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
I hope that someday you can realize how hurtful this attitude can be.
You can only judge words by the perception of the listener, the thoughts of the speaker are only relevant to the apologies needed after the words come out.
Did you do a web search for "engrish racist"? What did that tell you about how people perceive the word "engrish". Many are insulted or hurt - because it is a racially-based slur. It doesn't refer to "bad English", it refers to a stereotype of Asian peoples' difficulties with English. Native French speakers typically have trouble with a common set of words/expressions - is that "Engrish"?
Please, go to some city and say "Hi, n*****s" to a bunch of black dudes, and explain that you meant it as a joke right before you're beaten to a pulp. As you collect your broken teeth, say "the only thing that is relevant is the motivation behind the words"....
Says who? No one is positive about whether this is or is not the GM build of Snow Leopard. If you people honestly believe that moron who claimed to be an employee of Apple London, god help you.
Xbench Inaccurate on SL?
Guys (and Gals),
I must say, I am baffled.
My Xbench Scores on my iMac 24" 2.4GHZ w/ 4GB RAM seem a little off. I downloaded and installed 10A432 tonight and here are my results:
Xbench on Leopard (Latest version with w/ all updates applied) = 152.94
Xbench on Snow Leopard 10A432 = 140.10
Xbench on Snow Leopard 10A432 with 6 and 4 held down during boot to force 64-bit kernel = 138.70
SL 10A432 is on the same drive (different partition) as Leopard.
What's weird is that SL seems much faster in use, but slower in Xbench.
My guess is that Xbench is a 32-bit App, and therefore unable to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture of SL, and also, therefore, not an accurate benchmarking tool for such a comparison?
Many thanks in advance.
--Mike
Guys (and Gals),
I must say, I am baffled.
My Xbench Scores on my iMac 24" 2.4GHZ w/ 4GB RAM seem a little off. I downloaded and installed 10A432 tonight and here are my results:
Xbench on Leopard (Latest version with w/ all updates applied) = 152.94
Xbench on Snow Leopard 10A432 = 140.10
Xbench on Snow Leopard 10A432 with 6 and 4 held down during boot to force 64-bit kernel = 138.70
SL 10A432 is on the same drive (different partition) as Leopard.
What's weird is that SL seems much faster in use, but slower in Xbench.
My guess is that Xbench is a 32-bit App, and therefore unable to take advantage of the 64-bit architecture of SL, and also, therefore, not an accurate benchmarking tool for such a comparison?
Many thanks in advance.
--Mike
so if I install 10A432, I can upgrade to retail Snow Leopard right??? I have it burned and ready to install right now, but am unsure about upgrading from Leopard (don't wanna do a clean install)
I think that's really anybody's guess, but I'd be surprised if you couldn't. If the shipping version isn't 10A432, then it will be a later version which should happily upgrade a previous version. Again, only time will tell, that's why I'm playing with SL in a second partition on my iMac.
XBench/Geekbench and what have you are never accurate when it comes to measuring the apparent 'speed' of an operating system. The best way to benchmark it is 'feel' - does it 'feel' faster? does it compress music faster? does it compress videos faster? those are the real benchmarks - not synthetic BS benchmarks.
OK guys, I installed it, and I'll develop why I am sure that this is not the GM version (but we are near) :
- there is still some lags with Spaces (see below)
- Some of the documentation (french example here) has not been changed entirely
- No QuickTime X preferences (even minimalist, like "play video at launch")
- DVD player is not 64bits ready
- Windows 7 drivers are not finished
- No text subsitution in Mail 4.0 (the help section from System preferences is annoncing it for iChat, TextEdit and… iMovie ! xD)
- And last (for now), this non-default-64bits-kernel.
So, I have an image (and a video, I am editing it) of this Spaces glitch and lag, could you verify it ?
When you have 4 Spaces, switching with the keyboard between the 1st and the 3rd is laggy (and even without any applications opened), and sometimes you have a glitch when going from 1 to 3, like this :
- there is still some lags with Spaces (see below)
- Some of the documentation (french example here) has not been changed entirely
- No QuickTime X preferences (even minimalist, like "play video at launch")
- DVD player is not 64bits ready
- Windows 7 drivers are not finished
- No text subsitution in Mail 4.0 (the help section from System preferences is annoncing it for iChat, TextEdit and… iMovie ! xD)
- And last (for now), this non-default-64bits-kernel.
