Apple Seeds Mac OS X 10.6.3 (Build 10D548)

[AidenShaw]

Do you play any tracks that exceed the 4 GB 32 bit limit? Or maybe it is foe videos?

64-bit filesystems on 32-bit systems don't have a "4GiB" limit.
Don't you have ISO files for DVDs that are over 4 GiB?

Does Itunes have its own problems with files over 4 GiB,
independent of the OS support for large files?

To do [64-bit Itunes] though they need to re-write QuickTime in its entirety in cocoa 64 And for this to happen there must be 64 bit versions of all third party codecs QT utilises.

There are Apple fans calling Adobe "lazy" (or worse) for the time
it is taking to rewrite Photoshop (and plugins) in 64-bit Cocoa.

The problem is caused by (invisible) metadada files named ._*, which cannot be copied to a FAT volume (why???).
In a Terminal, when you're in the folder you want to copy, just type:
find . -name '._*'
and you should see a lot of those files.
These are the files which are causing the copy problem if you're USING THE FINDER to copy the files/folders (!= using cp in the Terminal). If you delete all these metadata files, you can then copy the folder using the Finder. Apple is aware of this bug, and I hope they fix it soon...

Another annoying bug in FAT support is that you can't copy files > 4GB in a FAT volume (this is normal), but the Finder displays an alert saying "cannot copy file, error 0".

These aren't 'bugs' in the mac OS, they are restrictions of the FAT file system. There's no way around them, if a third party system can't support something, Apple can't support it, unless you want Apple to redevelop FAT?

Perhaps Apple should support FAT32? Windows has no problems
creating a file named "._foo" on a FAT32 volume.

S:\Windows\system32> fsutil fsinfo volumeinfo P:
Volume Name : 16GB SDHC
Volume Serial Number : 0x2cf131b5
Max Component Length : 255
File System Name : [B]FAT32[/B]
Preserves Case of filenames
Supports Unicode in filenames

S:\Windows\system32> dir p:\
 Volume in drive P is 16GB SDHC
 Volume Serial Number is 2CF1-31B5

 Directory of p:\

2010-02-05  09:33    <DIR>          DCIM
               0 File(s)              0 bytes
               1 Dir(s)  14,840,258,560 bytes free

S:\Windows\system32> copy nul [B]"p:\._foo"[/B]
        1 file(s) copied.

S:\Windows\system32> dir p:\
 Volume in drive P is 16GB SDHC
 Volume Serial Number is 2CF1-31B5

 Directory of p:\

2010-02-05  09:33    <DIR>          DCIM
2010-02-06  20:31                 0 [B]._foo[/B]
               1 File(s)              0 bytes
               1 Dir(s)  14,840,258,560 bytes free

 

[greg400]

Anyone have a change log for this update?

 

[slapppy]

Screen Flickering Issue

I wonder if this fixes the late 08 MBP screen flickering to black when its set to better battery performance?

 

[TheSpaz]

and what about MBP 5.1 blinking screen issue? in announcements there is nothing said.. fixing new iMac model and leaving one year users without any care looks unfare.

I have a MacBook Pro 5,1 and I've never seen my screen blink. I think you have a defective Mac my friend. Take it to Apple instead of waiting for a software fix. Mine is fine.

 

[elppa]

So much for those reports of Blu-Ray movie playback finally being delivered in 10.6... *annoyed*

Hopefully iTunes will finally go 64-bit?

iTunes is heavily dependent on Quicktime.

So first Quicktime has to go 64 bit. Apple have achieved this with Snow Leopard and Quicktime X (or Quicktime X 1.0), which was a major undertaking. And of course Quicktime X doesn't work on earlier version of Mac OS X which are still supported by iTunes.

But of course iTunes is cross platform and Quicktime for Windows is still on version 7. After Snow Leopard came out in August last year, I thought Apple would announce in September Quicktime X for Windows along with an updated 64bit version iTunes (it is about the only Apple app which ships with Snow Leopard that isn't). As that didn't happen, I think it is clear it will take quite a bit more time.

At the same time it is equally clear there are some strategy changes underfoot. More and more of the iTunes store is going online with iTunes Preview. Then there's the ongoing shift to cloud computing. Apple also has the lala team to integrate.

In other words — iTunes is a flagship product, a core product for much of Apple's important hardware and any changes they make are likely to be considered and not rushed.

It could be improved, but it is not fundamentally broken. With so much to juggle, I think September is most likely for any major changes.

10.5.x and 10.6.x continue to be bug fix installs for me. The real work still gets done on 10.4.11 and 9.2.2. Plenty of folks I talk to talk about getting a G4 again for functionality and leave the Intel macs for media manipulation.

There must be a very small subset of software which runs better on OS 9.2.2 than Mac OS X 10.6 — surely?

 

[08380728]

64-bit filesystems on 32-bit systems don't have a "4GiB" limit.
Don't you have ISO files for DVDs that are over 4 GiB?

Does Itunes have its own problems with files over 4 GiB,
independent of the OS support for large files?

