Mac OS X Lion Roundup: Recovery Partitions, TRIM, Core 2 Duo Minimum, Security Focus

[gapdev]

OSX Trim Support

I just received my 17" MacBook Pro with the 512 GB SSD and it has a newer version of OS X 10.6.6 that supports TRIM.

The Build number changed from Build 10J567 to Build 10J3210 (I had to modify the Letterbox.mailbundle to work with this build).

I was worried about not having TRIM support until the release of Lion, but it looks like I've got it after all.

Kenny

 

[cmaier]

I just received my 17" MacBook Pro with the 512 GB SSD and it has a newer version of OS X 10.6.6 that supports TRIM.

The Build number changed from Build 10J567 to Build 10J3210 (I had to modify the Letterbox.mailbundle to work with this build).

I was worried about not having TRIM support until the release of Lion, but it looks like I've got it after all.

Kenny

Whoa. That's news.

 

[AidenShaw]

I just received my 17" MacBook Pro with the 512 GB SSD and it has a newer version of OS X 10.6.6 that supports TRIM.

The Build number changed from Build 10J567 to Build 10J3210 (I had to modify the Letterbox.mailbundle to work with this build).

I was worried about not having TRIM support until the release of Lion, but it looks like I've got it after all.

Kenny

Didn't you get the

You don't need TRIM.

Or Blu-ray.

Or USB 3.0.

Steve

sent from my Iphone

mail?

 

[Terminal.app]

Ohmahgawd! And here I was thinking Apple was going to make TRIM a Lion "feature", but looks like they did the sensible thing and gave it to SL too. Good for you Apple.

 

[MrNomNoms]

They don't have to wait for Lion to rewrite iTunes though. iTunes will run perfectly fine under Lion. The fact that iTunes is still 32-bit has little relevance to Lion dropping 32-bit processors.

AV Foundation is used on iOS and it has now been made available on Mac OS X Lion - I'd say if all things stay consistent you're going to see the iTunes come from iOS, desktopified and replace the existing iTunes (the new iTunes based upon AV Foundation rather than QuickTime - hopefully AV Foundation will be portable to Windows which should mean a less 'kitchensink' size download), maybe even go as far as seeing the modularisation of iTunes into 'iOS AppStore' and 'Mac AppStore' and the player itself. The big question is whether they're going to remove CD ripping or whether it'll continue given the prevalence of music downloads.

Remember those were only 32-bit. I think they just want to make a break from that extra baggage now rather than with the next update.

Lion should be 64-bit goodness from top to bottom that can run older 32-bit apps.

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is already 64bit from top to bottom, the only thing that is still 32bit is the kernel where in Lion it moves to it - so all the components on Snow Leopard are 64bit already.

 

[munkery]

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is already 64bit from top to bottom, the only thing that is still 32bit is the kernel where in Lion it moves to it - so all the components on Snow Leopard are 64bit already.

Have you checked dyld_shared_cache_i386 map recently?

 

[MrNomNoms]

Have you checked dyld_shared_cache_i386 map recently?

What about it? When I list the contents of the directory I get:

ls -la
total 807312
drwxr-xr-x 7 root wheel 238 19 Feb 16:13 .
drwxr-xr-x 44 root wheel 1496 1 Mar 13:12 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 207171584 19 Feb 16:12 dyld_shared_cache_i386
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 49614 19 Feb 16:12 dyld_shared_cache_i386.map
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 206069760 19 Feb 16:12 dyld_shared_cache_x86_64
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 48806 19 Feb 16:12 dyld_shared_cache_x86_64.map
drwxr-xr-x 8 root wheel 272 14 Jul 2009 shared_region_roots

How is that remotely confusing or wrong? There is i386 cache and x86-64 cache, the i386 is there to support 32bit applications, the x86_64 is there to support 64bit applications - Mac OS X like all *NIX's don't operate like Windows where 32bit applications sit on some abstraction layer where all the calls are thunked to 64bit libraries via some WOW64. 32bit applications link back to 32bit libraries, 64bit applications link to 64bit libraries - and the cache there speed up the whole process of running applications. It doesn't change the fact that the only thing not 64bit in Mac OS X Snow Leopard is the kernel, if you're running Snow Leopard on a Core 2 machine all your system components will run in 64bit - the only 32bit applications left as far as I remember were DVD Player, Front Row and iTunes; hardly what I'd consider 'system components.

Want me to crack open my 'System Monitor' to prove my Safari and finder are running in 64bit?

 

[bozz2006]

...the only thing that is still 32bit is the kernel where in Lion it moves to it - so all the components on Snow Leopard are 64bit already.

But I'm not so sure about this. The message from Apple doesn't directly support this, as far as I can tell. It says that you need a core2duo chip, minimum, to run Lion. And my original Mac Pro's chips have core2duo architecture, so that would make me think I could run Lion on it. However, my original Mac Pro has 32 bit EFI which is incapable of running on a 64 bit kernel.

