Most likely the pro apps e.g. Final Cut, Logic...
These are the types of apps that most likely will benefit from Grand Central, possibly OpenCL.
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's Newest Snow Leopard (10A314) Shows Steady Improvements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most likely the pro apps e.g. Final Cut, Logic...
These are the types of apps that most likely will benefit from Grand Central, possibly OpenCL.
Great post lt. ZFS is fine. Apple pulls stuff from builds and then put'ems back (or not...iSCSI...sigh) at their discretion.
sorry for the newbie question, but what is ZFS? thx
For most questions about background, simply go to
http://wikipedia.org
and type "zfs" (or whatever) into the search box. Most tech terms are covered.
sorry for the newbie question, but what is ZFS? thx
128-bit filesystem
Supports checksum
Data compression
Snapshots
RAID
Pooled Storage
and more. It can hold more storage than you'd ever hope to afford.
It's worldwide developers conference, so demo being dull for end users doesn't mean much, as long as it's not dull for developers.
I want a file system that can natively be written to and read from by Windows and Mac without a 4GB file size cap.
Basically FAT32 without the cap. Don't tell me to format HFS and instal MacDrive on Windows or Paragon on a Mac. I do these things with my machines, but I work on several computers that arent mine and its really annoying to install the software each time.
I dont know if ZFS is windows compatible, but is it is, I'll be at the Apple Store in a camping chair.
Basically FAT32 without the cap. Don't tell me to format HFS and instal MacDrive on Windows or Paragon on a Mac. I do these things with my machines, but I work on several computers that arent mine and its really annoying to install the software each time.
I dont know if ZFS is windows compatible, but is it is, I'll be at the Apple Store in a camping chair.
Hmm. Just curious if there is any guestimate as to performance of debug vs. release build performance.
Personally, I don't care if Snow Leopard has a new GUI or not. Leopard's GUI is fine for me.
I love how so many people think Vista is great because of how pretty its AERO interface is. Pretty ≠ Functional. I would much rather have Apple focus on getting the insidey-parts working well, then worry about the paint job. But apparently, there are people whose lives will be over if Apple keeps the same GUI.
I love how so many people think Vista is great because of how pretty its AERO interface is. Pretty ≠ Functional. I would much rather have Apple focus on getting the insidey-parts working well, then worry about the paint job. But apparently, there are people whose lives will be over if Apple keeps the same GUI.
I agree. GUI isn't a huge concern for me, but continuity throughout the UI is nice, and a little less distracting when it's done well.
Not much talk about the "disloyal opposition" in this thread, with the first head to head release of major new OS rewrites from both Apple and MS since, well, when?
Vista came out 6 mo's before Leopard, and its problems tarnished MS's already tattered OS rep helping Leopard become, by contrast a big hit.
Before that, OS X 10.0 (really a gamma at best release) came out about eight months before XP. MS was rushing to cover up Win Me, and Apple was struggling to show it could stay relevant.
XP was "good enough" to hold mind share, and Cheetah wasn't that complete or fast (alas, they used up the fastest cat on the slowest release) and asked the base to go thru a wrenching transition to redefine "Mac computing." But last I heard, they made it thru, LoL, and otherwise, Apple had the stage to itself for almost 6 years, gaining tons of cachet.
Things are very different for both companies today - and this time the big releases are head to head like Ali and Frazier. And one thing Apple could not have predicted when they predicted the release a year ago is that MS would actually make significant progress with Win 7, which has excellent buzz in a number of influential computing communities (if not this one!).
MS is also going at Apple more aggressively of late for many reasons, including Apple's resurrection but also because they feel they've got their best follow-on product maybe ever, and their ads indicate they feel Apple's vulnerable to a pricing argument in a deep recesssion.
So it's become more important to Apple that there are NO glitches of note in Snow Leopard, as well as all the fit/finish/new technologies stuff providing a better experience, with major momentum on the line. And more than to MS, because everyone already knows there are glitches in MS OS's - they only need a B+ to keep nearly all their current share, while Apple needs an A in this showdown to get more people to choose $1400 MacBooks over $500 HP's. All the big apps need to be working smoothly too, even if in the form of required upgrades.
And from a marketing perspective, SL also will very likely include a few "and one more things" along with its replumbed, rewritten and upgraded internals. A few oohs and ahhs then, even if they turn out ultimately to be less than a paradigm shift (like Expose, Spaces and other things that wowed me, but which few general buyers use).
