Sidebar Sidebar
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

AidenShaw said:
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 ;) .
Click to expand...

Yes! Someone get this man a beer and a medal.
 
cohibadad said:
I'd consider Vista64. I considered it when Vista was released....
Click to expand...

Say no more.

Vista x64 in November 2006 is not what is shipping on x64 standard systems today. The hardware that you upgraded in 2006 is not the hardware that is shipping with Vista x64 today.

In the two years since then, SP1 has been released (as well as a steady stream of fixes). Peripheral manufacturers are on board with x86 and x64 drivers (to get the "Vista Certified" logo the vendor must have both 32-bit and 64-bit support).

That's also the "big lie" of Apple's Mac vs. PC ads - they're trying to make people believe that Vista is where it was on day one. It's not, and the Vista using people here know that.

The blind fanbois, however, continue to spout nonsense from the past that's easily contradicted.

As long as you're getting a new system, and not trying to connect a bunch of 5 year old special hardware, x64 Vista is reasonable for anyone to use.

In another year or two, x86 will be mostly a memory, and Microsoft's decision to have a separate, clean x64 build will be recognized as a good choice. (And maybe by then 10.6 will be out, and PPC/x86 support will be no more - and Apple will have a good story for 64-bit support.)
 
Mackilroy said:
Because obviously your anecdotal experience with 10.5 on a PPC Mac is obviously the same experience all PPC users have all. :rolleyes: Don't get all sanctimonious about it - using a computer is not a religion, and no everything is the fault of large multinational corporations. Just to compare with you, the G5 PPC iMac my parents use works perfectly with Leopard - no issues at all. On our iBook G4 Leopard also has no issues, and it's over four years old now. Riddle me that, Joker.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the voice of reason. I myself remember being dragged kicking and screaming from the 8088 to the 286 then 386 and on and on. I could have kept my IBM 286 and been very happy but MS and other software vendors had other ideas... got to move along.
 
I'm considering between 2.4 whitebook and 2.0 + GPU aluminium macbook.
I know aluminium is better in almost everything (I do not need firewire), but the question is which one could have longer life time - 2.4 without GPU or 2.0 with GPU?
I don't really care playing games, but I wonder if the GPU support for not graphics intensive applications will help to give just the same performance in Snow Leopard with this OpenCL thing?
Anyone has some ideas?
 
AidenShaw said:
64-bit is now mainstream, it's not just for "pros".
Click to expand...

64-bit Vista finds a home on consumer laptops
Posted by Brooke Crothers

How about a 64-bit operating system with that 64-bit processor?

The 64-bit version of Windows Vista is not new. It arrived when Vista did. But making it standard on a crush of new consumer laptops being sold at Best Buy is a recent change.

HP's new Pavilion HDX model ships standard with 64-bit Vista.

All PCs now ship with Intel or Advanced Micro Devices 64-bit processors. Until recently, however, most consumer laptops have come with a 32-bit version of Vista. There are many reasons for this, two of the biggest being a lack of driver support and the larger memory requirements for the 64-bit OS.

But memory is no longer an issue. Many of the new sub-$1,000 laptops at Best Buy, for example, now come with 4GB of memory standard. Out of the 11 HP laptops listed as "new arrivals" at Best Buy, 9 come with 4GB of memory and 64-bit Vista. Ironically, the other two new-arrival HP systems come with "Windows Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro."

In other words, you get either XP or 64-bit Vista: 32-bit Vista is not offered standard at all in this list of new arrivals.
Click to expand...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10076795-64.html?tag=mncol

Once again, facts get in the way of Mr. Lawyer's claims....
 
Vista x64 is certainly the best version of Windows I have ever used. It kicks XPs butt in terms of reliability and stability at least. Vista x64 is the only version of Windows (except Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003, but they don't really count as they are more workstation / server orientated) that I have been able to run for 3 months + without needing to reformat due to slow down / stupid bugs.
 
Cromulent said:
Vista x64 is certainly the best version of Windows I have ever used. It kicks XPs butt in terms of reliability and stability at least. Vista x64 is the only version of Windows (except Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003, but they don't really count as they are more workstation / server orientated) that I have been able to run for 3 months + without needing to reformat due to slow down / stupid bugs.
Click to expand...

