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.
Could Snow Leopard Be Apples Vista?
- Thread starter Big Jelly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What issues? Anything in particular you're looking to have fixed in 10.6.1?
What do you mean you're unable to get 64bit working?
I cant get the 64bit kernal to run. Held down 4 + 6 number keys during boot, changed the plist file etc.. I still get 32bit bootup.
So far using it today I have had Firefox crash 2 times in 3 hours of use, and some network drops connecting using SMB:// to windows 7 boxes.
The kernel's gonna stay in 32-bit ......
Is there anything in particular you're looking to do with 64-bit? Or is it more of a "just because" kind of thing?
Leopard was/is better than any Windows, XP, Vista, 7 or otherwise. SL runs much better than Leopard, so no way could it be a "Vista". But if things change and I do notice a lot of problems (major architectural/Core OS problems) then I will say Sl = Vista. But so far, from Dev Preview builds, it already kicks major ass. It's cost effective, offers many great evolutionary features. What does Windows have? A new UI and also "more stability" which is equal to BS. They don't have OpenCL or GCD or 64-bit core apps. The 64-bit version of IE runs 4x slower than 32-bit IE. Heck, some people are still stuck with DirectX 10 which was a huge failure just like Vista.
I would say Vista was Apple's 10.0. It had major problems and quite possibly was more troubling than the initial Vista experience. Albeit Apple did include an emulator for the previous system which smoothed the transition a bit (now they are doing that with Win7, but in a crummier fashion). However, Apple did this 9 years ago, and everyone has since forgotten about it.
There's no way the problems with 10.6 will ever amount to either what Vista or 10.0 had.
There's no way the problems with 10.6 will ever amount to either what Vista or 10.0 had.
I've been putting SL through the paces, running in 64-bit kernel mode, and cannot find any problems. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the speed boost is awesome. I can't think of a more polished .0 release ever.
I had just one old X11 program that would not work in 64-bit kernel mode (TSClient); however, I had already stopped using it after finding a better solution (CoRD).
The only slight "niggle" (as some people call it here) I have had so far is finding the checkbox to "minimize windows into application icon" to be redundant, and adding it was Microsoft-ish. Instead of sticking to Apple's core philosophy of keeping the UI clean of clutter, they added a redundant, useless option. It essentially does the same thing as the hide feature. I'd rather have a checkbox to make the menus more translucent again.
That is nothing though whereas using Vista would drive me insane.
I had just one old X11 program that would not work in 64-bit kernel mode (TSClient); however, I had already stopped using it after finding a better solution (CoRD).
The only slight "niggle" (as some people call it here) I have had so far is finding the checkbox to "minimize windows into application icon" to be redundant, and adding it was Microsoft-ish. Instead of sticking to Apple's core philosophy of keeping the UI clean of clutter, they added a redundant, useless option. It essentially does the same thing as the hide feature. I'd rather have a checkbox to make the menus more translucent again.
That is nothing though whereas using Vista would drive me insane.
I've had no problems. Ony thing that annoys me is that there's no good adblocker for 64-bit Safari yet.
Absolutely not.
I've been running SL for quite some time and there really have NOT been any compatibility issues.
Not one of my hundreds of apps had any compatibility issues.
The Leopard -> Snow Leopard upgrade was MUCH easier than when we have upgraded previous Apple OS's (Jaguar -> Tiger was about the worst).
I've been running SL for quite some time and there really have NOT been any compatibility issues.
Not one of my hundreds of apps had any compatibility issues.
The Leopard -> Snow Leopard upgrade was MUCH easier than when we have upgraded previous Apple OS's (Jaguar -> Tiger was about the worst).
It sounds like something is corrupted in your install. I would reinstall to make sure.
Is there a reason you are using 64-bit kernel mode? You don't need to unless you need to more efficiently access more than 32-GiB of memory.
We've been testing our computationally intensive programs on our Mac Pros with 32 GiB memory and they run slightly faster with a 32-bit kernel versus the 64-bit kernel. Now if I could just get 128 GiB memory into one, I'd test if the 64-bit kernel does help with memory efficiency over 32 GiB
To this day I'm at a loss as to why Vista got such a bad wrap.
I installed Vista x64 as soon as it was launched and the only issues were driver related and UAC. The latter was easily disabled and while it took Nvidia a while to produce stable drivers for gaming (they were obviously asleep at the wheel given Vista had at least a 6 month beta), Vista was very good out of the box.
I think Vista suffered most from the "love to hate Microsoft" mentality and the fact that it just took so long to appear after XP.
It's absolutely bizarre to me to see all the Vista haters embracing Windows 7. It must frustrate the hell out of MS.
Anyway, OSX can't fall into the same trap as Vista as this is Apple, not Microsoft, and SL really doesn't have anything to hate.
I installed Vista x64 as soon as it was launched and the only issues were driver related and UAC. The latter was easily disabled and while it took Nvidia a while to produce stable drivers for gaming (they were obviously asleep at the wheel given Vista had at least a 6 month beta), Vista was very good out of the box.
I think Vista suffered most from the "love to hate Microsoft" mentality and the fact that it just took so long to appear after XP.
It's absolutely bizarre to me to see all the Vista haters embracing Windows 7. It must frustrate the hell out of MS.
Anyway, OSX can't fall into the same trap as Vista as this is Apple, not Microsoft, and SL really doesn't have anything to hate.
It got a bad rap for exactly the reason you state - drivers.
