Apple Seeds Snow Leopard 10A190 (Mac OX 10.6) to Developers

[m1stake]

I have an iphone and love it but I would love to have a complete macworld keynote with out hearing one thing about the iphone.

Dear Steve Jobs,

Please **** about the iPhone and give me some new hardware.

Thanks,

XXXXX


P.S.: Add cut and paste.

 

[Stridder44]

Default Gamma Changes

To better meet the needs of digital content producers and consumers, the default display gamma has been changed from 1.8 to 2.2 in Snow Leopard. Applications that override the deftault and assume a gamma 1.8 setting may have different onscreen and printed output than they did in previous releases of Mac OS X. Please report any visual differences that you encounter.

That's the default Windows gamma. Huh, very interesting. I'm happy though. One thing I've never like was the default 1.8 gamma of OS X. I always changed it to 2.2 since Jaguar. Happy to see they'll be doing this for me.

 

[CJYetman]

Maybe BUG FIX is too strong a term, but it's hardly far from the truth from public comments. The WWDC people dispute this but then say they can't say anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

"A software bug (or just “bug”) is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, fault or “undocumented feature” in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended (e.g., producing an incorrect or unexpected result). Most bugs arise from mistakes and errors made by people in either a program's source code or its design, and a few are caused by compilers producing incorrect code."

 

[NT1440]

Apple doesn't have a single decent reason for discontinuing PowerPC support.

Yea, you know, except for the fact that they dont make PPC machines anymore

Apple is notorious for moving on from the past. Why support something that has absolutly no future?

 

[pbbaker]

Just wondering out loud

At what point (as I am about to purchase a windows laptop for the first since 1998 because of necessity), will we be able to run windows based software natively?

As I prepare myself for the Vista plunge.

 

[apexfork]

Why do I feed the trolls? Because duty calls.

Ridiculous. Grow up kool aid drinker. I've been posting here for a long time, have used Apple products since 1983 ( yes, an Apple ][e! ), and you've never seen me say anything nice about Microsoft or Vista.

When the original Macintosh came out, your 1 year old Apple ][e didn't run MacOS. I'm just sayin'...maybe you have a knack for buying the top end of an about-to-be-obsolete platform. Did you also buy a G5 Xserve?

Apple is screwing over its staunchest longtime supporters and buyers of $4000 Macs and the people that kept them in business BEFORE the iPOD, iPHONE, PC Switcher money started kicking in.

At WWDC'03, the G5 Mac was announced. At WWDC'05, the Intel transition was announced. Anyone who bought a PPC after that date knew what they were buying into. At WWDC'08, Snow Leopard was mentioned. Possibly as early as WWDC'09, it will be released, some 6 years after 64-bit PPC appeared, and 4 years after the Intel announcement.

Even if you choose to ride the bleeding edge of (released) software, Apple has given you 4 years to prepare for this. If you can't justify a computer every 4 to 6 years, you are not on Apple's radar because you're not an Apple customer. Maybe you used to be, but you're not now.

This is different than Mac OS 9. Everyone knew it had to go. Apple doesn't have a single decent reason for discontinuing PowerPC support.

Everyone except you apparently knows that PPC has to go eventually. The costs for testing SL on the various PPC platforms are simply not worth it, and since there are no new user features, why wouldn't you just continue to run Leopard anyway?

Apple can't spare a couple mil from those BILLIONS AND BILLIONS in the bank? PLEASE!

Could they get SL on PPC? Probably. Should they spend the shareholders' money just to keep people from buying Apple systems? Probably not.

Seriously, someone give me ONE single reason why Apple doesn't have or can't afford the resources to release Snow Leopard for PowerPC in some fashion.

Of course they can afford it, they have more cash than Microsoft now, but here's one reason why they shouldn't do it: PPC holdouts (by mid '09) are people who aren't buying systems. People who aren't buying systems are not Apple customers.

With a worsening economy and people buying less computers in general, this is a bad time for Steve Jobs to make one of his "LETS PUT IT IN A COFFIN" decisions. It's just bad PR and will make some people rethink their purchasing decisions in the future, especially if the Mac Mini is also discontinued at the same time during a bad economy.