Best Windows version.....ever.. ;)
 

Attachments

  • Jeff_Albertson-thumb-300x504.png
    Jeff_Albertson-thumb-300x504.png
    179.8 KB · Views: 85
Eric S. said:
Interesting article on AppleInsider today about Snow Leopard's 64-bit strategy:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...c_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bit_to_the_kernel.html
Click to expand...

Very interesting, thank you.

And it looks like another of Mr. Lawyer's arguments will fall:

Along with these advantages comes the necessity of upgrading all of the [OSX] kernel's drivers to 64-bit, including any provided by third parties. Again, that's because 64-bit programs can't load and run 32-bit plugins, and vice versa. That means Mac users will need to do the same driver upgrade that Windows Vista users did.​

Graphic from that link - although I suspect that all of the blue disappears if you have an old 32-bit CPU:

leopard-081028.gif
 
Cromulent said:
Vista x64 is certainly the best version of Windows I have ever used. It kicks XPs butt in terms of reliability and stability at least. Vista x64 is the only version of Windows (except Windows 2000 and Windows Server 2003, but they don't really count as they are more workstation / server orientated) that I have been able to run for 3 months + without needing to reformat due to slow down / stupid bugs.
Click to expand...

You should give Windows 2008 (x64) a whirl. On the systems we use it for it is like butter...
 
I use Windows 2008 x32 on my penryn MBP and it is great (certainly the best Windows build I've ever dealt with), but having 4GB of RAM, I really miss out on that extra GB :(...I would be interested to see how the x64 version would perform, but I don't feel like reformatting my windows partition and reinstalling everything just to find out.

After reading the AppleInsider article, one thing I find particularly strange is that Vista x64 installs all 64 drivers, executables and libraries into the "System32" directory, while installing all legacy 32bit programs into the "SysWOW64" directory. Seems backasswards.
 
Riemann Zeta said:
I use Windows 2008 x32 on my penryn MBP and it is great (certainly the best Windows build I've ever dealt with), but having 4GB of RAM, I really miss out on that extra GB :(...I would be interested to see how the x64 version would perform, but I don't feel like reformatting my windows partition and reinstalling everything just to find out.
Click to expand...

If you had a standard Intel hardware system, you could add the qualifier /PAE to the end of the BIOS boot line in C:\boot.ini. This would turn on 36-bit physical addressing, and let you use all the RAM. (This is normally automatic, though)

Perhaps Apple's dual-boot or BIOS doesn't support PAE, though.


Riemann Zeta said:
After reading the AppleInsider article, one thing I find particularly strange is that Vista x64 installs all 64 drivers, executables and libraries into the "System32" directory, while installing all legacy 32bit programs into the "SysWOW64" directory. Seems backasswards.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is backwards. Unfortunately, too many things "know" that files are in %SystemRoot%\System32 - it would have caused a lot of grief if it had been changed.

One task of WOW64 is to map references to %SystemRoot%\System32 to %SystemRoot%\SysWOW64 (and %ProgramFiles% to "%SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86)")

This is invisible to the user, however.

I have an old kit from 1998 that "just works" - everything gets put where it needs to be on my Vista x64 system.
 
AidenShaw said:
Say no more.

Vista x64 in November 2006 is not what is shipping on x64 standard systems today. The hardware that you upgraded in 2006 is not the hardware that is shipping with Vista x64 today.

In the two years since then, SP1 has been released (as well as a steady stream of fixes). Peripheral manufacturers are on board with x86 and x64 drivers (to get the "Vista Certified" logo the vendor must have both 32-bit and 64-bit support).

That's also the "big lie" of Apple's Mac vs. PC ads - they're trying to make people believe that Vista is where it was on day one. It's not, and the Vista using people here know that.

The blind fanbois, however, continue to spout nonsense from the past that's easily contradicted.

As long as you're getting a new system, and not trying to connect a bunch of 5 year old special hardware, x64 Vista is reasonable for anyone to use.

In another year or two, x86 will be mostly a memory, and Microsoft's decision to have a separate, clean x64 build will be recognized as a good choice. (And maybe by then 10.6 will be out, and PPC/x86 support will be no more - and Apple will have a good story for 64-bit support.)
Click to expand...

Wrong i have vista and hate it and yes i have service package and it is still terrible now i have to re save my money cause i was stupid:eek::eek::apple:
 
dohardthings said:
Wrong i have vista and hate it and yes i have service package and it is still terrible now i have to re save my money cause i was stupid:eek::eek::apple:
Click to expand...

