If you haven't bought a new Mac in 4+ years you are not Apple's most loyal customer. Period.
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 Rumored Golden Master Mac OS X 10.6 (10A432) to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you haven't bought a new Mac in 4+ years you are not Apple's most loyal customer. Period.
Is "Minimize windows into application icon" still in Dock preferences, and if so do they visually show in the Dock now? I filled a bug report but it was marked as a duplicate.
Anyone know why the client installer (~6.1 GB) is bigger than the server one (~5.5 GB)? I forget where I heard it, but I guess the client & server versions are the same, it's just that the server has pretty GUI apps to control the server functions while the client has to go through command line. My only guess is that a lot of the extra space in the client goes for the Windows/Boot Camp drivers & the server doesn't include them.
So i've been reading this quite intently since I'm both a windows and mac os x assembly programmer.
This big debate over 64bit is really interesting. 64bit is really only useful for the following situations:
1) Programs that use massive amounts of memory (like video editing or virtual machines)
2) Programs that compute very large numbers (remember 32bit is still 4294967295 unsigned; things like SETI@Home would benefit if converted)
3) Memory location randomization. You now have a significantly larger memory space (Theoretically: 4294967296 bytes compared to 18446744073709551616 bytes; but we all know that isn't all usable because of various hardware limitations on the logic boards, memory controllers and Intel CPU itself)
4) Programs can be redesigned to use the extra registers (8 in 32bit to 16 in 64bit); you could either build this yourself using assembly or use a compiler that can take advantage of this
5) Performance increases from not having to use the TLB
64bit hurts in the following ways:
1) More memory can be required if the program isn't designed to take advantage of it. While there is more overhead because of the larger addresses, the rest can be mitigated with proper programming.
2) Less compatibility. All your drivers need to have x86_64 support otherwise they will not work. While theoretically you could bring the 32bit translation layer closer into the kernel, it would be very bloated and would cause problems.
This is why Microsoft's WOW64 only translates application level code and NOT 32bit drivers.
This among other firmware reasons is why so few systems are supported. While they could all be fixed theoretically, it will take time. I remember when Windows XP 64 came out (Microsoft didn't do a transition period for the 64bit build, it was either you went pure, or you bought the regular XP), driver support was horrible. Among the biggest offenders were graphics vendors.
So Apple can either go ahead and support 64bit on systems where all the drivers aren't ready (Mac's that have the GMA950 for example), or they can wait until they have full support. I can gurantee people would be bitching alot more if they weren't able to use their video card fully compared to just not being 64bit.
Why 32bit stinks:
1) NX requires parts of PAE (because of the larger address table it needs). PAE is a hack. The kernel was already worked to allow for it. Drivers were reworked to account for this.
Leopard already uses this (hell Tiger even did), so it's not that big of a deal.
Other random comments/thoughts/relevant info:
1) I have a 2009 iMac (which is 64 capable according to release notes)
2) I've run Windows 64 since it's beta (I tested it for MS) and now run the RTM of Windows 7 64
3) I've been down the road of "first time" full 64bit, it's not that exciting. I can understand why it's set to an option now, and not default (even for systems that support it). It may seem very pretty now (and the cool thing to turn on), but it will cause problems until all the little kinks are ironed out.
This big debate over 64bit is really interesting. 64bit is really only useful for the following situations:
1) Programs that use massive amounts of memory (like video editing or virtual machines)
2) Programs that compute very large numbers (remember 32bit is still 4294967295 unsigned; things like SETI@Home would benefit if converted)
3) Memory location randomization. You now have a significantly larger memory space (Theoretically: 4294967296 bytes compared to 18446744073709551616 bytes; but we all know that isn't all usable because of various hardware limitations on the logic boards, memory controllers and Intel CPU itself)
4) Programs can be redesigned to use the extra registers (8 in 32bit to 16 in 64bit); you could either build this yourself using assembly or use a compiler that can take advantage of this
5) Performance increases from not having to use the TLB
64bit hurts in the following ways:
1) More memory can be required if the program isn't designed to take advantage of it. While there is more overhead because of the larger addresses, the rest can be mitigated with proper programming.
2) Less compatibility. All your drivers need to have x86_64 support otherwise they will not work. While theoretically you could bring the 32bit translation layer closer into the kernel, it would be very bloated and would cause problems.
This is why Microsoft's WOW64 only translates application level code and NOT 32bit drivers.