So, I have an image (and a video, I am editing it) of this Spaces glitch and lag, could you verify it ?
When you have 4 Spaces, switching with the keyboard between the 1st and the 3rd is laggy (and even without any applications opened), and sometimes you have a glitch when going from 1 to 3, like this :
Sorry to bring back the thing .. but ..
from what i understood, Macbook late 2008 will and can run 64bit. The weird thing is : when i hold 6 + 4 when i boot my Macbook, it just keep saying 64bit is not activated.
I did Terminal trick to force 64bit mode without hold the keys, but nothing more happened.
So, is it a special
restriction ( .. one more .. )?
Is my Macbook weird ?
Is SL weird ?
Am i weird ?
cheers !
from what i understood, Macbook late 2008 will and can run 64bit. The weird thing is : when i hold 6 + 4 when i boot my Macbook, it just keep saying 64bit is not activated.
I did Terminal trick to force 64bit mode without hold the keys, but nothing more happened.
So, is it a special
restriction ( .. one more .. )?Is my Macbook weird ?
Is SL weird ?
Am i weird ?
cheers !
Sorry to bring back the thing .. but ..
from what i understood, Macbook late 2008 will and can run 64bit. The weird thing is : when i hold 6 + 4 when i boot my Macbook, it just keep saying 64bit is not activated.
I did Terminal trick to force 64bit mode without hold the keys, but nothing more happened.
So, is it a special
Is my Macbook weird ?
Is SL weird ?
Am i weird ?
cheers !
From what I understand - Snow Leopard is only going 64bit kernel on XServe's.
Sorry to bring back the thing .. but ..
from what i understood, Macbook late 2008 will and can run 64bit. The weird thing is : when i hold 6 + 4 when i boot my Macbook, it just keep saying 64bit is not activated.
I did Terminal trick to force 64bit mode without hold the keys, but nothing more happened.
So, is it a special
Is my Macbook weird ?
Is SL weird ?
Am i weird ?
cheers !
I think that's a special exception. You need to hold 6 + 9 and let it boot up in 69 bit mode.
The Macbooks aren't listed in the release notes, only the Macbook Pro's.
Try holding 6 + 4 while hitting the power button though.
don't think so, because i know users with 64bit mode enabled on late 2008 MacbookPro (mine is MacBook, same period ... strange ... !)
This 64bit-mode is terribly weird for us all !
@pilotError
i tried 6+9 mode , and Bl0+J0b mode , nothing came
any ideas why recent MacBook are "blacklisted" .. ??
I think that's a special exception. You need to hold 6 + 9 and let it boot up in 69 bit mode.
The Macbooks aren't listed in the release notes, only the Macbook Pro's.
Try holding 6 + 4 while hitting the power button though.
According to:
http://netkas.org/?p=127
Only XServe will boot using the 64bit kernel by default; the MacBook Pro, I have a feeling are supported with a 64bit kernel so that developers can manually configure it to boot into 64bit to test kernel extensions and so forth but still default to 32bit kernel because the majority of MacBook Pro users aren't developers and thus to avoid compatibility issues will default to 32bit kernel.
Having looked further in - I can see why some have raised '32bit kernel isn't a big thing' because the kernel remaining 32bit doesn't effect most people given you can run 64bit applications with all the benefits of 64bitness.
1) Did you have to manually specify 64bit through either key combination or modifying a plist file?
2) According to the latest seed file, only XServe boot by default with the 64bit kernel.
1 - yes, tried both
2 - according to macintoshtoffy, no 64bit Kernel for Macbook, iMac, MacPro. Is that real ? I mean .. sounds weird !
Fixed it for you...
You do miss out on some security and performance improvements when running the 32-bit kernel.