As opposed to entering a sluggish economy and doing extra work to make it so people won't buy new systems? Well, that's just bad business.

So let's see, we've shown that you don't understand SL (it's not "bugfixes for Leopard"), you don't need SL (the externals are the same as Leopard, and you don't know the internals), and you can't even run SL (because you won't buy a system capable of running it). So why don't you just run Leopard on your PPC machine? You're basically complaining that you can't run an OS that doesn't exist yet, even though you can't even articulate a need to do so in the first place.

Sorry to everyone else for feeding this troll. I'll go back to lurking now...

 

[leechlife]

hopefully 10.6 will have the same system reqs as 10.5. The fans on my early 2008 MacBook go crazy when more than a third of the processor speed is being used. That's why I only have safari, iTunes and a few other apps open.

Would be very funny if the reqs are higher than for 10.5 considering that the 'big' feature is speed increase and code cleanup, so except for support drops of older hardware, the os should run better than 10.5 on slower machines.

 

[Maximillian]

At what point (as I am about to purchase a windows laptop for the first since 1998 because of necessity), will we be able to run windows based software natively?

Last year?

You can boot into windows or run it side-by-side with OS X. Take your pick.

 

[AidenShaw]

Sorry, but Apple did it first, and never argued against such strategy. In fact, they may be seen as the masters of migration and initially controversial evolutionary decisions that later proved right. ...

But the story is that Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only, because Apple's "migration strategy" of trying to support 64-bit applications with a 32-bit kernel and drivers is hopelessly flawed.

The "clean break" was a necessity for MS because they simply didn't know what to do with legacy support. And that's why they are in such a bad shape now; no ordinary user employs Win64 (or is even aware of it, with its neverending incompatibilities....

And Snow Leopard will be Apple's "clean break", with its neverending incompatibilities (no PPC support, no 32-bit Core Duo support, all new hardware drivers...)

And, by the way, check again on Vista x64 usage - all those 4 GiB to 8 GiB and higher Windows laptops and desktops are running it. And the "ordinary users" aren't even aware that they're on Vista x64 - all the Vista-logo software "just works". A vast majority of the legacy 32-bit software also "just works".

I have Vista x64 on most of my personal systems, and it's basically invisible for the most part. The same application downloads that run on Vista x86 install and run on Vista x64. It's just the occasional driver download where I have to get the right one for the current system (and many drivers come packaged in "universal" kits - the same driver download runs on both x86 and x64).

See 64-bit Vista uptake increases dramatically for more info - sorry if facts conflict with your fanboi ravings.

Apple, on the other hand, has ALWAYS provided a clean, transparent way for running legacy apps, thus giving customers a much smoother pathway to newer machines and OS versions. Those complaining are those REFUSING to follow that path even after many years...so Tiger suffices for them.

... wait for Snow Leopard, and try repeating this argument

 

[NT1440]

Im not really sure why people are complaining about SL. No ones making you upgrade.

 

[Compile 'em all]

At what point (as I am about to purchase a windows laptop for the first since 1998 because of necessity), will we be able to run windows based software natively?

As I prepare myself for the Vista plunge.

never.

 

[kjs862]

Can't wait to see a preview for SL. I'm really hoping for a lot of code optimization

 

[manhattanboy]

Total guess: 7-8 months? That would make it 18 months after Leopard was released.

I disagree.
Probably by May 09
too many beta's for so long a process

 

[w0ngbr4d]

And one more point.... Apple STILL hasn't added back the ability to simply open a folder from the dock, a feature going back to the earliest versions of OSX that was removed in Leopard for all of the new fancy dock features. Sure, I like those options and features, but the lack of ability to simply just set a folder to open as a folder in the dock shows an astounding lack of respect for how users have interacted with the Mac operating system for so many years and shows how unpolished Leopard still is.

You mean like this (left-click):

or like this (right-click):

I agree 10.5.0 didn't have this feature...but it does now. Yes, it is one more click, but is it really that bad?

 

[bengal85]

snow leopard that is a cool name

better than vista

I would upgrade to it if I had a mac just because

1. mac's do not come along with the saying of :is it going to work today"
2. vista is buggy and I do not think they will ever totally fix it to the point that I would trust it

 

[AidenShaw]

As I prepare myself for the Vista plunge.

