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

Amazon Begins Accepting Pre-Orders for Mac OS X Snow Leopard

AlexisV said:
That's a bit dull. I've always upgraded the day they were released - never have any problems.

Never understood the mentality of waiting. By the time you've bitten the bullet, there's another one on the horizon and you're always one step behind.

It's not Windows - get stuck in!
Click to expand...

Because a lot of people use third party hardware and software that might not be compatible yet. Pro Tools for audio for example normally takes a long time before it compatible on the latest OS, and even then third party plugins may not work at all until after an update.
 
Cassie said:
Would be nice if they had a Sep. 1 release. :p Not that I can run SL anyway, but it would be a pleasant surprise for the people who can. :)
Click to expand...

I agree - 1st September is my 40th birthday!

...Though I suppose it would be sad to spend my 40th installing Snow Leopard.........!

;)
 
sochet said:
Because a lot of people use third party hardware and software that might not be compatible yet. Pro Tools for audio for example normally takes a long time before it compatible on the latest OS, and even then third party plugins may not work at all until after an update.
Click to expand...
Not to mention audio interfaces, etc. My Mac won't get updated until all my music stuff gets SL support. I may add another SL machine, but it'll probably be a while before my primary machine gets upgraded.
 
The Box set is a bad deal anyway. You can buy the individual pieces for about $139. The Box Set cost $169.

kinless said:
I'd love the box set but it's getting a little late in the year for that. iLife '10 around the corner?
Click to expand...
 
upgrade from SL beta?

I know it's not a supported option, and there were disclaimers about it, but what is the opinion in here of 'some way of making it work' to upgrade from SL Preview to SL?

I had a timemachine backup, but my external HD crashed, so now my primary computer is running SL Preview.

What will be the best way to go about getting the production SL on this machine?
 
heisetax said:
Actually compared to Excel Numbers is not even a spreadsheet program. At the rate Apple is going it will take a couple more updates before it can be called a spreadsheet. Whether you like MS or not, there never has been a spreadsheet that can come close to MS Excel. Maybe they will all make it up to the KeyNote level.-
Click to expand...

Too bad WordPerfect merged with Quattro Pro instead of Lotus back in the 80s.. could have given MS real competition in the office suite market. Not all MS is bad: Excel, Exchange, and MS-SQL server are all innovative products.

Seems like I might as well wait 4-5 months and stick with Tiger until the box set includes iLife/iWork '10. Problem is Omnigroup and a few other good software vendors are now requiring 10.5 to run their products, so I may have no choice.
 
raccoontail said:
Not all MS is bad: Excel, Exchange, and MS-SQL server are all innovative products.
Click to expand...

Excel is best in class, it really deserves credit for MS. Did you by the way know that Excel was first made for Mac?

Exchange is "not bad" for the bloat it introduces. It is far from perfect, but people all over the world have become used to using it and Outlook, so it's kind of benchmark for balancing bloat and useful features.

MS-SQL however is not a Microsoft product to begin with! It was originally Sybase SQL Server up to version 6.x when MS "aquired" the code. Not much of MS development as they bought an already rather mature program.
- Version 7.0 was nothing new except MS logos on the installer.
- Version 2000 was still crap, but little less buggy than 6 and 7
- Version 2005 was released prematurely. New tools and lots of crashes. Better SQL standards compatibility but still years behind Oracle.
- Version 2008 (or v2005 R2 as we dba's know it) was finally complete and relatively bugfree for MS version. Still, for the product they bought +10 years ago this is nothing to be praised about.
 
JFreak said:
Excel is best in class, it really deserves credit for MS. Did you by the way know that Excel was first made for Mac?
Click to expand...
This is 100% true.

JFreak said:
MS-SQL however is not a Microsoft product to begin with! It was originally Sybase SQL Server up to version 6.x when MS "aquired" the code. Not much of MS development as they bought an already rather mature program.
- Version 7.0 was nothing new except MS logos on the installer.
Click to expand...
This is 100% not true.

