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 Snow Leopard 10A190 (Mac OX 10.6) to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am going to get in trouble for breaking the NDA and telling you folks this but I think this feature is so revolutionary and awesome that I can't not share it.
Snow Leopard will actually clean your toilet for you!!!
Yeah, lame. Still felt it needed to be said.
Snow Leopard will actually clean your toilet for you!!!
Yeah, lame. Still felt it needed to be said.
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...)
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.
... wait for Snow Leopard, and try repeating this argument
So let me stop you right there...now you wanna equate the single (and still unsuccessful) approach taken by MS for Win64 with the several VIRTUALLY FLAWLESS migrations adopted by Apple?
Even the examples that you yourself provide, as a good ol' rabid Windows fanboy, don't come close to the fact that I have never needed to download "drivers" in order to use OS 9 (on OS X) or PPC (on Intel) applications. They have been de facto transparent operations to any Mac user for years.
Besides, to quote the official MS Vista blog for basing your "facts" is as relevant as believing MS's numbers for the "phenomenal" adoption rate of Vista...not. But even in that blog I found an interesting comment:
As for SL, whatever you say is simply vaporware-like speculation; Apple did NOT confirm definitive technical requirements, and will most probably AVOID any Vista-like experiences with migration, since Apple is THE master by excellence of smooth evolutionary steps.
Finally, adoption of Vista 64 (or ANY Vista, for that matter) is a market joke. To say, without any statistically-relevant basis, that "all" high-end machines are using it is just glib, and you know it.
For more FACTS, please see below an article that comments on exactly what you quoted above...I must agree that it's so easy to get triple growth when you depart from "nil"...
:Aiden, don't be afraid to switch; you're gonna enjoy it, especially when SL comes out...
Well said! Well said!
This is exactly how people *should* be looking at things. How long can your machine do the tasks you originally bought it for, before it starts getting in your way?
Apple is an innovative company, and that means changes happen relatively quickly with their product line. People get too caught up in having whatever the "latest thing" is though, without fully thinking through the cost/benefit ratio of it. (Or on the flip-side, they get too caught up in trying to hang onto dated machines, vs. spending some money in the short-term for an upgrade that will pay back in the years that follow.)
Personally, I think certain changes from Apple are of a big enough magnitude that they should be driving people to seriously consider an upgrade. Others are "nice improvements", but may or may not make economic sense to upgrade to, if you already own a capable system.
The switch from PPC to Intel is a *huge* change, and it caused me to sell off all my PPC Macs in pretty short order. But truthfully, I wouldn't have felt that same "urgency" if I was mainly using my system for the Adobe Creative Suite. (I know one graphics designer who still cranks out all of his work using ancient versions of Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop under MacOS 9.2. This stuff simply isn't all THAT demanding on a system, if you're not relying heavily on 3rd. party plug-ins and lots of heavy editing of large digital photos, and can live with older versions of the applications.)
IMHO, the "MDD" dual-processor G4 towers were one of Apple's less reliable pieces of hardware they made in recent memory. The people complaining of things like "Leopard crashing regularly" on one, I suspect are suffering from that "iffy" hardware more than from bugs in the OS itself.
I owned one of the dual 1.42Ghz models for a short time, and was happy to get rid of it. The G5 tower was a VAST improvement over it in almost every way .... but frankly, I even had better overall results with an older Quicksilver G4 series tower, after dropping the right 3rd. party G4 accelerator board in it.
This is exactly how people *should* be looking at things. How long can your machine do the tasks you originally bought it for, before it starts getting in your way?
Apple is an innovative company, and that means changes happen relatively quickly with their product line. People get too caught up in having whatever the "latest thing" is though, without fully thinking through the cost/benefit ratio of it. (Or on the flip-side, they get too caught up in trying to hang onto dated machines, vs. spending some money in the short-term for an upgrade that will pay back in the years that follow.)
