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

10A432 is released on torrents lol... that was fast.

I'm downloading this from the ADC right now... damn 6GB, hope my modem don't fail
 
HyperZboy said:
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!
Click to expand...

Yes but anyone who purchased a Mac after January 2006 knew the Intel transition was at hand. There was no sleight of hand by Apple to fool people into purchasing PPC Macs. In June of 2005 they announced it to the world. Here we are over 4 years removed from that announcement. Apple did previously support older computers longer but something can be said for reducing the length of support given that 10 years ago the avg margin for a computer was over 20pts today it's less than 7pts. Consumers get far more for their money even when accounting for inflation yet the downside is they are expected to refresh their setups more often.
 
abecker said:
This test states nothing about firmware or driver support which is keeping some users from running the 64 bit kernel.
Click to expand...

Yup, that test is bogus. My iMac (7,1) has 64-bit EFI, a C2D and ATI graphics and yet is not listed among the systems that can be tested with the 64-bit SL kernel. My underwear isn't in a bunch over this.

What I am puzzled by is the H.264 support. ATI's HD 2600 Pro chipsets have support for dedicated H.264 decoding and yet Apple is, for unknown reasons, choosing not to use it with QuickTime X. A little light shown on this would be reassuring if not still disappointing.

For folks with "older" Intel Macs (mine is 16mo), SL doesn't seem to have much on offer in the way of new technology (OpenCL, H.264, 64-bit kernel support). The big "excitement" would probably the "crash resistance" for Safari. :rolleyes:
 
fpar said:
If this is the GM and not a developer build, why does it not default to a 64bit kernel on capable machines?
Click to expand...

For compatibility. The 64bit kernel is just an infant, and would not load on most people's machines due to a lack of 64bit extensions. So while the rest of the OS loads in 64bit mode, the kernel remains at 32 for sanity sake.

Only the Xserve kernel loads in 64bit by default.


OZMP said:
I have high lighted the following posts to emphasize my point...
I purchased a workstation advertised as being 64bit, in the belief that in the future it would be able to run future Apple 64Bit OS releases. I would of been happy to keep the G5 for longer if I had of known it would of turned out like this. Its almost like false/misleading advertising/labeling on the box of a large number of the 06/07 high end computers...
Click to expand...

1. You ARE running a 64bit machine, and it will run a 64bit version of 10.6. Only the kernel will run in 32bit mode. More on that later.

2. Your G5 ran a 32bit kernel too.


OZMP said:
Pity they don't just release a firmware update to make all of this go away.
Click to expand...

If it's a driver issue, they might. If it's an EFI firmware issue they may not. If 10.6 requires EFi 2.x then it would explain why they excluded the Mac Pro 1,1 and 1,2, since they shipped with EFI 1.x.


MacRumorUser said:
Why wouldn't SL run in 64bit on a MacPro 1,1 ? Other than Apple 'artificially' limiting the system.
Click to expand...

It does run in 64bit. Only the kernel and it's extensions will run in 32bit mode.


MacRumorUser said:
If Windows can run in 64bit on a MP 1,1 then surely it's utterly shocking and seriously depressing that Apple's new operating system will not.
Click to expand...

Actually, Windows 7 64bit has the exact same problem with the Mac Pro 1,1 as Windows 7 64bit doesn't support EFI 1.x. People have to do some hackery to get Win7 to install on an original Mac Pro.


soup4you2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, it WILL run in 64bit glory. The only difference will be kernel support. Apple never advertised that the kernel would be 64bit for all Macs. Despite what people are saying you will never know the difference.
 
CristobalHuet said:
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. :)
Click to expand...

Also, if you notice, it says "Apple Seeds Rumored Golden Master Mac OS X 10.6 (10A432) to Developers"

Nobody's even sure if it truly is the Golden Master yet. Leopard GM was announced 10 days before the discs were shipped.
 
dru` said:
Not quite. Mac Pros were the last to debut and did so Aug. 2006, that's 3 full years. :cool:
Click to expand...

Apple & other companies routinely sell computers to schools and other institutions long after their official retail discontinuation date, but you are right on the official discontinuation date. That is exactly 3 years ago.
 
I must look at things in too simplistically. My Macbook is 3.5 years old, and the day before snow leopard is released, it will work the same as the day I bought it. The day after snow leopard is released ... it still will. Wahoo!! The way I look at it, it does everything promised when I bought it. There was no listing in the feature group that said "will work with the next operating system' or if it was more than 2 years ago 'will work with the next 2 (two .... FREAKING TWO) operating systems'. Would it be nice if it did? Sure it would, but it still does what it says it was supposed to do. If it doesn't, get it fixed under warranty.