This among other firmware reasons is why so few systems are supported. While they could all be fixed theoretically, it will take time. I remember when Windows XP 64 came out (Microsoft didn't do a transition period for the 64bit build, it was either you went pure, or you bought the regular XP), driver support was horrible. Among the biggest offenders were graphics vendors.
So Apple can either go ahead and support 64bit on systems where all the drivers aren't ready (Mac's that have the GMA950 for example), or they can wait until they have full support. I can gurantee people would be bitching alot more if they weren't able to use their video card fully compared to just not being 64bit.
Why 32bit stinks:
1) NX requires parts of PAE (because of the larger address table it needs). PAE is a hack. The kernel was already worked to allow for it. Drivers were reworked to account for this.
Leopard already uses this (hell Tiger even did), so it's not that big of a deal.
Other random comments/thoughts/relevant info:
1) I have a 2009 iMac (which is 64 capable according to release notes)
2) I've run Windows 64 since it's beta (I tested it for MS) and now run the RTM of Windows 7 64
3) I've been down the road of "first time" full 64bit, it's not that exciting. I can understand why it's set to an option now, and not default (even for systems that support it). It may seem very pretty now (and the cool thing to turn on), but it will cause problems until all the little kinks are ironed out.
Apple sold PowerPC Macs within the last 2-3 years.
I've purchased more Macs than probably the demi-gods here have.
The list... LCIII, Quadra 605, Performa 6500, Powermac 6100, Powermac 8600, Powermac 8500, Powermac 9500, Powermac 9600, Powermac 7500, Powermac G4 sawtooth, 2 Powermac G4 Digital Audios, Powermac G4 Quicksilver, Powermac G4 MDD, and several Powermac G5s, along with 1 Intel Mac.
I'm sure I've forgotten a few along the way too. LOL
You?
Btw, Its not like I'm asking Apple to support 10 yr old machines, just ones 2-4 years old.
Apple previously supported Macs with operating system upgrades for 6-7 years!
And some of Snow Leopard's new features aren't even supported on many INTEL Macs!
so have we got any first hand reviews? im tired, n bored of complaints and arguements about 32bit, versus 64bit. Its silly, and we dont know for certain yet, as this is still a build, its not the final release.. crying out loud, the release is a whole month away!! Surely thats enough time to go n rewrite some drivers for the mac pro line so everyone will quit complaining?
PTP
PTP
so have we got any first hand reviews? im tired, n bored of complaints and arguements about 32bit, versus 64bit. Its silly, and we dont know for certain yet, as this is still a build, its not the final release.. crying out loud, the release is a whole month away!! Surely thats enough time to go n rewrite some drivers for the mac pro line so everyone will quit complaining?
PTP
Do you understand what the Golden Master build means?
It would mean that this IS the final build that will be put on retail discs and will be the same thing people will be installing come release day.
They've only got a month. Manufacturing and such takes a good deal of time.
Where are the 13 MBP and new Mac Mini?
13 in mbp 5,5 is missing? WTF?
Early 2008 Mac Pro MacPro3,1 Capable
Early 2008 Xserve Xserve2,1 Default
MacBook Pro 15/17 MacBookPro4,1 Capable
iMac iMac8,1 Capable
UniBody MacBook Pro 15 MacBookPro5,1 Capable
UniBody MacBook Pro 17 MacBookPro5,2 Capable
Mac Pro MacPro4,1 Capable
iMac iMac9,1 Capable
Early 2009 Xserve Xserve3,1 Default
13 in mbp 5,5 is missing? WTF?
Early 2008 Mac Pro MacPro3,1 Capable
Early 2008 Xserve Xserve2,1 Default
MacBook Pro 15/17 MacBookPro4,1 Capable
iMac iMac8,1 Capable
UniBody MacBook Pro 15 MacBookPro5,1 Capable
UniBody MacBook Pro 17 MacBookPro5,2 Capable
Mac Pro MacPro4,1 Capable
iMac iMac9,1 Capable
Early 2009 Xserve Xserve3,1 Default
Funny. I can download the presumed GM from several torrent sites, and have it installed this night or at least tomorrow morning, but i don't want to. It would be like opening your presents on the night before yule eve.
Thanks for the clear answer. Makes sense and hopefully everyone will calm down. People should realize there isn't going to be that big of a performance boost with this issue. Unless you happen to run those certain applications and have a fully maxed out Mac Pro.
Same thing goes for the argument of Snow Leopard being faster out of the box. Technology is there and you will notice that it's a little "snappier" (if you will) but that's it. I've been running it on the Mac Pro and Unibody MacBook (which isn't 64-bit supported right now) and it's not amazing. A lot of devs haven't even made their apps Snow Leopard-optimized. Give it time and please stop whining.