Personally, I think certain changes from Apple are of a big enough magnitude that they should be driving people to seriously consider an upgrade. Others are "nice improvements", but may or may not make economic sense to upgrade to, if you already own a capable system.
The switch from PPC to Intel is a *huge* change, and it caused me to sell off all my PPC Macs in pretty short order. But truthfully, I wouldn't have felt that same "urgency" if I was mainly using my system for the Adobe Creative Suite. (I know one graphics designer who still cranks out all of his work using ancient versions of Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop under MacOS 9.2. This stuff simply isn't all THAT demanding on a system, if you're not relying heavily on 3rd. party plug-ins and lots of heavy editing of large digital photos, and can live with older versions of the applications.)
IMHO, the "MDD" dual-processor G4 towers were one of Apple's less reliable pieces of hardware they made in recent memory. The people complaining of things like "Leopard crashing regularly" on one, I suspect are suffering from that "iffy" hardware more than from bugs in the OS itself.
I owned one of the dual 1.42Ghz models for a short time, and was happy to get rid of it. The G5 tower was a VAST improvement over it in almost every way .... but frankly, I even had better overall results with an older Quicksilver G4 series tower, after dropping the right 3rd. party G4 accelerator board in it.
Snow Leopard
-13 Minutes to Install
-It takes 4.83 GB of Install Disk Space
-Both the install and system speed FLY with this latest build
-Finder is cocoa, "It's ****in fast"
-Finder's D&D is fixed
-Faster than both Tiger and Leopard
-Boot up time 10 - 15 Seconds
From a very reliable source. Have at it, boys.
-13 Minutes to Install
-It takes 4.83 GB of Install Disk Space
-Both the install and system speed FLY with this latest build
-Finder is cocoa, "It's ****in fast"
-Finder's D&D is fixed
-Faster than both Tiger and Leopard
-Boot up time 10 - 15 Seconds
From a very reliable source. Have at it, boys.
How convenient that you forget 16-bit/32-bit migration in the Windows world, and Win9x to NT migration. (WOW64 is just NTVDM reheated.)
Also convenient that your VIRTUALLY FLAWLESS Apple migrations get comments like:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/6500075/
Right - Apple simply did not get a chance to plan ahead on the architecture switch and the other factor is that Apple's growth is a recent phenomenon that wasn't the case before or immediately after the Intel switch - so to summarize, the route Apple had to take wasn't ideal but it did allow them to continue selling until they have the right solution ready with Snow Leopard.
And I understood this before too, but some one who even slightly understands what is involved in running 32 bit kernel and 64-bit user space while providing a 4G/4G split - it is very hard to justify.
There are two issues - one arises from using 32-bit kernel to support 64-bit applications where in the kernel needs to have 64-bit stubs that copy data from the application to the system call and trap handlers and this involves switching between long mode and compatibility mode back again. (Stubs run in long mode, rest of the kernel in compat mode.)
The other relates to the 4G/4G user/kernel split which implies separate address spaces for kernel and the user space. The system entry/exit code has to switch between the kernel page tables and the user page tables and although TLB misses are relatively expensive, the real overhead is manipulation of the cr3 register to switch to and from kernel page tables on each system entry and exit.
They should have just had 2 kernels as they will in Snow Leopard - one 32-bit and other 64-bit - that's the right way. But any way it wasn't a big deal for Apple and the markets in which it operates.
But all of this of course leaves out the main point of this thread - why was Leopard unstable and/or slow on Macbook Pro with 8Gb when we know the CPU, the chipset are all fine dealing with 8Gb and when Leopard itself handles >8Gb ok on say a Mac Pro - looks to me like only Apple can answer
So, Apple's FLAWLESS solution has to be rewritten for Snow Leopard....
If you look at pre-configured 4 GiB to 8 GiB systems today, you'll find that x64 Vista is standard.