SQL Server 7.0 was a complete "from the ground up" rewrite of the entire storage engine, optimizer, etc. This was the end of sysdevices and coalesce fragments and all that garbage that Sybase was forced to keep around so Sybase could run on multiple backends, mostly all the unix variants. If a SQL 6.x environment was going to get corrupted, it was pretty much around that architecture. I've sat in on PASS sessions lead by Kalen Delaney where she and Dave Campbell (lead storage architect of the SQL 7.0 rewrite effort) bantered back and forth about why a particular DBCC switch worked the way it did. And discussions of all the code that couldn't be touched for fear of breaking some Sybase compatibility. Sybase code so bad that it was considered unsalvageable which is what drove the rewrite. This was also the beginning of the decent optimizers, though that's damning the 7.0 version with high praise.

I can also remember the head of the SQL 2000 project team apologizing for the fiasco that was SQL 7.0/NT 4.0 failover clustering.

SQL 2000 and esp. SQL 2005 have been solid, enterprise ready products. SQL 2008 continues that tradition. There has also been a lot of bloat that other Microsoft divisions have unfortunately inflicted on an otherwise great product. Such is the way of life when you are in bed with the committees that drive all the bloat into all the products. The smart IT teams keep this crap to a minimum. The sheeple get trapped underneath it.

I'll be the first to rip on MS where they have it coming (including the monstrosity of MS software stacks it takes to support "technologies" like MOSS), but the core of SQL Server is one place where they got things pretty much right.
 
Povilas said:
I have iMac 7,1 or 2 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD and ATI HD2400XT. From what I know OpenCL does not support ATI HD2400XT and I'm not sure about 64 bit kernel? The only thing that will come in handy is Grand Central. Should I be angry? Maybe, but I'm not.

Could someone provide more information about 64 bit kernel? Why not all Macs with 64 bit CPU (C2D and higher) will be able to run SL@64 bit?
Click to expand...

Cupertino is mum on if or when the iMac 7,1 will run the 64 bit kernel and extensions. Currently it does not ... but it might be included before SL goes gold. If it does not I can attest that it runs bloody fast nonetheless.

As for anger, I was but then thought why bother; so many better things to be angry about.
 
Right, I'm confused

Earlier in this thread I mentioned that my primary concern with Snow Leopard was how it would deal with my GMA 950 - so far my reading has lead me to believe that my May '07 MacBook will not be able to take full advantage of the 64-bit environment...

Am I reading things right? And will I notice anything?

I am aware that most of this is speculation until things are finalised and released, but is the current information that we have as above?
 
Droid13 said:
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that my primary concern with Snow Leopard was how it would deal with my GMA 950 - so far my reading has lead me to believe that my May '07 MacBook will not be able to take full advantage of the 64-bit environment...

Am I reading things right? And will I notice?
Click to expand...

It'll do 64-bit fine, but a GMA anything doesn't support Open CL.
 
Droid13 said:
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that my primary concern with Snow Leopard was how it would deal with my GMA 950 - so far my reading has lead me to believe that my May '07 MacBook will not be able to take full advantage of the 64-bit environment...

Am I reading things right? And will I notice?
Click to expand...

My understanding, from what I have been told, is that no Mac book will run SL in full 64 bit glory. But before we pick up our pitch forks and race to the castle, SL is fast any way...
 
Just had a question, I bought my first mac with Leopard (a while ago), and was wondering if its possible to buy the family pack and just upgrade mine and 4 of my friends machines?

Also was wondering whether SL would be running 64-bit on my Jan 08 Macbook Pro?
 
singhjeet29 said:
Just had a question, I bought my first mac with Leopard (a while ago), and was wondering if its possible to buy the family pack and just upgrade mine and 4 of my friends machines?

Also was wondering whether SL would be running 64-bit on my Jan 08 Macbook Pro?
Click to expand...

Apple says the family pack is for a single household, but you could do that, and I'm sure many people do.
 
vansouza said:
My understanding, from what I have been told, is that no Mac book will run SL in full 64 bit glory. But before we pick up our pitch forks and race to the castle, SL is fast any way...
Click to expand...

That makes no sense to me. If Windows can run full x64 on a MacBook why can't OS X? It's all down to the software and drivers at this point, not the hardware.

I also don't understand the "no x3100 x64" that was posted earlier, again, all they have to do is write drivers. The only limitation is the power of the hardware. If SL requires a form of rendering or hardware acceleration that the x3100 can't support, ok, but it seems to me posters are implying that it's not x64 capable.

I don't understand that at all.
 
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