I saw they did a security update for Tiger. Cool, still supporting it.

You might be unhappy, but the constitution only allows you to pursue happiness, not necessarily attain it.
 
nuckinfutz said:
Yes but anyone who purchased a Mac after January 2006 knew the Intel transition was at hand. There was no sleight of hand by Apple to fool people into purchasing PPC Macs. In June of 2005 they announced it to the world. Here we are over 4 years removed from that announcement. Apple did previously support older computers longer but something can be said for reducing the length of support given that 10 years ago the avg margin for a computer was over 20pts today it's less than 7pts. Consumers get far more for their money even when accounting for inflation yet the downside is they are expected to refresh their setups more often.
Click to expand...

I think you have it all backwards.
There is less need then ever to refresh your computer setups. Advancements have slowed to a crawl these days.

And Steve Jobs made lots of PowerPC promises during that INTEL announcement in order to keep PowerPC sales going strong during the transition so I think it's a valid complaint.

No PowerPC user for 10 years is asking for support in Snow Leopard.
I think even PowerPC users of equipment at 5 years old saw the writing on the wall.

But 2-3 years of dropping Operating System upgrade support (beyond security issues for legal reasons)
is just wrong, period, in my opinion. Obviously the 75%-80% Intel people here disagree.
That is to be expected.
 
DUSTmurph said:
What would be the benefits, if any, of running a 64 bit kernel in opposed to running a 32 bit kernel? would it be significantly faster? slightly faster?
Click to expand...

Basically two things: slightly faster (not noticeably except in very unusual cases), and it won't crash from running out of address space if you stick like 40GB of ram in your machine.

Most of the benefits people talk about when talking about 64 bit software are from 64 bit applications.

Bottom line: if you don't have 40GB of ram (and I really do mean around 40GB, not just "a lot"), it doesn't matter. It's not a major part of Snow Leopard, and if you think it's the reason why things are faster you're wrong.
 
chrisa107 said:
Still no preferences for Quicktime - maybe not the GM after all?
Click to expand...

Can you answer this for me: 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.

I second your frustrations with the lack of CT prefs. I can understand the logic in just making it a good fast player, but the lack of same of those basic prefs is very annoying.
 
retroneo said:
You will miss out on the TLB performance improvement. And the kernel won't run in 64 bit mode.

It's described reasonably in this article:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ard_twice_the_ram_half_the_price_64_bits.html
Click to expand...

In that article, it states "This will benefit all 64-bit Mac users with a Core 2 CPU or better, even those lacking a Santa Rosa platform-style chipset, as being able to run 64-bit code and virtual memory is not tied to the amount of addressable system RAM."

So we Mac Pro 1,1 owners, with fully 64-bit-capable CPUs, STILL cannot enjoy the full 64-bit experience, even though Phil SAID at the 2006 WWDC that these were 64-bit machines? (Fast forward to 9:00) And the very article you linked to says we should be able to?

I've invested quite a bit in this Pro to get 64-bit goodness in September. I cannot accept that the "1st 64-bit Mac" won't be 64-bit when the OS is finally 64-bit!!!! :mad:

JP
 
And do we have any info about which Boot Camp drivers are included with this seed ?

Any Windows 7 out-of-beta drivers ?
 
Chris Grande said:
Can you answer this for me: 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.

I second your frustrations with the lack of CT prefs. I can understand the logic in just making it a good fast player, but the lack of same of those basic prefs is very annoying.
Click to expand...

Preference stil there, and still don't show up in dock menu. Lame.

And yeah, I need my Quicktime preferences back if only for secondary screen control - sorta important for me.
 
chrisa107 said:
Preference stil there, and still don't show up in dock menu. Lame.

And yeah, I need my Quicktime preferences back if only for secondary screen control - sorta important for me.
Click to expand...

That sucks. Thanks for the info. I suggested in my bug report that they shrink the App icon in the dock down to 70/80% then stack the windows behind it in the same fashion that stacks do. While I like the feature it is kind of annoying not knowing if an app has windows.
 
And good news...even if this isn't the GM you will be able to upgrade to retail from this version(From Apple). Previous versions it said you couldn't so it's nice to know that if I install this version I can upgrade to final when it's released.
 
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