Clearly you have a lemon - neither your shift keys nor your punctuation keys work.

It looks like a hardware problem to me - call tech support.
 
If you had a standard Intel hardware system, you could add the qualifier /PAE to the end of the BIOS boot line in C:\boot.ini. This would turn on 36-bit physical addressing, and let you use all the RAM. (This is normally automatic, though)
Click to expand...
I know that this worked under Windows 2000 and certain early versions of XP, but I don't think Vista x32 supports it. First, there is no boot.ini used on a Vista system--the OSloader is designed differently. Second, I think Vista x32 uses PAE by default in order to turn on the execute disable bitflag (DEP), but is hard-coded to limit the addressable RAM to ~3.1GB.
 
Riemann Zeta said:
I know that this worked under Windows 2000 and certain early versions of XP, but I don't think Vista x32 supports it. First, there is no boot.ini used on a Vista system--the OSloader is designed differently. Second, I think Vista x32 uses PAE by default in order to turn on the execute disable bitflag (DEP), but is hard-coded to limit the addressable RAM to ~3.1GB.
Click to expand...

I was replying to someone using Server 2008. You're right, though - like Vista, 2008 uses BCD for options. He should try this http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistan...-tricks-changing-boot-options-on-the-fly.aspx to force PAE.

XP SP2 and Vista x86 do use the 64-bit PAE-style page tables, but cap the memory at 4 GiB physical.

It isn't hard-coded at 3.1 GiB though, the limit is dynamic based on the options on the system (number and type of busses, number of devices, size of graphics VRAM, ...). After all of the hardware needs are met, the remainder of the 4 GiB space is usable for RAM.
 
It isn't hard-coded at 3.1 GiB though, the limit is dynamic based on the options on the system (number and type of busses, number of devices, size of graphics VRAM, ...). After all of the hardware needs are met, the remainder of the 4 GiB space is usable for RAM.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Since I have 512MB of VRAM, then the top 1GB or so must be mainly devoted to shadowing that. From what I have read, I guess I should just leave it alone (ie not mess with "force the 3GB heap" or PAE options) though, as x32 Windows is more stable with the default memory allocation scheme (as is my understanding).
 
off-topic

just received an hp pavilion at work today (not my choice - needed it for a particular task) - 4GB or ram, dual core QL62 @ 2GHz. all the bells and whistles.

after an hour with the system i want to cram it up its creators' ****. together with its 64-bit operating system, which remains the same freak show it's ever been (no surprises here), just now more bloated than ever. i guess after a couple of days of customisation and fat-trimming i'll be able to get it to acceptable usability levels. then again, why bother - i'll be putting linux on it early next week. but i can't believe people are buying those as they are for business.

/now you can return to AidenShaw's regular program.
 
Riemann Zeta said:
Oh, I see. Since I have 512MB of VRAM, then the top 1GB or so must be mainly devoted to shadowing that. From what I have read, I guess I should just leave it alone (ie not mess with "force the 3GB heap" or PAE options) though, as x32 Windows is more stable with the default memory allocation scheme (as is my understanding).
Click to expand...

PAE doesn't affect stability - almost all Windows Servers run with PAE enabled and they are quite stable.

The /3GB switch only affects virtual memory - it lets a Windows application which has been built for /3GB to use more memory.

It should have no effect on most apps - few are built with /3GB enabled.

If you have a 64-bit chipset, enabling PAE should let you access all 4 GiB. If you have a 32-bit chipset, then ~3.1 GiB is all that you'll every get - even with a true 64-bit OS.
 
Cromulent said:
Vista x64 is certainly the best version of Windows I have ever used. It kicks XPs butt in terms of reliability and stability at least. .... I have been able to run for 3 months + without needing to reformat due to slow down / stupid bugs.
Click to expand...

Quoting Bugs Bunny "It is to laugh". I had thought you were going to say 3 months with out a reboot, but a reformat! I have not ever had to do that with one of my Macs and yes I did it monthly with XP... In any event thanks for the memory and the humor ...
 
vansouza said:
Quoting Bugs Bunny "It is to laugh". I had thought you were going to say 3 months with out a reboot, but a reformat! I have not ever had to do that with one of my Macs and yes I did it monthly with XP... In any event thanks for the memory and the humor ...
Click to expand...

Just a minor point ... Did Bugs ever say that? I believe Daffy Duck has said it, but I cannot recall Bugs saying it.
 
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