d.perel said:Missed it. oh well, I can just wait for the relese then...or for someone to post a screenshot of it
no, you didnt...
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=167116
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.
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger Intro Movie?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no, you didnt...
http://www.spymac.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=167116
Is there a way I can find the current intro video for Panther on my machine? I'd like to save it. With Tiger, I figure it will vanish from my system, so I should make a copy now.
bah, the music track is awfull; seems that mr jobs was playing with garageband for a while...
i hope that apple changes that song and i leave some good sugestions
Sepultura - Refuse Resist (starting 2s later)
Helloween - aything My Mama Don't Like
angra - judgement Day
or why not funiculi funicula de mario lanza
i hope that apple changes that song and i leave some good sugestions
Sepultura - Refuse Resist (starting 2s later)
Helloween - aything My Mama Don't Like
angra - judgement Day
or why not funiculi funicula de mario lanza
VanNess said:Sounds just like 32 bit WinXP to me
Hehe...
IIRC, XP-64 has FULL 32-bit support, just like Panther and Tiger. It is intended to run on processors that implement either AMD's 'AMD64' 64-bit extensions to the x86 architecture, or Intel's EMT64 -- which is just Intel's reverse-engineered AMD64.
Bear in mind that the only 64-bit PC architecture to reach mass production is one of these two '32-bit with 64-bit extensions' processors (or more appropriately, 64-bit with full 32-bit compatibility). The only 'pure' 64-bit processor from Intel was the Itanium, which has been lampooned by the industry.
XP-64's only 64-bit software requirement is that hardware drivers be 64-bit.
Now, Tiger actually installs a completely different kernel and set of core libraries depending on whether it's being installed on a G3/4 or G5. Running on a G5, it's no less 64-bit than XP-64, at least where it counts. You'll probably find that Tiger on a G5 does not include a 64-bit Finder. But what on earth would the point of that be? The G5 imposes no speed penalty on 32-bit code, and if Finder somehow needs 64-bit address space & 64-bit floating point math then I'd be astonished.
Tiger's every bit as 64-bit (pardon the pun) as XP-64. The difference is that Tiger also includes 32-bit kernel and libraries for non 64-bit machines. It's a bit like if XP-64 also included the XP-32 kernel and core DLLs, and selected the appropriate one to install at setup.
*groan*... I can just see the trolls now... "My Explorer's 64-bit! Finder isn't! HAHAHA LOLZ!!!111oneone!!11". The only difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit file manager would be that the 64-bit one takes up twice as much memory for pointers.
Seems someone has converted the intro movie in question.
lets see how long for this time ?
http://www.industrial-technology-and-witchcraft.de/index.php/ITW/mac/
lets see how long for this time ?
http://www.industrial-technology-and-witchcraft.de/index.php/ITW/mac/
Nope Tiger does not install different kernels on G3, G4, or G5's. Tigers kernel resides in 32 bit address space. 64 bit support is provided thru a Lib64.displaced said:
It's funny that you brought up the Finder..... Because finder is one of the few GUI items in Tiger that access 64 bit memory. The reason why is the old Finder could not display contents of Volumes larger than 16 TB. This "NEW" Finder will be able to Display Gargantuan sized filesystems.displaced said:
displaced said:
Nope not at all. XP-64 has a 64 bit kernel with all OS provided apps recompiled as 64 bit. It also has WOW32 which allows the running of 32bit Windows apps.
displaced said:
Again this is incorrect. Tiger does not use multiple kernels for G3,G4 or G5.
It does have 64 bit Library support.
displaced said:
It isn't trolling to correct misconceptions with truth.
This whole argument gets rather tiring. I don't understand why "fanboys" of either Windows or Apple get so wrapped up in this.
Computers are tools. If your choice of Platform does what you want it to do ,then thats great. It doesn't make you superior or inferior because of your computer platform choices.
