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

Apple Seeds Rumored Golden Master Mac OS X 10.6 (10A432) to Developers

Evangelion said:
I don't think memory-randomization is dependant on the bitness of the system....
Click to expand...
You're right. I believe 32-bit Vista has a decent memory randomization implementation. Leopard's implementation wasn't so good since I think only a few libraries were made compatible (random) and not the whole kernel. I'm guessing the 32-bit kernel in Snow Leopard will now have memory randomization fully implemented. Still, a 64-bit kernel with memory randomization should be more effective because of the much larger address space to stick things. Admittedly, it's more of a theoretical advantage at this point, but being security, if it does become a practical advantage, it'll be a big problem. Which of course could be avoided but giving all 64-bit capable Macs access to the 64-bit kernel by writing the necessary drivers and EFI firmware. I guess it's a matter of whether safe enough for now is a compelling argument.
 
loveturtle said:
I really wonder why everyone is so quick to be an Apple apologist. It's always the same excuse "end users wont notice" "it's not a big deal".

People pay a huge premium on the MacPro. You know how hard it is to justify a 3k desktop PC? and they can't even put enough effort to support 64bit?

On my macpro1,1 I have ran XP64, vista64, FreeBSD/amd64, Solaris (SXCE & OpenSolaris) in 64bit mode, -ALL- of these work. Yet the company I gave such a large premium to can't be bothered to support me a couple years later and you guys want to defend that? Somehow buying a 3k workstation with the expectation of a very basic level of support is "entitlement"? Come on... I'm not really that insulted at Apple because this is what I expect from them, but it's really annoying to listen to you apologists. There's really no excuse.
Click to expand...

That's how Apple make money, they sell you the computer and two years later you are out of support, what they tell you to do? buy the latest computer hardware so the latest OS X can be supported. That's their business model.
 
The only think I'd like to know is, wether it really is the GM now. Because I won't install a beta on my main drive...
 
maclancer said:
That's how Apple make money, they sell you the computer and two years later you are out of support, what they tell you to do? buy the latest computer hardware so the latest OS X can be supported. That's their business model.
Click to expand...

It scares me that perhaps you are not being sarcastic here....
 
loveturtle said:
On my macpro1,1 I have ran XP64, vista64, FreeBSD/amd64, Solaris (SXCE & OpenSolaris) in 64bit mode, -ALL- of these work.
Click to expand...

Yes!
Guess what? The "strange" thing is that the majority of Macusers is thinking the myth, that the mac-hardware aligned to the software perfectly. There are just a few Mac-Modells out there... but it seems that Apple is not capable to give a 64Bit Kernel to all 64Bit Macs - or they want to force you to buy a new Mac in the future? (ok - lets wait till the final is out).

PowerPC or x86 makes no differences how the mac-hardware aligned to osx:
Take e.g. a look at the GPUs:
Video hardware acceleration (GPU) is not a new thing - normally. In the OSX-World it is a new thing although there are GPUs in Macs (also PowerPC Macs I guess), who are capable to do this since years!!!

Another example:
Mac OS X uses an ABI designed for CISC processors, mostly ignoring RISC design principles: http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php
So the ABI was not the right ABI for PowerPC (and also not the right ABI for x86 (32Bit))
But with x86_64 Apple is changing the ABI: x86_64 (System V Application Binary Interface in Mach-O Fileformat). So that is like it should be for x86_64. :) Good!

Another Example:
Mac OSX 10.5 doesn't support NUMA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access
Hope 10.6 does, because Nehalm looses till 25% of performance in 10.5 (there are benches in c't who compared it with other operating systems).
 
sirdir said:
The only think I'd like to know is, wether it really is the GM now. Because I won't install a beta on my main drive...
Click to expand...

I've been using the beta build as my main OS since 10A380. It's probably more stable than Leopard at the current build it's at, seeing as it's being released in less than 1 month.
 
Macminiintel said:
lol its kinda annoying people asking the same question "oh i want to be able to do an erase & install & i want a clean install". of course you will, its going to work like it has done for every OS X upgrade disk

stages

1. Pop in the install DVD & press C
2. wait for it to load up
3. Once loaded the disk will scan for a Leopard install, once it has found it on the hard disk you will be able to continue
4. After that you can either chose an upgrade, archive or erase and install,

not hard really is it LOL
Click to expand...

LOL Well I already knew the answer-I just thought id ANNOY you -
you seemed like the perfect foil to annoy today-
sorry-in fact, we all are;
will try to do better next time LOL
but ..A FREAKIN SEARCH PROVIDED NO INSIGHT ON THE MATTER
And ive never bought an "upgrade" disc before for Mac.
edit: let me rephrase that: i never installed ANY system upgrade on top of the other-I always wipe-good chance for house cleaning
and using some disciple when re installing various apps ie: hmmmm lets see ive used this app/utility once or none since i installed it 2 years ago-I think ill save the space
and NOT install it
Anyway
I thought developers would be the ones to ask
The high priests of Appledom
It appears that when youre booted into SL-you would proceed along the same lines as if doing a wipe HD and reinstall with your Leopard disc
The only differnce is you will always need to keep a copy of 10.5 handy should you wipe your HD again-and eject the SL disc

simple reasonable question
You could have easily rendered all that info into a nice informative sentence
and not wasted your time.
 
If it indeed true that my Mac Pro 1:1 which was marketed as 64bit, will not run in 64bit i will be ditching OS X for windows. I'm tired of playing these forced upgrade games with apple.
 
CristobalHuet said:
I've been using the beta build as my main OS since 10A380. It's probably more stable than Leopard at the current build it's at, seeing as it's being released in less than 1 month.
Click to expand...

Yes but are you able to do update installs then? (i.E. from the beta to the release?)
 
Somebody should start a 64-bit compatibility thread for the pissed off people .. Not me, I'm lazy. But somebody should ..
 
JohnDoe98 said:
As for OpenCL, as I'm sure you are aware Leopard supports up to 2.1 and quite a few of the OpenCL 3.x features, though it doesn't give full support. However, Linux and Microsoft offer that 3.x support for free, so I'd expect that too from Apple.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaking OpenCL with OpenGL. The current OpenCL version is 1.0. The newest OpenGL version is 3.2 released this year.

See the Kronos Group site
 
German said:
Another Example:
Mac OSX 10.5 doesn't support NUMA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Uniform_Memory_Access
Hope 10.6 does, because Nehalm looses till 25% of performance in 10.5 (there are benches in c't who compared it with other operating systems).
Click to expand...

Just to clarify - this currently only is an issue for octo-core Mac Pros.

Core i7, and single quad Xeons have uniform memory, as do all Core 2 based systems (including pre-Nehalem octo-Xeons).

The simplified technical explanation is that Nehalem has the memory controller on the CPU chip, so memory is attached to the CPU socket and not to the FSB. On a dual socket system, you can have some memory on each socket. If a program is running on socket 1, the memory directly connected to socket 1 is faster than the memory connected to socket 2 - because socket 1 must talk to socket 2 to access the "far" memory.

"NUMA support" means that the operating system tries to keep a process' memory "close" to the process, and reduce the cross-socket memory accesses.
 
Sweet, I didn't know about the up to date program. Just got my MBP in late June (although would have waited if I had known matte would have been an option :grumble:) but this saves me $20 plus tax.
 
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