He is not talking about individual file sizes of 4GB and the issue has nothing to do with file systems. Logic cannot address more than 4 GB of ram. Thus he cannot play a session with multiple tracks that contain more than 4GB of data ie: 64 tracks of virtual instruments which are loading 1GB of samples each.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I'm with you on exposé.

But hulu and flash video? Well, that's flash causing your heat and processor draw issues (was the video playback choppy as well?), and the reason why flash can't be ported to the phone/pod/pad. Hulu are about to offer a non-flash alternative.

I don't think exposé is an issue - it simply takes more power to process the new look, and it doesn't need 'fixing' as it's not 'broken'. I preferred it before, but I'm not sure apple will see this as something 'broken'.

Would love an issue to switch modes between "classic" and "new" exposé.

I would LOVE Hulu to switch. Though I think the current flash problems have more to do with their crappy programing than Flash generally being crappy, as I have no problem with Youtube, etc. at all, but when I watch Hulu, watch out!

 

[rle]

These aren't 'bugs' in the mac OS, they are restrictions of the FAT file system. There's no way around them, if a third party system can't support something, Apple can't support it, unless you want Apple to redevelop FAT?

1 - The first "restriction" didn't exist in Mac OS X versions prior to 10.6.3 (it has been acknowledged by Apple as a bug in 10.6.3, and is in their bugs database)
- Those folders can indeed be copied to a FAT volume using the Terminal command 'cp'
- Please point me to some information about FAT filesystems that says that a filename cannot begin with the two characters '._'

2 - The second "restriction" is a limitation of FAT filesystems. What is definitely a bug is to display an error message saying "cannot copy the file, error 0", instead of a clear "this file cannot be copied because it doesn't fit within the filesystem limits".

Believe it or not, even Mac OS X has bugs.

 

[Eric S.]

There must be a very small subset of software which runs better on OS 9.2.2 than Mac OS X 10.6 — surely?

A somewhat odd choice, since if you're using 9.2.2 you must be on a PPC system and therefore can't use 10.6 at all. Therefore anything that ran on 9.2.2 won't run on 10.6. However, for most of those apps, Classic mode under 10.4.11 on a PPC system is just fine.

It really doesn't matter how small the subset is, if it covers tasks that are important to you. For example I have a large number of old documents written in WordPerfect, and some others in WriteNow; I'm not going to convert them all to some new format. I need to keep a PPC system to access them in Classic mode.

 

[rle]

Perhaps Apple should support FAT32? Windows has no problems
creating a file named "._foo" on a FAT32 volume.

S:\Windows\system32> fsutil fsinfo volumeinfo P:
Volume Name : 16GB SDHC
Volume Serial Number : 0x2cf131b5
Max Component Length : 255
File System Name : [B]FAT32[/B]
Preserves Case of filenames
Supports Unicode in filenames

S:\Windows\system32> dir p:\
 Volume in drive P is 16GB SDHC
 Volume Serial Number is 2CF1-31B5

 Directory of p:\

2010-02-05  09:33    <DIR>          DCIM
               0 File(s)              0 bytes
               1 Dir(s)  14,840,258,560 bytes free

S:\Windows\system32> copy nul [B]"p:\._foo"[/B]
        1 file(s) copied.

S:\Windows\system32> dir p:\
 Volume in drive P is 16GB SDHC
 Volume Serial Number is 2CF1-31B5

 Directory of p:\

2010-02-05  09:33    <DIR>          DCIM
2010-02-06  20:31                 0 [B]._foo[/B]
               1 File(s)              0 bytes
               1 Dir(s)  14,840,258,560 bytes free

Once again, it's not a bug in the kernel or in the filesystem, it's a *Finder* bug. On Mac OS X, you can also create and copy such files on FAT volumes (I do it daily), using the Terminal.

 

[fhall1]

So what's this one going to be called ? .... ( House Cat ) ???

It's going to be called Snow Leopard....it's a point release

 

[skate71290]

Maybe Apple should disallow flash on Mac OS X until they make a 64-bit version too? j/k

if i could disable flash then i would... might stop my 27" iMac freezing on Safari all the ****ing time!!!!

 

[skate71290]

What an annoying comment.

Apple makes computing hardware and software. Macs are just one product line. Who says that computers need to fit a certain design/form factor?

All of their stuff, aside from their traditional iPods, run a variant of OS X. So why the negativity about Apple not supporting their Macs?

I know, it was sarcasm, but really... why bother?

Macs have been pushed to the back of the queue since iPhones and what not... it's not good and now Windows 7 is finally better than Snow Leopard

 

[skate71290]

It is unlikely that Apple would release a 64-bit version of iTunes in a maintenance OS release. That sort of feature upgrade would be included in an update of the application (iTunes), not the OS since historically Apple releases separate versions of iTunes.

Also, it is improbable that Apple would release Blu-ray support in a minor maintenance release, seeing as there is no Apple hardware that has Blu-ray players and the fact that Steve Jobs continues to refer to Blu-ray licensing as a "big bag of pain."

what actually makes me cry with laughter... Windows has iTunes 64bit....