The second reason is that MS and intel colluded to mis-inform people that the 915 integrated graphics chips would work with Aero. At the time, almost all laptops had a 915 graphics card (i.e. centrino) and there were a LOT of pissed off laptop buyers who bought laptops just before and during the Vista launch that can't use Aero.
The funny thing is that Aero worked in the beta with the 915 chip, but at launch it did not. This really added a lot of fuel to the fire.
In addition to this, a lot of other graphics cards did not work on day 1 with Vista.
All of the additional hardware problems came from the fact that MS changed the Vista code base almost wholesale about 1-2 years before launch due to security concerns stemming from XP. This left a lot of hardware manufacturers without the time or desire to write drivers again.
Also, talk to a Vista Ultimate users and ask them if they got their money's worth? That is a tirade in and of itself!
Since SP1 Vista has been just fine, but the stumbling out of the gate really turned off a lot of users.
MS changed it after launch as well. Vista SP1 or 2 changed it to the Windows 2008 Server kernel. Why they would do it is beyond me, except for driver support. MS even changed SMB to the new SMB version 2 in one of the service packs. under the hood the current version Vista is a new OS than what was originally shipped.
i tested Vista during the beta and after launch. without the stupid gadget bar and just the OS it uses around 300MB of RAM. little more than a clean install of XP. with the side bar it's around 800MB. RAM was still a bit pricey a few years ago.
then they had the stupid indexing service that caused your hard drive to constantly work and slowed things down. in Windows 7 it's not installed by default.
technically it's a good OS under the hood, but left a lot to be desired in the user experience area. Nice thing about Windows is that if you want 64 bit, you can buy a 64bit kernel OS.
for Ultimate the Dreamscene thing was OK, but not worth the extra money. I think it also had a DVD authoring app in there and BitLocker. A lot of Windows code is not MS code but licensed from other companies and i always assumed Ultimate was so expensive due to extra licensing fees MS had to pay.
i tested Vista during the beta and after launch. without the stupid gadget bar and just the OS it uses around 300MB of RAM. little more than a clean install of XP. with the side bar it's around 800MB. RAM was still a bit pricey a few years ago.
then they had the stupid indexing service that caused your hard drive to constantly work and slowed things down. in Windows 7 it's not installed by default.
technically it's a good OS under the hood, but left a lot to be desired in the user experience area. Nice thing about Windows is that if you want 64 bit, you can buy a 64bit kernel OS.
for Ultimate the Dreamscene thing was OK, but not worth the extra money. I think it also had a DVD authoring app in there and BitLocker. A lot of Windows code is not MS code but licensed from other companies and i always assumed Ultimate was so expensive due to extra licensing fees MS had to pay.
That is because the original Vista kernal as released was a huge hack job. They literally threw it together at the last moment when they dumped the code base of the original longhorn.
I agree. I used Vista 64-bit from a few months before SP1 until moving to the Win7 public beta and later RC. Vista worked just fine, even my audio interface (typically problematic devices with Vista) worked fine, but then again I picked it based on driver quality and support. Vista was actually slightly faster on my machine than XP, only startup time was noticeably longer. In the end it was less annoying than XP but overall not a huge change when it comes to using the OS. Win7 on the other hand brought lots of good new things to the table in the usability department.
I haven't installed Snow Leopard yet, but it seems like it's got a similar road ahead, namely bugfixes and many programs need to be updated to work on it.
Have you seen Vista? Have you used Vista? I think that would answer your question. Having said that I haven't seen SL yet - my copy of SL "due to arrive on or before 28/08/09" still hasn't arrived!
No. Leopard was Apple's Vista. Snow Leopard is Apple's Service Pack 2 for Vista, ahem, Leopard.
I must say that I am completely underwhelmed with Snow Leopard and already wonder why I even bothered with the upgrade:
- It's not really faster than Leopard, and I really don't care if booting the system and shutting it down is a couple of seconds faster now. I would have cared for a faster Finder, and in all honesty, Finder feels as slow as it did on Leopard on my Mac Pro
- It has a bunch of compatibility issues, the worst being that my UMTS/3G card no longer works AT ALL (which worked just fine with Leopard)
- My Microsoft keyboard has compatibility issues with 64 bit apps, but this is not necessarily Apple's problem (although they could have improved the compatibility)
- BootCamp 3 sucks -- the new file system drivers (for 64-Bit Windows) that allow Windows to access Mac partitions cause bluescreens (MacDrive, on the other hand, does not have such problems)
I must say that I find Windows 7 much more convincing than Snow Leopard. If only Microsoft gave the upgrade away for 29 Dollars... ;-)
I must say that I am completely underwhelmed with Snow Leopard and already wonder why I even bothered with the upgrade:
- It's not really faster than Leopard, and I really don't care if booting the system and shutting it down is a couple of seconds faster now. I would have cared for a faster Finder, and in all honesty, Finder feels as slow as it did on Leopard on my Mac Pro
- It has a bunch of compatibility issues, the worst being that my UMTS/3G card no longer works AT ALL (which worked just fine with Leopard)
- My Microsoft keyboard has compatibility issues with 64 bit apps, but this is not necessarily Apple's problem (although they could have improved the compatibility)
- BootCamp 3 sucks -- the new file system drivers (for 64-Bit Windows) that allow Windows to access Mac partitions cause bluescreens (MacDrive, on the other hand, does not have such problems)
I must say that I find Windows 7 much more convincing than Snow Leopard. If only Microsoft gave the upgrade away for 29 Dollars... ;-)