So whatever the release date, first, a lot of "strategery" is going on in both Redmond and Cupertino - about who goes first and when, about the rollout events, about the marketing and advertising strategies, etc., and second, a lot of lights are burning late and many, many caffeinated beverages are being consumed at both, though I'm betting as usual, they're sweating the details better to the south.
Vista came out 6 mo's before Leopard, and its problems tarnished MS's already tattered OS rep helping Leopard become, by contrast a big hit.
Before that, OS X 10.0 (really a gamma at best release) came out about eight months before XP. MS was rushing to cover up Win Me, and Apple was struggling to show it could stay relevant.
XP was "good enough" to hold mind share, and Cheetah wasn't that complete or fast (alas, they used up the fastest cat on the slowest release) and asked the base to go thru a wrenching transition to redefine "Mac computing." But last I heard, they made it thru, LoL, and otherwise, Apple had the stage to itself for almost 6 years, gaining tons of cachet.
Things are very different for both companies today - and this time the big releases are head to head like Ali and Frazier. And one thing Apple could not have predicted when they predicted the release a year ago is that MS would actually make significant progress with Win 7, which has excellent buzz in a number of influential computing communities (if not this one!).
MS is also going at Apple more aggressively of late for many reasons, including Apple's resurrection but also because they feel they've got their best follow-on product maybe ever, and their ads indicate they feel Apple's vulnerable to a pricing argument in a deep recesssion.
So it's become more important to Apple that there are NO glitches of note in Snow Leopard, as well as all the fit/finish/new technologies stuff providing a better experience, with major momentum on the line. And more than to MS, because everyone already knows there are glitches in MS OS's - they only need a B+ to keep nearly all their current share, while Apple needs an A in this showdown to get more people to choose $1400 MacBooks over $500 HP's. All the big apps need to be working smoothly too, even if in the form of required upgrades.
And from a marketing perspective, SL also will very likely include a few "and one more things" along with its replumbed, rewritten and upgraded internals. A few oohs and ahhs then, even if they turn out ultimately to be less than a paradigm shift (like Expose, Spaces and other things that wowed me, but which few general buyers use).
So whatever the release date, first, a lot of "strategery" is going on in both Redmond and Cupertino - about who goes first and when, about the rollout events, about the marketing and advertising strategies, etc., and second, a lot of lights are burning late and many, many caffeinated beverages are being consumed at both, though I'm betting as usual, they're sweating the details better to the south.
With regards to MS vs. 
post by bigpics, IMO few people are really OS switchers, meaning back and forth again from win to mac to win or vice versa. Mostly tech geeks, like us folks here at macrumors. It's a small slice of the pie.
More importantly for MS are two factors. First, the OS is bundled into a huge fraction of the new PC sales. Second, the lackluster adoption of Vista will find many jumping from XP to Win 7. A lot of those XP PCs will wind up skipping Vista in favor of Win 7, especially in the corporate world.
Given that OS X is only applicable for new Mac purchases or existing Mac upgrades, the market share will remain small and relatively status quo.
post by bigpics, IMO few people are really OS switchers, meaning back and forth again from win to mac to win or vice versa. Mostly tech geeks, like us folks here at macrumors. It's a small slice of the pie. More importantly for MS are two factors. First, the OS is bundled into a huge fraction of the new PC sales. Second, the lackluster adoption of Vista will find many jumping from XP to Win 7. A lot of those XP PCs will wind up skipping Vista in favor of Win 7, especially in the corporate world.
Given that OS X is only applicable for new Mac purchases or existing Mac upgrades, the market share will remain small and relatively status quo.
I agree somewhat
The Linux themes can look clunky, but some do work very well. Since Apple has full control, they could just have a limited few. They already have 2 options in System Preferences > Appearance, why not just add a couple of more items and/or colors there? I would much prefer toned down brushed metal (as in Tiger) than the dreary, drab gray in Leopard. --Yes, I know it is supposed to bring focus to the content within your apps, but I don't like it and wish we could have a little choice.
The Linux themes can look clunky, but some do work very well. Since Apple has full control, they could just have a limited few. They already have 2 options in System Preferences > Appearance, why not just add a couple of more items and/or colors there? I would much prefer toned down brushed metal (as in Tiger) than the dreary, drab gray in Leopard. --Yes, I know it is supposed to bring focus to the content within your apps, but I don't like it and wish we could have a little choice.