*grin* ... fair enough -- you're absolutely correct! I hadn't researched this for a while -- my mistake was not to include my standard disclaimer at the end of my post
I've since looked at some more reliable sources which back up your points. I hope you noticed that the tone of my message wasn't intended to be trollish -- I was attempting to simply explain how it worked (as I understood it -- wrongly apparently!).
So my only remaining question: What practical differences/limitations does Tiger's approach have? I really don't buy into the concept that a 64-bit computer should have every single piece of code running as pure 64-bit in order to be a 'true' 64-bit environment. This may have been the case in machines like the Itanium, but not on processors such as AMD64/EMT64/G5-class which impose no penalty on 32-bit apps.
I understood that Tiger will remove the per-process address space limit inherent in Panther. Is this still the case? If I wanted to sit down and develop a 64-bit aware application which could take full advantage of what the hardware supported, would I be able to with Tiger as the operating environment?
[edit:] incidentally, my last comment regarding trolls did itself sound rather trollish! But the point I was rather ham-fistedly attempting to make was that '64-bit' does not immediately mean better, or faster. Or am I wrong about that too?
I've since looked at some more reliable sources which back up your points. I hope you noticed that the tone of my message wasn't intended to be trollish -- I was attempting to simply explain how it worked (as I understood it -- wrongly apparently!).
So my only remaining question: What practical differences/limitations does Tiger's approach have? I really don't buy into the concept that a 64-bit computer should have every single piece of code running as pure 64-bit in order to be a 'true' 64-bit environment. This may have been the case in machines like the Itanium, but not on processors such as AMD64/EMT64/G5-class which impose no penalty on 32-bit apps.
I understood that Tiger will remove the per-process address space limit inherent in Panther. Is this still the case? If I wanted to sit down and develop a 64-bit aware application which could take full advantage of what the hardware supported, would I be able to with Tiger as the operating environment?
[edit:] incidentally, my last comment regarding trolls did itself sound rather trollish! But the point I was rather ham-fistedly attempting to make was that '64-bit' does not immediately mean better, or faster. Or am I wrong about that too?
matticus008 said:
Uh, there's a big difference between a panther and a cougar. Now, a cougar and a puma are the same critter, but they are not at all the same as a panther. Now, in point of fact, there is no such animal as a panther. The name panther is something that is commonly applied to either a black jaguar or a black leopard, both being of the panthera family. In common usage, panther simply refers to any large, black coated cat.
So, to date we have
10.0 Puma
10.1 Cheeta
10.2 Jaguar
10.3 Panther
10.4 Tiger
This leaves open:
Bobcat, Caracal, Chinese Desert Cat, Cougar, Fishing Cat, Flat-headed Cat, Geoffrey's Cat, Iriomote Cat, Jaguarundi, Jungle Cat, Kodkod, Leopard, Lion, Little Spotted Cat, Lynx, Margay, Marbled Cat, Ocelot, Pallas Cat, Pampas Cat, Rusty-Spotted Cat, Sand Cat, Serval, Wildcat
Of course, most of those don't have the flair and name recognition of 'Panther' or 'Tiger'. I wouldn't be too surprised to see something like 'Saber-Tooth'. That has some flair...
i dont know if Finder needs some lessons on algebra, but i feel that the network access behaviour in Finder is quite suglish and sometimes bizarre comparing with xp.
Snowy_River said:
Not all panthers are black. And mountain lions (cougars, pumas if you want) are often called panthers as well (why, I don't know, but I looked it up beforehand). Panthers, technically, do not exist as a separate species of anything. You're right. Panthera is the genus name for the so-called "big cats." A panther, as most people believe, is nothing more than a black jaguar or leopard. I thought a panther was at least different from a mountain lion, but apparently that's not the case everywhere.
What's interesting is that not all of the OS X iterations actually ARE big cats. So it opens up the list for a wide array of choices. I think Leopard is the next logical choice, personally. It sounds better than Lion, and it's the only major one not yet covered.
