New hardware wouldn't necessarily require 10.6.4. It could use a special build of 10.6.3.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Seeds Build 10F58 of Mac OS X 10.6.4 to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
New hardware wouldn't necessarily require 10.6.4. It could use a special build of 10.6.3.
And how often does Apple do that? (i.e., fork the tree for new hardware)
Wouldn't it just be easier to do the minor point release?
They do it all the time. It would probably be easier to implement a simple x.x.? release but this is Apple.
All I really wish is that Apple will fix the drivers for MacBooks with the x3100. I have graphics glitches all over the place. Does anyone else have this issue in 10.6.3?
I thought i was the only one, i switched to Windows 7 on my MBA because simply, the Graphics Glitches bring the laptop to a standstill along with YouTube... Windows 7 doesn't do that... Regards, skate71290
I'm pretty sure that both the MBA and iMac got Special Leopard/Snow Leopard Builds for the specific Hardware
Yeah boot camp is good at introducing one to how well things can work. At least Apple has a nice 'out' if they drop OS X work for mobile stuff - Mac: runs Windows better than most PCs
. The only annoying things are battery life and can't disable the damn kb backlight.As for 10.6.4, I can't wait to submit the same bug reports for the 30th time!
Apple is a $50B+ company with 35,000 employees that spends nearly $1.5B annually on R&D. I imagine Apple is able to do more than one thing at a time.
Very often. I would guess that a majority of new HW is released with a special build of the current OS version, then folded into the regular release train at the next point release.
Certainly not. A new point release has to be tested on every platform and go through the entire release process - bundling it, making it available through Software Update, creating regular and combo versions of the updater, etc. A special build only has to be loaded on the new HW it's intended for and doesn't have to go through the full release process.
Heh, what iTunes needs is a full re-write like Apple did with Quicktime, which is something I'm sure they've been doing for a while now. It's no secret that iTunes is one of the most popular pieces of Apple software that is also still using crappy Carbon. I'm sure the new version (iTunes X? Similar to Quicktime X perhaps?) will be 100% Cocoa and 64-bit.
So, it won't run on PowerPC, early Intel Macs, or Windows? (Or is "CocoaWin64" coming soon?)
Why wouldn't they? It'll be 32/64bit, there's no reason for iTunes to be 64bit only.
Cocoa for Mac, custom GUI for Windows.
Excuse me but you never mentioned what version of MacBook Pro you're referring to; I have a MacBook 13.3" - were you talking about the recently released one or the previous generation? you need to give more specifics about exactly what you're talking about instead of assuming when you talk about MacBook Pro it automatically points to the 2010 edition of the MacBook Pro.
Btw, I doubt we'll see any major changes until Webkit2 is finalised, Safari has been moved across because if Apple are going to do a re-write in Cocoa they'll probably hit two birds with one stone and move it to Webkit2 at the same time.
Please re-read the thread. Stridder said "100% Cocoa and 64-bit", not 32/64 and Win32.
Native code of most programs I've seen seem to run better than the alternatives for me. And although I hate to admit this when I used windows (<2006) i preferred:
Windows media player over Winamp/iTunes
MS Office over Openoffice (no surprise there)
IE over Firefox (depressingly)
now its:
Safari over Firefox/Chrome
iWork over MS Office/Openoffice (slightly surprised)
iTunes over ...um songbird?
And on that note I think I'm the only person on the Earth who preferred Windows Vista over XP. Oh well, c'est la vie.
You're using the wrong term, it's not native code, it's first party applications. First party applications usually comes with the best integration with the OS or hardware, that's just a fact. Even first party games are usually excellent on consoles as well. Native code does not mean anything in this way as it refers to the language used by the apps. You can have both Firefox and IE be in the same language but it doesn't change the fact that they both provide different user experience.
Apple's first party applications are excellent just as Microsoft's first party applications are excellent on Windows.
While I love Safari, iWork and other first party applications from Apple, they are getting a bit outdated by now and I'm starting to like third party applications more. This all could change by the time that Apple releases major updates to all their applications. (Safari 5, iWork '11, iLife '11, and iTunes X)
Chrome 5 > Safari 4, it's much faster, slicker and I do like using the extensions like Instapaper but if Safari 5 comes out to be much faster and possible extension api, I'll go back to it.
Office 2011 B3 > iWork, I actually enjoy using the latest beta of Office 2011, it's faster, slicker and works pretty well. I still want OneNote tho for Macs.
VLC > iTunes, I need a thin client for just mp3 listening, I don't need the slow bloated iTunes for it.
My fault, 1st party applications is a better term, I don't know why that didn't occur to me
I agree with most if not all of what you said but have different situations which come to different conclusions (I use iTunes to sync audiobooks for instance). Opinions are fun.
Put simply: 10.6.3 ****ed my Mac OS.
Few days after I updated, my computer started to get real warm and I ended up having: The Finder Loop of Death.
And because Apple are sometimes like Facebook: they update softwares to brings things you don't care about while pulling things you need like the Archive & Install, I couldn't safely reinstall my thing without loosing datas
Few days after I updated, my computer started to get real warm and I ended up having: The Finder Loop of Death.
And because Apple are sometimes like Facebook: they update softwares to brings things you don't care about while pulling things you need like the Archive & Install, I couldn't safely reinstall my thing without loosing datas
I wish they would bring this out... yesterday. The write issue with SMB shares is the most impeding OS X bug I've ever dealt with, personally. The odd thing is that it only appears to affect Finder. I can save files to my NAS from any application, but when I try file transfers in Finder I get the ol' write permission error.
Oh that's an issue I didn't know of - my beef with OS X SMB is just the glacial loading speed. In this case at least Finder sometimes presents a little loading spinner, albeit in not that obvious a spot; in open/save dialogs they decided not to implement such a thing at all, which is just annoying.
Open/save dialogs in general are still a frustrating mash of cans and cannots vs Finder browsing - yes we can now have a kind column in list view, but it's not exactly obvious ... and we still can't sort by kind in column view. It has been baby steps since 10.0 for those dialogs, but not something they ever address in point point updates so I'll stop going on about it here
.
Yeah, the speed is another story altogether.
Browsing SMB shares in Finder is sluggish. If you have hundreds of files in a folder you have to stare at an empty Finder window for 20-30 seconds before the files appear.
Moving single files to and from an SMB share is as fast as doing it in Windows. Moving/copying a large number of files, on the other hand, takes forEVER. It spends ages just counting the files.
I can access my NAS drive via AFP too, which I've had to do now for a couple of months since SMB write support broke, and...
- Moving/copying a large number of files is faster than with SMB. Not the actual read/write process, but the initial counting of the files is quicker.
- Browsing is both slower and faster. With AFP you always get a delay every time you open a folder, but it's always the same delay regardless of number of files. With SMB, the more files in the folder the longer it takes.
The dealbreaker with AFP though is that A) Temporary garbage files and folders with long cryptic filenames are written all over the NAS drive. You don't see them when you access via AFP, but they appear when you go back to SMB again. And B) Files disappear. No, really. I can move, say, 40 files from my Mac to the NAS via AFP, and when I look in the destination folder after the transfer is complete I can find 38 or 39 files there. The missing files have been deleted, or rather, moved to the NAS drive's recycle bin. I'm not sure if it's OS X doing this or if the NAS drive has dodgy AFP support, but either way it's a disaster.
So with SMB being kaputt and AFP spontaneously deleting files, my current MO when I need to copy/move many files is to move them to a USB stick, boot into Windows, move the files to the NAS drive from there and then boot back into OS X. "Mac - it just works".