Great post, you capture the history very well. I would argue that despite the perceptions of Vista out there, OS X is the one that has to make big strides. Windows 7 is getting very positive buzz for a reason, the beta works faster on my work machines with the same hardware that ran Vista. It is already very stable and fast and has a number of nice improvements over Vista. I would say that OS X passed Windows XP overall somewhere around Panther (2004?) and the iLife suite made it even better, but at this point, Windows 7 with the Live cloud features bests OS X Leopard easily. iLife is still a great set of apps, but I would give the overall edge to MSFT. I could be wrong, but my guess is MSFT releases Windows 7 to gold disk on July 7 (the date is 7/7, so that would be nice for marketing) which would mean seeing it on new PCs in Sep-Oct time frame. I can't see them missing the Christmas season again for OEMs like they did with Vista, that cannot happen. Not sure what that means for Apple, would they want to wait until after 7 comes out, or do it before? No matter what Apple does, Windows 7 will have positive spin and reviews, so they may be better off if SL comes out first. Hopefully they will give us a lot to like. I think Leopard clearly suffered with a resource strain at Apple having to compete with the iPhone platform. Hopefully maybe some of that could swing back the other way and strengthen Snow Leopard. We will see.
10.6, though, is the first 64-bit kernel release from Apple. It's already obviously late (why no 10.6 demos at MWSF'09???).
Clearly Apple messed up with the failed attempt at using a 32-bit kernel with 64-bit odds and ends - after so publicly making fun of Windows 64-bit, their face is covered with egg as they struggle to get a true 64-bit system to market.
Apple will be lucky to get 10.6 out by the (northern hemisphere) winter shopping season.
As a Mac users I don't really see anything in Win 7 that I believe will sway people who are familiar and Mac and like Apple's approach to computing and inversely I couldn't say there's anything in Snow Leopard that would make a Windows fan jump to a Mac.
I remain unconvinced that cloud services will benefit Microsoft or Apple. Neither is as adept and handling web technology as Google. Apple's attack is going to come with the iPhone and whatever mobile platform they cook up. The iPhone /iPod touch is spurring development of OS X features that trickle down to the desktop/laptop Mac OS X version. So in that regard it's not really about Win 7 vs Snow Leopard it's about iPhone/ iPod touch and it's ancillary items as a lure to get people looking at Macs if they need general purpose computing.
People tend to think the it was Vista's misstep that caused people to switch over to Mac but in fact the migration was already happening due to the buzz and mindshare propagated by the iPod.
It won't be that hard. They've jettisoned PowerPC support. Once the dev teams finishes with the iphone SDK they have but one major target to hit and that's Intel. It should be cake for them. The hardest part was finally admitting that Carbon needed to die and that all development efforts should go to Cocoa.
Thanks for the update! Those features sound pretty sweet! I'm a laptop user, I think opensolaris is just the **** for backing up data on an external and I also think its the **** for efficiency and data integrity.
Sounds like the kinks are being worked out, is ZFS bootable on SL? And why would the root pool not be mountable? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but then again, I could be missing something really obvious...
I don't know if it's bootable. There's no option to install on zfs or use zfs with diskutility. Like I said, I only played with it for about 15 minutes. I suppose one could open the terminal on the install cd and create a zpool and see if it lets me install. I'm hoping that's something they get ironed out for the release! The zpool doesn't show up if you hold option on boot to view bootable disks. Would it need an EFI update for that? Or maybe just some magic on the disk with the root pool? I don't really know how that works.
I don't really know why they would change the root pool behaviour like that. I can only imagine it's to encourage the use of creating datasets to put your data in.
I imagine that since most people wouldn't (and really shouldn't) be using the root pool to put data on there's no reason to have it show up in Finder. The easiest way to make it not show up in Finder is to just not mount it. Makes sense to me I guess.
Though they could simply just change the mountpoint property to legacy by default so that it's not mounted...but what ever. I'm just glad to see substantial work being done in the area!
Not sure if this will rock my boat. Bit like the gps function on iphone? Bit i am not going to use my macbook pro - when it arrives - as some kind of an gps.
iSCSI would be great. I'd be thrilled to see this in Snow Leopard. For the time being, I found a free iSCSI initiator for 10.5.