So either
1) they'll address the 32 bit EFI issue and release an EFI update computers like my mac pro which has 64 bit capable processors but not 64 bit EFI,
2) Lion will still support 32 bit kernel,
3) the real minimum requirement is 64 bit EFI, not a core2duo chip

 

[AidenShaw]

Mac OS X like all *NIX's don't operate like Windows where 32bit applications sit on some abstraction layer where all the calls are thunked to 64bit libraries via some WOW64...

This is incorrect - all user-mode libraries in WOW64 are 32-bit. Thunking is only done for calls to the kernel.

•Wow64.dll provides the core emulation infrastructure and the thunks for the Ntoskrnl.exe entry-point functions.
•Wow64Win.dll provides thunks for the Win32k.sys entry-point functions.
•Wow64Cpu.dll is an interface library that abstracts characteristics of the host processor.
...
At startup, Wow64.dll loads the x86 version of Ntdll.dll and runs its initialization code, which loads all necessary 32-bit DLLs. Almost all 32-bit DLLs are unmodified copies of 32-bit Windows binaries.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384274(v=VS.85).aspx

The %SystemRoot%\SysWOW64 directory contains all the 32-bit libraries and system applications. When a 32-bit program is running, any references it makes to %SystemRoot%\system32 (where 64-bit applications/libraries live) are transparently redirected to %SystemRoot%\SysWOW64 (where 32-bit application/libraries live).

Other 32-bit applications are installed in %SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86). 32-bit application references to %ProgramFiles% are redirected from %SystemDrive%\Program Files to %SystemDrive%\Program Files (x86).

The WOW64 subsystem is an optional component of Windows Server 2008 R2 (many other components are optional for Server as well).

 

[neshkito]

how much and will it be available via app store?

I think I saw it in a store somewhere. Let me check for you and will report back

 

[munkery]

What about it? When I list the contents of the directory I get:

Locate dyld_shared_cache_i386.map in finder and open it with TextEdit.app.

The items shown in dyld_shared_cache_i386.map are 32-bit dylibs used by other processes including 64-bit processes such as Safari (via plugins, PDF support, etc).

The dyld_shared_cache_i386.map has been used to exploit 64-bit Safari at PWN2OWN.

The number of items used in dyld_shared_cache_i386.map is reduced with each major update.

 

[MrNomNoms]

But I'm not so sure about this. The message from Apple doesn't directly support this, as far as I can tell. It says that you need a core2duo chip, minimum, to run Lion. And my original Mac Pro's chips have core2duo architecture, so that would make me think I could run Lion on it. However, my original Mac Pro has 32 bit EFI which is incapable of running on a 64 bit kernel.

So either
1) they'll address the 32 bit EFI issue and release an EFI update computers like my mac pro which has 64 bit capable processors but not 64 bit EFI,
2) Lion will still support 32 bit kernel,
3) the real minimum requirement is 64 bit EFI, not a core2duo chip

Or (4) it doesn't matter about EFI - Apple probably just disabled booting into the 64bit kernel just as you couldn't boot into the 64bit kernel with Snow Leopard on some models that did include EFI64.

This is incorrect - all user-mode libraries in WOW64 are 32-bit. Thunking is only done for calls to the kernel.

Thank you for the correction.

Locate dyld_shared_cache_i386.map in finder and open it with TextEdit.app.

The items shown in dyld_shared_cache_i386.map are 32-bit dylibs used by other processes including 64-bit processes such as Safari (via plugins, PDF support, etc).

The dyld_shared_cache_i386.map has been used to exploit 64-bit Safari at PWN2OWN.

The number of items used in dyld_shared_cache_i386.map is reduced with each major update.

I'm confused about what you're trying to get at - Safari using 32bit dylibs? most likely for backwards compatibility or something. Again, you haven't demonstrated to me that the system relies on 32bit libraries to function when running on a Core 2 other than showing that there is 32bit backwards compatibility for those applications which require it.

 

[munkery]

Mac OS X Snow Leopard is already 64bit from top to bottom, the only thing that is still 32bit is the kernel where in Lion it moves to it - so all the components on Snow Leopard are 64bit already.

I'm confused about what you're trying to get at - Safari using 32bit dylibs? most likely for backwards compatibility or something. Again, you haven't demonstrated to me that the system relies on 32bit libraries to function when running on a Core 2 other than showing that there is 32bit backwards compatibility for those applications which require it.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37699333/Dino-A-Dai-Zovi-a-href=mailtoddztheta44orgddztheta44org Newer releases of Snow Leopard have more 64-bit (than presented in those slides) but some 64-bit apps still interact with 32-bit components.

 

[MrNomNoms]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/37699333/Dino-A-Dai-Zovi-a-href=mailtoddztheta44orgddztheta44org Newer releases of Snow Leopard have more 64-bit (than presented in those slides) but some 64-bit apps still interact with 32-bit components.

But the picture you've shown are only evidence of backwards compatibility; the picture you linked clearly stated that WebKitPluginHost in Safari is for backwards compatibility for 32bit plugins, and the QtKitServer provides backwards compatibility for 32bit legacy codecs. The two examples you gave were examples of 32bit code used for backwards compatibility and not for getting the system actually running. If you removed QtKitServer the operating would still run just as if you removed WebKitPluginHost things would still continue rocking be it without 32bit plugin support.

