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
64-bit can address much more memory, with a theoretical limit of 128 TB or so, whereas 32-bit is limited to just 4 GB. A single TB is 1,000 GB, meaning 64-bit can address some 32,000 more GB than 32-bit.
'Member when Daffy stuffs the genie back into the lamp and is saying "Mine! Mine! All Mine!" and then the genie curses Daffy to be really small ... heh. Good times.
That is my last off topic post in this thread, I promise.
I'm excited about SL.
check your math
64-bit can (in theory) do 2^32 more than 32-bits, or about 17 billion GiB, or 16,384 TiB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
64-bit can (in theory) do 2^32 more than 32-bits, or about 17 billion GiB, or 16,384 TiB.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
So, Snow Leopard can/will support up to 16 terabytes of RAM?I hope to God this will ship standard on the next generation of MacBooks.
yep, it will be the "high end" model... and cost $100,000
yep, it will be the "high end" model... and cost $100,000
The worlds first rack mounted laptop?
yep, it will be the "high end" model... and cost $100,000
LOL...I can so totally see most people saying, "I'd buy one if it weren't for the glossy screen!"
LOL...I can so totally see most people saying, "I'd buy one if it weren't for the glossy screen!"
Or those saying they'd wait for the 17 inch model...
The very last G5 discontinued a little over 2 years go.
The last iMac G5 was about a little over 2 1/2 years ago.
All of these Macs are still listed as supported by LEOPARD on the box in stores TODAY, but will NOT be supported by SNOW JOBS LEOPARD, the BIG BUG FIX LEOPARD.
I'll use Apple's OWN words again... Snow Leopard will not provide new features but be more about stability and performance. Apple is going to end up eating those words as they come back to haunt them.
Don't you think those people want that SERVICE PACK TOO ?
And these WWDC people need to just go away, put up or shut up I say.
I'm quoting facts, you're all quoting nothing and discussing WWDC hypotheticals & presentations about stuff not even coded yet. Cocoa is PowerPC compatible, G5s are 64 bit, etc etc etc, blah blah blah. Excuses excuses for lil ole BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in the BANK APPLE. PuhLEASE!
Thank you Micro, errrr, Apple, NOT!
Why the hell should *ANYONE* have the slightest bit of sympathy for you?
I remember idiots here STILL purchasing PowerMac G5's after the first wave of Intel products had been released (the Mac Pro hadn't been released yet). I *WARNED* people that it was a stupid mistake to purchase a G5. Did they listen? nooooooooooo they thought they knew better. Here we are a couple of years later and people like YOU are spamming this forum because YOU failed to take on board advice. I say tough titty. Suck in your bottom lip and get over it.
1) Stop spreading misinformation - Carbon hasn't been removed.
2) Why do you need 32bit code pulled out when you will need 32bit code to support your 32bit applications?
3) MacOS X 10.5.x currently uses PAE to address over 4GB - there is a massive performance hit. We all face that performance hit - the move to 64bit will improve the performance.
4) There is no performance hit.
5) Stop using this crap 'pure 64bit' as if it were some pure computing state - and if all 32bitness was some how purged - perfect computing would arrive. Jesus Christ, stop making such silly stories up.
You know, I'm really surprised that more people aren't asking about this one. I expected that we'd see it in one of the Leopard updates, as it was originally slated to be in Leopard. But, here we are almost to 10.5.6, and there's no sign of it. For those of us that want to run some heavy duty applications that really need to run natively, not in a virtualized environment, but still want to have access to our Mac OS apps, this feature will be a huge boon.
I do hope that it comes with Snow Leopard, if we don't see it as an update to Leopard...
There was briefly a thread on fast OS switching via Boot Camp:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/313523/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/313523/
Yes, but you're making my point for me. No one has posted to that thread in almost a year and a half. Why aren't more people asking about this feature? What became of it? Did it get completely moth-balled? Moved out to Snow Leopard? Or is it still in the wings for a Leopard update?
(P.S. Thanks for posting the thread that includes the images from the original Apple page. Hopefully that will clarify the issue for hayesk.)
Sadly the feature was dropped for Leopard. We're lucky that someone caught a screen capture of the text.