CDW sells a hundred or so systems with Vista x64 pre-installed.
http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?key=vista+64-bit&searchscope=All&sr=1
But yes, I should have said "almost all" - because I'm sure there are some people with 8 GiB installed on x86 Vista who wonder why they can't use more than 3.2 GiB
.I must agree that it's so easy to get triple growth when you depart from "nil"...
Perhaps you should read the citation a little more carefully, instead of rolling your eyes like a deranged John McCain.
Note that it says that "Overall, 20% of new Vista systems that signed on to Windows Update in the United States this June were 64-bit". That means that a fifth of new Vista installations are 64-bit. You can claim that Vista sales are a joke, but for certain you should realize that more 64-bit Vista systems come up each month than all Apple OSX systems.
Few things...
- Most apps run in 64 bits mode, even System Prefs, but some prefpanes require 32 bits mode, and so System Pref will restart in 32 bits mode.
- Finder now default in 64 bits (the WWDC build had the Finder default in 32 bits mode, and could be optionally set to 64 bits mode)
- Apps info pane still says "Universal"
- Apps able to launch in "Rosetta mode"... (didn't expect that one!)
So, I am not really sure about the PPC drop, here.... The WWDC build clearly stated Intel CPU needed (yes, the Core Solo and Core Duo 32 bits were supported), and IIRC a Quad G5 couldn't boot off this 10A190 image...
But, why still list apps a Universal? And the option to launch an app in Rosetta mode..? Doesn't that still hint @ PPC code?
- Most apps run in 64 bits mode, even System Prefs, but some prefpanes require 32 bits mode, and so System Pref will restart in 32 bits mode.
- Finder now default in 64 bits (the WWDC build had the Finder default in 32 bits mode, and could be optionally set to 64 bits mode)
- Apps info pane still says "Universal"
- Apps able to launch in "Rosetta mode"... (didn't expect that one!)
So, I am not really sure about the PPC drop, here.... The WWDC build clearly stated Intel CPU needed (yes, the Core Solo and Core Duo 32 bits were supported), and IIRC a Quad G5 couldn't boot off this 10A190 image...
But, why still list apps a Universal? And the option to launch an app in Rosetta mode..? Doesn't that still hint @ PPC code?
I dont know but this build is hell fast. I mean the total disc size is close to 6 GB and the final install size is 4.83 GB. It boots up near to instant. Why dont you talk about what it has rather than it doesnt have. Looks like this one is ripe for the picking.
I dont know but this build is hell fast. I mean the total disc size is close to 6 GB and the final install size is 4.83 GB. It boots up near to instant. Why dont you talk about what it has rather than it doesnt have. Looks like this one is ripe for the picking.
I am talking about what it has. I thought it was interesting to mention the things I did.
Oh.. yeah.. Sorry
But that's the data i collected. Boot up times the same for you? 10-15 Seconds?
No, it doesn't, at least not in the case of Rosetta. Rosetta is an emulation layer for PowerPC applications, and it will still be needed to run applications that have not been ported to Intel. Like Office:Mac 2004, for example, or the driver software for the TDK LPCW-100 label printer.
Rosetta itself, of course, is pure Intel code, and it's a good thing that it's still in there.
It would also be idiotic to drop the support for Universal Binaries - that would break compatibility with almost anything that's currently on the market. However, we will probably see the "UB" label disappearing for applications that Apple is not intending to back-port to Leopard or Tiger.
I think it'll be at least two or three more OS X releases before we see Universal Binaries and Rosetta disappearing in general. And it will be much longer before 32-Bit Intel support will disappear from the system - if that is ever going to happen.
From which vendor? If it's HP, my condolences. Actually if it's from any vendor other than Apple, my condolences.
Indeed. Don't tell anyone here though, or they'll tell you your wrong and "micro$oft teh sux".
He's right guys. We shouldn't bother with 64-bit. It's a waste of time. 32-bit works just fine, right?
My guess is you've never even bothered trying it, because you either clearly have no idea what you speak of or are simply spewing crap out of your mouth.
