until 10.7

The only place they mention a full 64-bit OS with kernel is on their Snow Leopard server page.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/sixtyfour-bit.html
 
Stachelsk said:
Source code has nothing to do with the build, whether it is debug or release. Debug code is the same code as release code, it just has a lot of symbols that the compiler leaves in the code to make it easier to debug, and thus it's bigger and consumes more memory.
Click to expand...
Sure it does.. Yes there is a Debug compile, but there is also debug code left from the programmer. it all comes down to the programmer and program.
There can be lots of lines of code to test for certain actions. This is how I was taught to program/test my code.


Also you are complaining about the stability and speed of a BETA. Wait a few weeks and then complain.
 
mmoran27 said:
All system applications except DVD Player, Front Row, Grapher, and iTunes have been rewritten in 64-bit

If you look at the page for snow leopard, it just says 64-bit apps, not kernel.

So basically you get a more refined leopard with most 64-bit apps, running a 32-bit kernel.

Lazy programming. They could write 64 bit kexts for all their hardware if they wanted to.

They don't. Kernel won't ship 64-bit until 10.7

The only place they mention a full 64-bit OS with kernel is on their Snow Leopard server page.

http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/technology/sixtyfour-bit.html
Click to expand...

Do you even need to write the apps? Can't you just compile with a 64 bit compiler and have it make optimizatiosn for you..?
 
Stachelsk said:
Do you even need to write the apps? Can't you just compile with a 64 bit compiler and have it make optimizatiosn for you..?
Click to expand...
You can do this for some basic apps.. But depending on the code you will get errors and warnings.
For programs that can just be recompiled for 64bit, they usually have 64bit in mind when starting the project.

I have not programmed for the mac, I am just assuming it is the same (or similar) as coding for windows and other platforms.
 
Stachelsk said:
Format and clean install. The installation was much smoother/better/faster than Leopard, I'll give it that.
Click to expand...


Really? It took 37 minutes for me to install, almost the same as Leopard.

Also, I agree with you. I've only seen UI improvements, and the shut down speed, which is probably the most (or only) impressive part of Snow Leopard. It takes 2.5 seconds to shut down. Other than that, it's the same as leopard.
 
It's as they described it. However, everyone here has vastly overhyped it therefore it will be a disappointment no matter what.
 
NathanCH said:
It's as they described it. However, everyone here has vastly overhyped it therefore it will be a disappointment no matter what.
Click to expand...

I 2nd that. Have it installed and still don't see what the jazz is all about. 64-bit Kernel/ext.'s can't be enabled on a MBA Rev 2 1.86Ghz 2GB RAM 128GB SSD.

Certain apps like Safari/Mali/Finder are all running in 64-bit and are snappy but other than that...not much else. :cool:
 
hiohokaybye said:
Really? It took 37 minutes for me to install, almost the same as Leopard.

Also, I agree with you. I've only seen UI improvements, and the shut down speed, which is probably the most (or only) impressive part of Snow Leopard. It takes 2.5 seconds to shut down. Other than that, it's the same as leopard.
Click to expand...

Mine took 9 minutes to install on a 2009 iMac.

I've seen lots of bugs with Leopard fixed in Snow Leopard, but for the less specific stuff check Apple's site. There's some really cool stuff in there.
 
I'm certainly not experiencing any of the problems that you are. I installed 10A432 and it is fast as hell on my penryn 2008 MBP. Amazingly, the 10A432 build is even noticeably faster than 10A421. Also, while the installation did default to the x32 kernel, I was able to switch over to the pure x64 kernel permanently with no problems by adding "arch=x86_64" to my com.apple.boot.plist file (search the interwebs for more info about this). So everything is 64bit and just damn smooth. To all those claiming that it is simply Leopard with a tad more refinement and optimization: you are right on (in fact, I believe that was the whole purpose of Snow Leopard). Certainly worth my $30--I'll be buying a retail copy on day 1.

As far as your slowness. It is a beta with debug code in it. GM will probably be faster.
Click to expand...
Oh no, the infamous debug code strikes again. It's baaaack... Judging from all the comments following the release of 10.0, 10.1, 10.2...10.6, Apple just loves to throw that zany debug code into the RTM build ;)
 
Mac OS 10.6 is basically a clean up of 10.5 (just like Windoze 7 is a clean up of vista) - Apple have said that all along, so there won't be much difference you can actually see.
 
Buzz Bumble said:
Mac OS 10.6 is basically a clean up of 10.5 (just like Windoze 7 is a clean up of vista) - Apple have said that all along, so there won't be much difference you can actually see.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think Snow Leopard sucks. I like the tweaks, I like the little speed improvements. World of Warcraft gives me faster fps, and just ... little things... are nicer.

2 of my 3 Macs can run the 64 bit kernel, my 2009 Mac Mini will not (unsure why ... but I only use it for Plex Media Streaming to my bedroom, so no big deal).

Eager to see how OpenCL pans out.

I think a lot of the "under the hood" stuff is preparing OSX for some great changes that we'll have to wait for ....

And for $29? A night at the movies costs more ...
 
Simplicated said:
I think Snow Leopard is okay, but the problem that you have to right click or control click a stack to show its option is really getting on my nerves.
Click to expand...

What? You did need to right click on the stacks in Dock in Leopard to get to the options as well? Or what do you mean?
 
C) I know.. but all I saw was UI improvements (good stuff) and more bugs
frown.gif
. I'm a college student so I kinda have to be tight with money.
Click to expand...
I'm a college student to, so I'm putting SL on my 2006 MB and my work computer (2009 Mini) will stay on Leopard for the time being.

You didn't have to upgrade, and if you don't like it, downgrade.
 
bogg said:
What? You did need to right click on the stacks in Dock in Leopard to get to the options as well? Or what do you mean?
Click to expand...

In Leopard you click and hold and the options appear. If you do the same in Snow Leopard, it simply opens the stack, not showing options.

I have stopped right clicking for a long time.
 
My install went quite well and the speed difference is definitely noticeable.

I have one thing which is sort of bothering me though. I have a MBP with a multi-touch trackpad. If I call expose by swiping 4 fingers, then swipe the opposite direction to get rid of it, the windows go back to expose mode as soon as I release my hand. If anyone with a multi-touch MBP could test whether it works like this on his I'd be grateful as it worked well on Leopard.

Overall, though I'm quite happy with SL. Definitely not slower and unstable as the OP said.
 
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