I think someone at Apple stepped back and asked "Do we really want/need fast OS switching?" And the answer is a resounding NO. Why put any other OS on equal footing with OS X on a Mac platform? Would be a dumb move on Apple's part although I'm sure lots of people would love to see it.
I know. I just thought there might be some interest in the information in that thread.
I doubt that. If there was serious opposition to it I don't think it would ever have gotten that far. I think Apple initially resisted promoting the use of Windows to its users but then came to see it as a selling point. (Otherwise why promote Boot Camp at all?) My feeling is that they must have run into a serious technical roadblock and decided to defer it.
I disagree. I think it may have initially been a good idea but Boot Camp accomplished what they wanted and was technically easier. They introduced Boot Camp beta far before Leopard and saw the result. More people thought it was a cool idea to dual-boot than ever used it. It reduced the psychological barrier to "switching" (ie if OS X didn't satisfy the hardware could be used for a Windows machine) and fast OS switching would have reduced that psychological barrier even further. This was also before virtualization progressed. At this point it makes no sense to put the effort into fast OS switching as Macs are selling faster each quarter and they have no need to promote using Windows on a Mac on par with using OS X on a Mac, and that is the only real purpose of fast OS switching. Apple wants to promote using OS X primarily and development for their OS.
While you make a good point, I have to agree with Eric. It never would have made it as far as appearing on the website if they hadn't been working hard to implement that feature in Leopard. The only reason that they would have pulled it is that there is some technical problem that they ran into. Actually, I may have an idea what that technical difficulty was. If you dual boot with fast OS switching, then you can't allow access to the other OS's drive, otherwise you could EASILY screw things up in a MAJOR way while the other OS is running but in hibernation or safe-sleep mode. So, what do you do to prevent access to a running system's drive?
In any event, your point may go toward why they wouldn't continue work to overcome whatever technical problems that roadblocked them a year and a half ago, and therefore why we may not see this capability implemented, ever.
However, the counter argument goes something like this. I need to use a piece of software that is only available for Windows. This is a major app that doesn't play nice in a virtualized environment (not talking about running a Windows web browser here). So, if I have to reboot every time I want to switch to my preferred Mac OS with all of my other apps there, I'm quite likely to decide to just find equivalent apps to run under Windows. The result is that not offering fast OS switching will keep me out of the Mac OS more than offering it would keep me in Windows.
In any event, food for thought...
I have to agree that in my experience 10.5.5 on G5 PPC 4gb ram is not stable. To many kernel panics. Usually when I am waking up the computer from sleep. My main issue with 10.5 is how much slower it is than 10.4. Applescript network performance is absolutely 100% terrible. If a script in Tiger takes 1 second then it will take 15 to 20 on Leopard. I too think that things in 10.5 should be fixed before going to 10.6. I have clients on Intel macs that say the performance in 10.5 is bad so it is not just a ppc vs intel thing.
That certainly is not my experience. I run both Tiger (10.4.11) and Leopard (10.5.4) on my G4 tower and I can't detect any performance difference. I never see any kernel panics.
Leopard on my Blackbook flies compared to Tiger on my iBook G4, but that is to be expected.
This matches my experience pretty closely. Though I have seen a few things that seem to take a little more time execute under Leopard than under Tiger, the vast majority of things seem to run pretty much as fast under Leopard as Tiger. And this is across several computers, including a G4 iMac, a 12" G4 Powerbook, and a 15" G4 Powerbook. (I also have a newer 2.5GHz C2D 15" MBP, but that came with Leopard and I don't have any frame of reference to compare Tiger performance.)
And on none of these computers have I ever seen a kernel panic under Leopard, but I have seen a few under Tiger. So that speaks to relative stability of the two systems...
I still think "Snow Leopard" is a remarkably poor choice for a name.
At least they didn't pick "Ocelot".
And I guess "Lynx" would look/sound too much like "Linux." 
Try opening a folder on a network with 6000 folders inside it. Do it on tiger then boot into leopard and try it. then write a simple applescript which "opens" said folder. then you will see what i mean about performance.
when i said that the leopard was slower i meant access to network shares. It is quite noticeable. that being said, it might be the applescript version that comes with leopard. something changed in applescript for the worst i fear.