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

bigrasmusdk said:
can anyone post the seed notes here, its only a 20kb RTF file. This will probably shed some light, whether it is or is not the GM seed.
Click to expand...

voilá
 

Attachments

  • 10.6_snow_leopard_client_10a432_seed_note.pdf
    51 KB · Views: 6,499
performance difference

Can anybody confirm a NOTICABLE performance increase in SL?

I'm very keen to hear any thoughts on this topic as SL seems to be a blast in terms of performance. Nothing like Tiger-Leopard transition. :eek:
 
Macbook Pro 17 inch early 2009 -

Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,2

64-bit Kernel and Extensions: No

Whats going on there?
 
blubbing.jpg
 
JohnDoe98 said:
For the 64 bit Kernel it's 4.x and up whether on a Mac Pro or a Macbook Pro for the time being. Just check your system profiler and if your first number is above 4 you're good to go. Otherwise you best hope Apple will provide driver support sometime soon for us 3.x folks. Either way you look at it though, it's rather disappointing that one pays so much for Apple products and has such a lousy driver support.
Click to expand...

Waiting for support for my MBP (2007 SR model). But I don't think it's that expensive piece of gear that "Apple owes me" -- still, it'd be nice to get 64-bit kernel and h.264 decode support as the hardware is perfectly capable.

At least it has the ExpressCard|34 slot and an old-skool matte display :)
 
celticpride678 said:
I don't think that is right.

Anyways, does anyone know if Snow Leopard solved the issue with UniBody Macs making a popping noise with the speakers? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I hope it does. This is really annoying. I must admit that I didn't notice it when I was running SL on my unibody MBP though... (could just be that I'm used to the popping, so ignore it!).
 
macintoshtoffy said:
Well that is just ****house; a computer less than a year old and Apple kills off support for it. Apple might as well tell all customers with computers older than a year to kill themselves because they're useless to Steve's grand master plan.
Click to expand...

Whoa, you are taking this to a pretty extreme heights. Just because that particular Mac Pro doesn't have 64bit kernel (let's just wait 'till we have the actual OS in our hands, OK?), it does not mean that Apple "kills off" support for it. Nor is anyone asking anyone to kill themselves.

Why don't you take a chill-pill OK?
 
Willis said:
I still think its BS that they have chosen to exclude older models. Our family Mac Pro isn't even 3 years old and was advertised as a 64-bit workstation, therefore, why have they chosen to ignore its hardware? Seems a bit redundant to me but nevermind. 32-bit it is... :confused:
Click to expand...

It runs 64bit apps, and it supports huge amounts of RAM. What exactly is the problem here?
 
If this is the GM and not a developer build, why does it not default to a 64bit kernel on capable machines?
 
Apple will make some money off of me...

I will almost definitely buy Snow Leopard sometime in Spring 2010 for my MacBook, partly for the 10.6.3 or beyond and partly for the iLife '09 cheekiness - if I must buy it, I'll wait for '10...

I will not be buying another Mac any time soon though. It seems my GMA 950 does not entitle me to 100% 64-bit support. I guess that's disappointing but not justification for a whole new computer.
 
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... Could that be potential for a law suit if other people wanted to go down that route? Pity they don't just release a firmware update to make all of this go away.

SiskoKid said:
Can someone PLEASE explain to me this 64-bit kernel thing?

I have a Mac Pro 1,1, and I don't know what a kernel is or what that means.

I have 64-bit Windows 7 beta running on my Mac Pro just fine, so why can't Snow Leopard run in 64-bit? Will Apple handle this? Does that mean that 64-bit software won't take advantage of my 64-bit processors?