"64-bit kernel works only on macs with 64-bit efi, this is limitation set by Apple, technicaly 64-bit kernel can be launched by 32-bit efi just fine.
also Apple disabled 64-bit kernel support for any macbooks, even with 64-bit efi."
http://netkas.org/?p=127
Like I said/thought: If Apple doesn't change it in the future, it is just a "political decission" and no technical decission, that many macs can't boot with 64Bit Kernel (also not the macbook 13" unibody and the mac mini - till now).
Thanks for this complete info .. !
So, to resume : my Macbook late 2008 is 64bit capable but Apple doesn't authorize to boot it with 64 Kernel.
From what I understand, these features are part of the 64bit ABI used by Mac OS X - so it isn't an issue of the kernel itself.
So in other words, they aren't booting the 64bit kernel by default - capable does not mean booting by default.
No really, it doesn't sound weird. Very few people yield any benefit out of it by the way Mac OS X is designed. With Windows it is an 'all or nothing' affair where as with Mac OS X, its a completely different kettle of fish.
Well, not political - practical. There are many, many, many kernel extensions out there which aren't 64bit yet. I am running an iMac which is 64bit capable with a 64bit kernel - but I also rely on EyeTV, the last thing I want to have to contend with is finding my EyeTV doesn't work on the day I install it because I'm running a 64bit kernel and the extension is 32bit.
I also think the buzz about 64bitness is unwarranted given that having educated myself (after much ranting by me about the evils of a not having a 64bit kernel) - Mac OS X is a different kettle of fish to the 64bit migration path Windows and Linux/*BSD/OpenSolaris are taking.
don't think so, because i know users with 64bit mode enabled on late 2008 MacbookPro (mine is MacBook, same period ... strange ... !)
This 64bit-mode is terribly weird for us all !
@pilotError
i tried 6+9 mode , and Bl0+J0b mode , nothing came
any ideas why recent MacBook are "blacklisted" .. ??
I don't think they are blacklisted per se, but there's no real advantage to having a 64 bit kernel unless your running the pro app's. The 32 bit kernel is faster at most things, so maybe they concentrated on the Pro machines before turning their attention to the other models.
They may even forgo 64 bit on the entire Macbook / Mac Mini line. The drivers aren't there yet, so they may have picked a cut off point in time and will only support 64 bit for future hardware.
It's hard to say right now, but Apple doesn't have an issue with leaving older hardware behind. I think everyone will be happy just running the 32 bit Snow Leopard.
Maybe for that reason it is practical, that the macs still boot by default the 32bit kernel - for now. But in the future there will be no need for that, because there will be 64Bit Kext for the most things.
What about the Mac Mini and the Macbook (Pro) 13" Unibody? These macs have the same hardware like the macbook pro 15" unibody, which is indeed "capable". So the drivers are there! But Apple is not mention these modells on that list.
Thanks all.
Does anyone/everyone here running 10A432 think it is stable/polished enough to install as my main OS? I don't use my machine for work.
Obviously if it is the GM, then Apple thinks it's stable/polished enough, but even if 10A432 is not the GM, what do you all think?
I was tempted to download the torrent; infact, I had started downloading around 70MB then thought about it for a second; if this is the GM, maybe I'm paranoid, but given the scum bags out there who are spreading malware around, I don't trust an unknown image with my personal details on it.
Ignoring the moral part of the equation, I'd prefer to know that I've got the genuine thing by getting it from the shops.
I don't think it is; I personally think that the person who started the leak got it wrong and the date of 28 is the date of orders from Apple or the definite shipping date will be announced by then.
Just look at the number of claims since the beginning of the year regarding the GM date of Snow Leopard as poof - the GM is when Apple says it is, not because some tipster claims he is the all knowing guru of all things Mac.
I completely see your point(s).
However naive it may sound, I convinced myself that if I grabbed it quickly enough, no nefarious party would have had time to inject a trojan. Silly, I know.
Also, I fully intend to buy it the day it is available. In fact, I think the main reason I hesitate to install it as my main OS, is that it takes all the excitement and anticipation away -- and that's usually the best part of anything in life.
You're probably right, but then Apple has surprised us before by shipping stuff that really wasn't ready. Either way they'll probably have to issue a few patches almost immediately for whatever issues could not be completely resolved before RTM.