As for QTKit, well, that API is a frankenstein that I think will eventually be killed off in the long run as AV Foundation makes its way to Lion - from what I have heard there has been no real additions to QTKit when it comes to filling in the gaps where features are missing. The rumours of two versions of Final Cut will probably involve one bridging back to the 32bit Carbon QuickTme with the other version being based upon AV Foundation.

 

[dime21]

I don't like the recovery partition idea. I hope it's optional on a fresh install. If you've got an SSD, each GB of disk space is rather expensive storage. A DVD disc on the other hand is very cheap. For something that is so rarely used, I would much rather leave that functionality on a DVD disc.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I don't like the recovery partition idea. I hope it's optional on a fresh install. If you've got an SSD, each GB of disk space is rather expensive storage. A DVD disc on the other hand is very cheap. For something that is so rarely used, I would much rather leave that functionality on a DVD disc.

Good point - I hope the AppStore is but one of two options (the other being a physical copy) that one can choose from - I'm all for purchasing applications via the AppStore but IMHO operating systems via the AppStore is 'one step too far'.

 

[munkery]

But the picture you've shown are only evidence of backwards compatibility; the picture you linked clearly stated that WebKitPluginHost in Safari is for backwards compatibility for 32bit plugins, and the QtKitServer provides backwards compatibility for 32bit legacy codecs. The two examples you gave were examples of 32bit code used for backwards compatibility and not for getting the system actually running. If you removed QtKitServer the operating would still run just as if you removed WebKitPluginHost things would still continue rocking be it without 32bit plugin support.

As for QTKit, well, that API is a frankenstein that I think will eventually be killed off in the long run as AV Foundation makes its way to Lion - from what I have heard there has been no real additions to QTKit when it comes to filling in the gaps where features are missing. The rumours of two versions of Final Cut will probably involve one bridging back to the 32bit Carbon QuickTme with the other version being based upon AV Foundation.

The point is, to be fully functional, Snow Leopard is not 64-bit top to bottom as you previously stated.

BTW, Webkit Plugin Host can not be removed if you wish to use plugins with Safari. It is part of the system that runs plugins in another process to sandbox the plugin from the browser.

BTW, the current Flash is a legacy codec in that it is only 32-bit.

 

[bozz2006]

Or (4) it doesn't matter about EFI - Apple probably just disabled booting into the 64bit kernel just as you couldn't boot into the 64bit kernel with Snow Leopard on some models that did include EFI64.

From everything that I've read and heard, the original Mac Pros with 32 bit EFI are not capable of running running 64 bit kernel and that 64 bit kernel requires 64 bit EFI.

 

[munkery]

From everything that I've read and heard, the original Mac Pros with 32 bit EFI are not capable of running running 64 bit kernel and that 64 bit kernel requires 64 bit EFI.

32-bit EFI can run 64-bit kernel. The limitation is imposed by Apple. From here, http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html

For one a limitation set by Apple is that Snow Leopard’s 64-bit kernel works only on Macs with 64-bit EFI. Technically a 64-bit kernel can be launched by a 32-bit EFI just fine.

I also heard that it may be possible for Apple to update 32-bit EFI systems to 64-bit EFI with a firmware update. Not sure how true that is?

 

[AidenShaw]

From everything that I've read and heard, the original Mac Pros with 32 bit EFI are not capable of running running 64 bit kernel and that 64 bit kernel requires 64 bit EFI.

32-bit EFI can run 64-bit kernel. The limitation is imposed by Apple.

And those systems run x64 Linux and x64 Windows no problem.

Apple can fix this without requiring an EFI update.

 

[bozz2006]

That would make me a happy camper.

 

[newb16]

Except that many developers don't support older versions of the OS after the new one comes out.

Especially when you can't run e.g. 10.4 within virtual machine and it may be unsupported on the current hardware, so if you really need to support it, you have to buy a used box just for testing.

 

[lpfuria]

I just received my 17" MacBook Pro with the 512 GB SSD and it has a newer version of OS X 10.6.6 that supports TRIM.

The Build number changed from Build 10J567 to Build 10J3210 (I had to modify the Letterbox.mailbundle to work with this build).

I was worried about not having TRIM support until the release of Lion, but it looks like I've got it after all.

Kenny

Great news!

Did you realized your MBP has SATA III interface as well?

 

[AidenShaw]

System Profiler is just listing whether the DRIVE supports the TRIM command.

It doesn't mean the operating system is issuing that command.

System Profiler already displays this on Snow Leopard today.

[)amien

I just received my 17" MacBook Pro with the 512 GB SSD and it has a newer version of OS X 10.6.6 that supports TRIM.

And here I was thinking Apple was going to make TRIM a Lion "feature", but looks like they did the sensible thing and gave it to SL too.

Which version is true - is TRIM actually working, or is profiler just displaying the drive feature mask and not the system capability (that is, TRIM support in both OS and drive)?

 

[dot.ducky]

Anybody notice if Clamav is included by default in Mac OS X Lion?

It is included by default in Mac OS X Server, so I thought it may be included in Lion given that it is a hybrid client/server release.

Not there