Okay so let's try to tackle this question. The differences are that Tiger is still largely (almost completely 32-bit) as far as most users and the overwhelming majority of applications are concerned. It has a good foundation for 64-bit support for those that need to develop software using those capabilities. The limitations are that much of the OS will not be able to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities without a rewrite, whereas with XP x64 the OS is almost entirely ready to work in 64-bit mode throughout. Third party applications vary, of course.displaced said:
As for it running all code in 64-bit to be called "true 64-bit," I think that is more or less how I would define "true 64-bit." That is, a 64-bit system that does not rely (but does not necessarily forbid or become incompatible with) on 32-bit code at all. A true 64-bit OS should allow you to work completely in 64-bit mode, all the time, if you want to and have the appropriate software. Anything else is more of a hybrid in my book. That's just my opinion though. So by that token, Tiger can't claim to be true-64, but XP x64 basically fits that definition.
I'm not sure the limit is so much removed as changed (significantly). If you want to develop 64-bit software, Tiger lets you, but I think someone like loserman should answer this one, because I don't do much (any) 64-bit development. Just some 64-bit compiling.
It doesn't necessarily mean faster, but "better" depends on what you do. 64-bit is automatically better if you need to access unbelievable amounts of storage or more than the memory limits of 32-bit systems. It's better if you need to do data manipulation with large chunks or many kinds of intensive database work. It's not necessarily better if you want to play games, and probably won't matter for accessing the internet and playing music.
matticus008 said:
Hmm. I've never heard a mountain lion being called a panther. This is especially inappropriate as the mountain lion is not of the panthera family. It is, in fact, a Puma Concolor. There are several families that contribute to the 'big cats', not just the panthera.
Maybe OS 10.5: 907MP-fueled Man-eating Radioactive-Awesome-CatSiliconAddict said:I keep telling you guy...its gotta be OS 10.5: SaberTooth.
If it was up to me though it would be OS 10.5: Ocelot It just sort of rollllllls off the tongue.
or just "X.5"
Wait a tic, let me see if I understand this.
Tiger - 32-bit OS with 64-bit tacked on.
WinXP64 - 64-bit OS with 32-bit tacked on.
G5 - 64-bit processor with 32-bit tacked on (I think).
x64 - 32-bit processor with 64-bit tacked on.
Therefore, isn't Tiger more in line with an x64 processor, and WinXP64 is more inline with the G5?
...
[fanboy]Windows Sucks[/fanboy]
Tiger - 32-bit OS with 64-bit tacked on.
WinXP64 - 64-bit OS with 32-bit tacked on.
G5 - 64-bit processor with 32-bit tacked on (I think).
x64 - 32-bit processor with 64-bit tacked on.
Therefore, isn't Tiger more in line with an x64 processor, and WinXP64 is more inline with the G5?
...
[fanboy]Windows Sucks[/fanboy]
Hmm. Interesting observation. I'm sure plenty of people would argue both ways for each the G5/AMD64 designs. Intel fanboys need not apply; EM64T is AMD64.Jalexster said:
I think both the Athlon 64 and G5 had similar design philosophies and development and that both companies tried to develop a natural extension to their 32-bit designs. Neither one really tacked anything on, but instead said, "let's do this 64 bit thing but keep the 32b parts working so we don't do another Itanium." But still, it's an amusing thought you've brought up.
Another Host
http://hometheatermac.com/viewtopic.php?t=123&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&
Just in case the other sites don't last.
Does anyone know the title of the background music?
http://hometheatermac.com/viewtopic.php?t=123&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&
Just in case the other sites don't last.
Does anyone know the title of the background music?
Can Apple order the removal of the movie from a non-domestic site? Kinda like with file sharing being hosted over seas.
1,000th post! I guess that means I'm getting kinda old around here.
Anyways....When did Apple start using intro movies?
Anyways....When did Apple start using intro movies?