 

[skate71290]

What about the 'error -36' one regularly gets while copying files/folders from Mac on to a USB drive?
It's not just me. Google it and you'll see many more are affected by this. Tried almost everything suggested. 'error -36' still shows up!
The only way around is: Copy files one-by-one. Coz once you drag-n-drop an entire folder, the error -36 pops up!
I hope Apple fixes this. It's an irritating bug!

i get this when copying applications - just can't do it.. wonder if it Apple not allowing you to do this... and i have issues copying files to the Time Capsule... when finished they are permanently in use by Finder... until you copy another file... i feel Apple are going backwards...

 

[elppa]

it's not good and now Windows 7 is finally better than Snow Leopard

This is mentioned a lot round here, but very rarely does anyone justify it.

So on what basis is it better?

 

[ungraphic]

What an annoying comment.

Apple makes computing hardware and software. Macs are just one product line. Who says that computers need to fit a certain design/form factor?

All of their stuff, aside from their traditional iPods, run a variant of OS X. So why the negativity about Apple not supporting their Macs?

I know, it was sarcasm, but really... why bother?

Because Apple/Steve Jobs dont put as much effort into their mac lineup? Just look at the Mac Pros, theyre outdated and the imacs run circles around them. Clearly Apple doesnt care much.

 

[ungraphic]

Hopefully iTunes will finally go 64-bit?

Why do you need an application that uses no more than 100mb of ram to be 64bit? Does your itunes go over the 4gb ram limit?

Personally I'd like to see itunes live up to its name. Its bloated crap, with support for every single device known to mankind. Many of us don't care for ipod/iphone/iTV/iTMS/etc support.

iTunes should be changed to iMedia if its going to continue this ridiculous show of bloatware.

Apple needs to release a small, simple light on CPU and RAM application for the sole purpose of handling mp3s, NOTHING more. For now, I'm looking forward to Vox. Takes up 1/4th the ram iTunes uses.

 

[slapppy]

I have a MacBook Pro 5,1 and I've never seen my screen blink. I think you have a defective Mac my friend. Take it to Apple instead of waiting for a software fix. Mine is fine.

Even when set to "better battery performance" you don't have that blinking black screen on the upper half portion of the display?

 

[thescort]

Because Apple/Steve Jobs dont put as much effort into their mac lineup? Just look at the Mac Pros, theyre outdated and the imacs run circles around them. Clearly Apple doesnt care much.

What evidence do you have that the new iMacs run circles around the new MacPros.

While I don't have much evidence, I geek-benched a colleague's new i7 iMac against my early 2008 8-core mac pro (base-model, 6 gigs ram). I beat it by a decent margin. I can only imagine the newest line of Mac Pros are faster yet...

Make your case...

 

[TheSpaz]

what actually makes me cry with laughter... Windows has iTunes 64bit....

iTunes for windows is NOT 64bit.. The only part that's 64bit is the iPod sync daemon. It's the same way for the Mac too. Don't get confused just because Apple offers 2 downloads.

 

[Rocketman]

There must be a very small subset of software which runs better on OS 9.2.2 than Mac OS X 10.6 — surely?

Like fat32, MacDraw and all the stable versions of Adobe software?

The world needs a Newswatcher GUI app to check vBulletin (and such) web forums.

Rocketman

 

[AidenShaw]

He is not talking about individual file sizes of 4GB and the issue has nothing to do with file systems. Logic cannot address more than 4 GB of ram. Thus he cannot play a session with multiple tracks that contain more than 4GB of data ie: 64 tracks of virtual instruments which are loading 1GB of samples each.

The discussion was about Itunes, not Logic. Or, are you saying
that Itunes can play Logic files (as long as they're < 4 GiB)?

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Maserati7200]

Do you play any tracks that exceed the 4 GB 32 bit limit? Or maybe it is foe videos? For I could see no benefit from having a 64 bit iTunes, at least for now (it will happen eventually when 32 bit becomes completely obsolete). To do that though they need to re-write QuickTime in its entirety in cocoa 64 And for this to happen there must be 64 bit versions of all third party codecs QT utilises. Do you like domino?

That's not the point. You will see performance increases andefficiency increases, with a muilti threaded 64-bit cocoa application. Look at finder in Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Why do you need an application that uses no more than 100mb of ram to be 64bit?

Is that a joke? I've had iTunes use up to 400 MB of RAM, and that's not anything out of the ordinary. But besides it's not about the RAM ceiling for this app. A 64 bit upgrade will see speed increases, regardless of the ram ceiling

 

[cjmillsnun]

That's not the point. You will see performance increases andefficiency increases, with a muilti threaded 64-bit cocoa application. Look at finder in Leopard and Snow Leopard.

Is that a joke? I've had iTunes use up to 400 MB of RAM, and that's not anything out of the ordinary. But besides it's not about the RAM ceiling for this app. A 64 bit upgrade will see speed increases, regardless of the ram ceiling

A 64 bit version of iTunes would indeed see a speed increase, but not because it is 64 bit.

The main reason would be that to make it 64 bit it would have to be cocoa, which would mean a complete re-write. That should clear out the bloat in it.

In theory a 32 bit Cocoa iTunes would be no slower than a 64 bit, as neither should be using enough CPU for 64 bit to make a noticeable difference