I'm sure it's just limited for this release. Surely this doesn't mean that all the other 64-bit capable hardware won't be 64-bit under SL. (My Mac Pro 1,1 and my MBP 3,1 for starters)
.. and stand on one leg and pat your head ...
Exciting. Hopefully they'll take this opportunity to actually FTFF. I hope they konfabulate Path Finder a little (but not fully).
Thank goodness for Uighur support!! (Definitely had to look that one up.)
Agreed. It's funny how they claimed "no new features," when in fact SL seems to be all performance enhancing in major ways.
Particularly I think that the move of all Macs to nVidia GPU hardware will make GPGPU an integral part of the system. I think they're banking on it in lieu of quad core processors in their mobile line. It's an excellent, better-than-stop-gap solution. Think about XCode 4 -- it may even have an even easier way to incorporate CUDA into one's code. That would be exciting for everyone.
What are people's opinions?
1. Will Snow Leopard allow the new MBPs to use the 9400 for graphics and the 9600 as a GPGPU? Or vice versa? (I assume that the graphics chip can't do both at once, right?)
2. For the future will Apple stay with Nvidia, or will Nehalem require a switch back to an Intel chipset? If it does, what are the prospects for a GPGPU there?
I've said before, based on WWDC, PPC will be supported in SL.
SL will boot on a Quad G5, just far enough to kernel panic AND it was a 10.6-build kernel. This means there is full PPC code from kernel on up. I suspect SL is only being tested on Intel, and will be brought up to speed on PPC once the code is feature-frozen.
It is hard to imagine PPC being dropped if 32-bit Intel isn't dropped. However, I bet that PPC will NOT get the full 64-bit refresh on kernel+drivers. PPC will continue to be a 32-bit kernel.
SL will boot on a Quad G5, just far enough to kernel panic AND it was a 10.6-build kernel. This means there is full PPC code from kernel on up. I suspect SL is only being tested on Intel, and will be brought up to speed on PPC once the code is feature-frozen.
It is hard to imagine PPC being dropped if 32-bit Intel isn't dropped. However, I bet that PPC will NOT get the full 64-bit refresh on kernel+drivers. PPC will continue to be a 32-bit kernel.
Something tells me Apple is going to stun everyone with Snow Leopard's performance and compatibility. The problem Microsoft has had is no matter how good Vista64 may be, most people don't and won't see it. Saying that Vista64 is the default OS for 4-8 GB PCs is like saying a quart is the default container for a big gulp. What's the alternative, have useless RAM? No PC assembler is going to sell a 4+ GB machine with Vista32. Apple will release Snow Leopard which will be installed on all new machines they release and able to upgrade machines from the past 2-3 years offering improved performance while maintaining compatibility. All without fractionating their base. Value for the consumer, a clear path for developers and compatibility for all. Brilliant.
There are two graphics chips (on the MBP) - the 9400 that's part of the motherboard chipset, and a separate 9600 that's soldered to the motherboard (with its own non-shared memory).
In theory it should be able to do GPGPU and graphics on both at the same time (that's what SLI would mean).
That's the real purpose of OpenCL and GrandCentral - Intel's Larrabee GPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU)
Actually, many of the systems at CDW and other places with Vista x64 don't have 4 GiB - but they support 4GiB or 8 GiB max. They're shipped with x64 to make it simpler to add RAM.
For example:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/...10t_series/rts/3/computer_store/FK792AA%23ABA
$499
- Operating system Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-bit edition with Service Pack 1
- Processor Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core Desktop Processor E2200
- Memory 3GiB
- Memory speed PC2-6400 DDR2 SDRAM memory (1x2048MiB 1x1024MiB)
- Total memory slots 2 DIMM (240-pin, DDR2) (occupied)
- Maximum memory Expandable to 4GiB
- Graphics card
1) NVIDIA GeForce 7100 Graphics with TurboCache with 128MiB dedicated graphics memory.