Let us now how it feels.

My bet is that you'll have something like a "Mojave experience" - it will be much better than the fanboi rants would have led you to believe.

 

[cyberakuma]

At what point (as I am about to purchase a windows laptop for the first since 1998 because of necessity), will we be able to run windows based software natively?

As I prepare myself for the Vista plunge.

When Windows apps start to support the Macintosh HIG, and Apple begins to lose marketshare back to Microsoft?

IBM tried windows compatibility in OS/2. It didn't work out so well for them.

 

[SydneyDev]

But the story is that Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only, because Apple's "migration strategy" of trying to support 64-bit applications with a 32-bit kernel and drivers is hopelessly flawed.

It may not be as clean a break as you think...

According to the "seed notes" linked in the article, it loads the 32-bit kernel by default on most Macs, you have to hold down "6" and "4" to get the 64-bit version. This may change in the release version though.

 

[AidenShaw]

According to the "seed notes" linked in the article, it loads the 32-bit kernel by default on most Macs, you have to hold down "6" and "4" to get the 64-bit version.

Ick.

Will Apple ever move to 64-bits, or will these gross hacks continue?

But, no matter to me, I have the true 64-bit Windows support for my systems.

 

[cyberakuma]

And Snow Leopard will be Apple's "clean break", with its neverending incompatibilities (no PPC support, no 32-bit Core Duo support, all new hardware drivers...)

I sure hope they at least support the 32-bit intel machines; some of those 32-bit machines will still be under AppleCare when SL comes out.

I can see them being dropped in 10.7, but hopefully not 10.6. I gave my iMac (bought March '06) away to family because the lack of Java 6 support was frustrating me too much.

 

[SydneyDev]

Ick.

Will Apple ever move to 64-bits, or will these gross hacks continue?

But, no matter to me, I have the true 64-bit Windows support for my systems.

They don't seem to be in any hurry, that's for sure. They seem to be concentraing more on multi-core support than 64-bit.

I am running Vista x64 on my PC also and very painless.

 

[mixel]

They don't seem to be in any hurry, that's for sure. They seem to be concentraing more on multi-core support than 64-bit.

I am running Vista x64 on my PC also and very painless.

I run Vista64 on my iMac painlessly too, despite it not being a supported config by Apple.

I've seen people talk about the kernel thing before.. What practical difference will it make to the end user if the kernel is 64 or 32 bit?

 

[AidenShaw]

What practical difference will it make to the end user if the kernel is 64 or 32 bit?

Performance.

Running 32-bit kernel drivers with 64-bit applications forces a lot of extra overhead for IO. With a 64-bit kernel, the overhead disappears.

 

[SydneyDev]

I've seen people talk about the kernel thing before.. What practical difference will it make to the end user if the kernel is 64 or 32 bit?

Some speedup. But there is a lot more potential speedup from the multi-core stuff Apple is doing than from a 64-bit kernel. They may have outflanked MS here.

 

[Rocketman]

But the story is that Snow Leopard will be 64-bit only, because Apple's "migration strategy" of trying to support 64-bit applications with a 32-bit kernel and drivers is hopelessly flawed.

And Snow Leopard will be Apple's "clean break", with its neverending incompatibilities (no PPC support, no 32-bit Core Duo support, all new hardware drivers...)

Well, not excactly.

Snow Leopard (10.6) will be as 64 bit clean as an application can claim and still have an Apple brand on it. It will improve over time with 10.6.0. 10.6.1, 10.6.2, 10.6.3, 10.6.4 by that time it will be "mostly 64 bit clean."

10.6 itself will be delivered as a fat application with PPC, Intel, and Apple Intel 64 code.

The "sales features" will be the new stuff which will be 64 bit centric. The server stuff will be 64 bit centric.

Apple will continue to focus on low end consumers with iPhones and their bretheren.

The Mac Book of 6, 12, 18 months from now will run Leopard and Snow Leopard, but trailing edge adopters will be much happier with Leopard now that bug fixes are at least 60% there at 10.5.6.

There won't be any CPU's that won't even run either 32 or 64 bit.

Rocketman