I'm a Demi-God, but not because I bought a lot of Macs... it's because I donated to the site. Technically, I think anyone can become a Demi-God regardless of their Mac buying history.
I'm sorry... but did Apple say this was the GM? No, they did not. So this could just be another developer seed. In fact, I believe Apple calls it a "Preview Release" still.
Don't correct people if you don't know what you're talking about.
I think anyone who's got this far in the thread understands what a "Gold(en) Master" is. The question is: do you understand that the only people calling this build a "Gold(en) Master" aren't part of Apple?
As far as Apple's concerned, this just a "Preview Build".
I already own 1 Intel Mac. I just happen to own lots of OTHER Leopard supported PowerPC Macs that WON'T be supported in any way by Snow Leopard.
So I think its a valid complaint.
This IS the GM that you will in the retail disks.
If you prefer to wait then good for you, but this IS the build that will be pressed on disks for sale.
When has Apple ever called something a GM build? As was said earlier, that just SCREAMS "leak this to the internet and hurt our sales figures"
Sure, they did it for iPhone OS, but eh. I think this is the real deal.
Wow 64
To clarify for people who aren't familiar with WOW64.
To clarify for people who aren't familiar with WOW64.
- There's no instruction level translation like Rosetta or Virtual PC on the PPC. All code in both 32-bit and 64-bit is executed directly by the CPU.
- WOW64 provides a full set of 32-bit libraries (in the \Windows\SysWOW64 directory, the \Windows\System32 contains the 64-bit versions)
- 32-bit applications dynamically link with the 32-bit libraries, and run in pure 32-bit compatibility mode with the CPU executing x86 instructions
- The "translation" occurs when the 32-bit app calls the system routines in the kernel. A "thunking" layer takes the 32-bit calling sequence from the app, translates it to the 64-bit calling sequence used by the kernel, and calls the matching 64-bit kernel routine in "long mode". After return, any results or status are translated from the 64-bit sequences back to the way the 32-bit program expects them, and it returns to the application in "compatibility mode".
Also... does one need to install the USB family drivers separately? Why are they a separate file?
I also get this on my 2006 C2D Macbook
See after read that and comparing to the seed note, it seems testing is only available on those machines as, more than likely, they already have 64bit extentions activated, where as the older machines (sold before Leopard was even put on sale) where running Tiger and I doubt Apple would have known 2 years in advance what their next operating system specifications would have been.
End of the day, I'm going to sit and wait and see if this seed activates 64bit in older machines. If not, well, nevermind.
Sorry if I ask...
But if there is basically no difference between the 32 bit and 64 bit kernel, why should Apple (or anyone else) bother to create a 64 bit kernel in the first place?
Apple computers are not exactly cheap. But I bought one considering it also an investment in the "long" run ("long" compared to the average Win machine). So it bothers me if my computer cannot FULLY run the latest OS because chances are it will become old faster. Particularly considering that there must have been some reason why a 64 bit kernel has been created in the first place and this reason, if my computer cannot run said kernel, will not be available to me.
I have a MBP 17" 4,1 so I will run SL fully and without any problem but I am talking about people who have also bought a Mac very recently and are left behind. Especially because, it seems, this was done out of "lazyness" and not because their computers are UNABLE from a HW point of view to run SL.
Maybe next year, if this is Apple's trend, some Pro apps will require the 64 bit kernel (for some reason) and then?
I am not an expert as many here are, but it is a matter of principle. Pay premium and expect my computer to be:
- better built
- better performing (at least for some months)
- longer lasting
than the average 300 USD Win netbook...
I keep seeing to do this command to verify if you are 64bit capable.
All it does is tell you if your processor can execute 64bit code. You can figure that out easily if you look in "About this mac" and see "Core 2 Duo".
Core Duo = not 64bit
Core 2 Duo = 64bit capable
The key there is your processor needs to be atleast the "Core 2" series or newer to support 64 bit mode.
This test states nothing about firmware or driver support which is keeping some users from running the 64 bit kernel.
Not quite. Mac Pros were the last to debut and did so Aug. 2006, that's 3 full years.
Guys this article is called "Apple Seeds Rumored Golden Master Mac OS X 10.6 (10A432) to Developers" not "Debate: 32 bit or 64 bit? We want 64-bit for all our machines now!"
How about we discuss the BUILD itself a little please and leave the kernel to the end like another poster pointed out.
How about we discuss the BUILD itself a little please and leave the kernel to the end like another poster pointed out.