Then what will Snow Leopard even add to my Mac Pro? I know my questions are all over the place, but I really don't understand this 32-bit kernel but 64-bit OS thing. If someone can explain it in layman terms, that'd be awesome :D
Click to expand...



bozz2006 said:
that would be madness if my mac pro, which has "64-bit workstation" written on the outside of the box, is not able to run the 64 bit version of the OS. that would be madness. Does anyone with a new mac pro or any of the newer machines have the new build loaded onto their machines in 64 bit?
Click to expand...



retroneo said:
Apple would need to make 64-bit drivers for all the components in the Mac Pro 1,1 - which they haven't chosen to do. There are many other machines they are not doing this for too - Including MacBooks, Mac minis and several MacBook Pros and iMacs.



On a Mac Pro 1,1 you will get the same 64 bit support as Leopard from the OS - plus almost all 64 bit system applications (not just Chess).

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...



macintoshtoffy said:
All of it being made by you voicing on matters you know nothing about.

Snow Leopard is 32/64bit - the 32bit version uses PAE which provides 36bit addressing.

The issue for those of us still in 32bit mode has to do with the fact that not all the drivers are 64bit - My MacBook has a 64bit processor (Santa Rosa) but due to Apple being too bloody lazy to create a 64bit X3100 driver, I am stuck in 32bit mode.

I swear I'm tempted to move to Windows 7 due to Apples pathetic support of computers that are less than a year old, 64bit capable but they decide to cripple the experience for their customers.
Click to expand...



commander.data said:
There are security improvements with 64-bit kernel support as well. Particularly, memory randomization is definitely more random with a 64-bit address space. Poor memory randomization implementation in Leopard was one of the major concerns pointed out by Charlie Miller of Pwn2Own fame. Even for models that don't support more than 4GB of RAM, having a 64-bit kernel would be useful to improve security. It's not like you can ever be too secure, especially with OS X's user base and profile ever growing.
Click to expand...



Willis said:
I still think its BS that they have chosen to exclude older models. Our family Mac Pro isn't even 3 years old and was advertised as a 64-bit workstation, therefore, why have they chosen to ignore its hardware? Seems a bit redundant to me but nevermind. 32-bit it is... :confused:
Click to expand...
 
JohnDoe98 said:
Doesn't Leopard already do this? Why are we paying for the "update" then?
Click to expand...

Well, gee, I dunno. Maybe we are paying for OpenCL? Grand Central? Cocoa-finder? Better performance? All those little tweaks everywhere? Or do you think that 64bit kernel is the only new thing in Snow Leopard?

:rolleyes:
 
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.
Click to expand...

So, if Snow Leopard has 32bit kernel on your machine, what do you think you would be missing, as opposed to having 64bit kernel? Could you provide some tangible examples?

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...

Those computers run 64bit apps just fine. What exactly is the problem?

Could that be potential for a law suit if other people wanted to go down that route?
Click to expand...

No.
 
Evangelion said:
Well, gee, I dunno. Maybe we are paying for OpenCL? Grand Central? Cocoa-finder? Better performance? All those little tweaks everywhere? Or do you think that 64bit kernel is the only new thing in Snow Leopard?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

...and maybe, at 29 bucks, it's a deal, it's a steal, it's the sale of the ****ing century!

:rolleyes:
 
cal6n said:
blubbing.jpg
Click to expand...

Well we do know 1) it's faster even if only slightly and 2) it provides greater security. We also know many hardware configurations are capable of running it and only require a driver update. We furthermore paid a premium for our computers which, in some cases, are just over a year old. We furthermore know that the future is moving in that direction (fully operative 64 bit configurations). We also know competing companies offer far superior driver support and provide that support for a longer duration than does Apple, which is obvious grounds for dissatisfaction with Apple's operation since if we pay for the best, we will be expecting the best (all across the board).

Now, if someone, such as yourself can provide good reasons as to why not all capable hardware configurations should be given these extra advantages, please do share. But if it is only a driver issue, as it certainly seems to be at this point, what reason can there be other than either of these repugnant alternatives: 1) Apple is too lazy to write new drivers or 2) Apple does not desire to write any said driver updates because it wants to try and "entice" people to upgrade to newer hardware sooner than later (i.e. in other words it is stagnating support prematurely).
 
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