2) Up to 1343MiB Total Available Graphics Memory as allocated by Windows Vista - TV & entertainment experience N/A
- PCI expansion 1) 1 PCI (occupied)
2) 2 PCI Express x1 (two available)
3) PCI Express x16 (available) - Hard drive 320GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
- Primary CD/DVD drive
1) SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology
2) 16x DVDýR, 8x DVD+RW, 6x DVD-RW, 8x DVD+R DL, 8xDVD-R DL, 12x DVD-RAM, 16x DVD-ROM, 40x CDR, 32x CDRW, 40x CD-ROM
64-bit is now mainstream, it's not just for "pros".
Those people citing horror stories about 64-bit driver issues are probably trying to connect old, obsolete peripherals that have been abandoned by their makers - maybe we should complain that the new Apple laptops won't work with ADC monitors and ADB keyboards
.
Yeah I know. That's why I asked the question the way I did.
I thought SLI was only for increased graphics performance, not for GPGPU?
So Nvidia will just be a brief fling then.
GPGPU is a general enough term that it may be able to take advantage of SLI (multiple cards), if the interfaces/APIs are written to take advantage of it. I don't know enough about CUDA to know if this is the case yet.
Actually, many of the systems at CDW and other places with Vista x64 don't have 4 GiB - but they support 4GiB or 8 GiB max. They're shipped with x64 to make it simpler to add RAM.
For example:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/...10t_series/rts/3/computer_store/FK792AA%23ABA
$499
- Operating system Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium 64-bit edition with Service Pack 1
- Processor Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core Desktop Processor E2200
- Memory 3GiB
- Memory speed PC2-6400 DDR2 SDRAM memory (1x2048MiB 1x1024MiB)
- Total memory slots 2 DIMM (240-pin, DDR2) (occupied)
- Maximum memory Expandable to 4GiB
- Graphics card
1) NVIDIA GeForce 7100 Graphics with TurboCache with 128MiB dedicated graphics memory.
2) Up to 1343MiB Total Available Graphics Memory as allocated by Windows Vista- TV & entertainment experience N/A
- PCI expansion 1) 1 PCI (occupied)
2) 2 PCI Express x1 (two available)
3) PCI Express x16 (available)- Hard drive 320GB 7200RPM SATA 3Gb/s hard drive
- Primary CD/DVD drive
1) SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology
2) 16x DVDýR, 8x DVD+RW, 6x DVD-RW, 8x DVD+R DL, 8xDVD-R DL, 12x DVD-RAM, 16x DVD-ROM, 40x CDR, 32x CDRW, 40x CD-ROM
64-bit is now mainstream, it's not just for "pros".
Those people citing horror stories about 64-bit driver issues are probably trying to connect old, obsolete peripherals that have been abandoned by their makers - maybe we should complain that the new Apple laptops won't work with ADC monitors and ADB keyboards
I'd consider Vista64. I considered it when Vista was released but IT warned of incompatibilities. I had to override them to install the free Vista32 on a 64 bit workstation shortly after Vista was released. The workstation was labelled as Vista-ready by Dell. Despite updating everything the system inspector identified, I had system stability problems immediately requiring a fresh installation. It mostly worked after that although Outlook 2003 had some incompatibility causing it to crash occasionally. My office software which is Windows only would freeze or crash occasionally. The biggest problem I had was with software updates which were somehow blocked. I had to go without updates until SP1 was released and I could manually download it. Unfortunately Vista no longer allowed manual updates generally and since IT was unwilling to support Vista I could never resolve this problem. After struggling with these issues for more than 1.5 years I finally brought my mac to work and use virtuallized XP for the windows-only work. The additional RAM of Mac OSX helps tremendously. I considered virtuallizing Vista64 but after all my struggles I couldn't bring myself to do it. I don't blame Microsoft for all the problems. IT and hardware share some blame but the end result is a negative Vista experience (I didn't care much for the changes in Vista generally as I found them illogical and unnecessary.) There are probably more people with experiences like this who won't be anxious to check out Vista64 despite it probably being a better experience.