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.
New Snow Leopard Build (10A261) Seeded to Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But my friend, you have forgotten about SongSmith--or, as I like to call it, OfficeBand.
Don't you understand that the ability for Windows users to put soulless muzak behind mediocre vocal performances will have the folks in Cupertino shaking in their boots?
A bit of a problem here.
How well any one program will benefit from SL improved multi core support is a function of how the program is structured and how well the bottle necks can be spread across those cores. Some program may even require a rewrite to really benefit from SL.
The other problem is that Aqua is slow!!!!! They need to focus on speed ups here. It is sad but Linux in a VM running on Leopard is faster than Leopard.
Dave
Yes in a sense that is part of the goals for SL. Unfortunately I believe many people have unreasonable expectations for what better core support will do for them. Better SMP support won't magically make a non threaded program faster for example though the system itself could be faster. Even a threaded program might not see an exceptional speed up as Mac OS is already capable of servicing a multi threaded program.
How well any one program will benefit from SL improved multi core support is a function of how the program is structured and how well the bottle necks can be spread across those cores. Some program may even require a rewrite to really benefit from SL.
My point of view is that Apple needs to address the excessive number of bugs seen in it's previous point releases. There will always be some of course but it has been excesive of late. Frankly I'd rather see Apple emulate the Linux community a bit by releasing often and incrementally adding to the feature set.
The other problem is that Aqua is slow!!!!! They need to focus on speed ups here. It is sad but Linux in a VM running on Leopard is faster than Leopard.
This really can't be confused with a service pack. While being undersold by Apple this is a major update. What we should end up with is a full 64 bit OS with some very compelling features for developers. While outwardly SL won't change much for the user, parts of those user interface components ought to be a lot faster. In the end this is a lot more than a release to fix what is broken like service packs do.Coming from the PC world originally, it is quite different to see this kind of release. Windows was never done that way (that I know of). But then again Windows never charged for their updates (service packs). OSX is cheaper to buy in the first place though...
Rich
Dave
Well, M$ kind of needs thousands of beta testers to run it and submit reports (M$ gets no benefit from kiddies interested in the new hotness who won't submit bug reports) on the myriad hardware configurations.
Apple doesn't have this problem - and probably has a decent enough farm of machine configurations that by just seeding to a small group of trusted (eg: paying) customers they don't have to worry too much about piracy... From the sound of things, this beta is stable enough to be a Leopard replacement to warrant not letting it get into too many hands without a time bomb in it.
That apps are smaller because they've been re-written to only use Cocoa instead of Carbon.
What compromises exactly? I use a octo 2008 Mac Pro, and those machines pretty much include every technology which was available at the launch date. Best memory, best processors, best bus speeds, quite a lot of interfaces etc. Yes now they are a bit outdated, only on the memory side actually, but other than that they are still topnotch machines. Don't get me started on GPU's, that has nothing to do with Apple. If Nvidia and ATI don't release all their cards for Apple, it's their doing, not Apple's.
I think you'll find it just hasn't been announced for the Consumer level of Snow Leopard yet. Apple always announces new file systems for their server edition first, (remember HFS+ was announced on the server edition first) but they always release it on the Consumer edition too. Mainly for compatability reasons.
It isn't ready yet for consumer release.
Anyway, the consumer will not benefit at all (or very small anyway) from ZFS.
True. Now that Windows 7 will drop all the Live applications, it's even worse than before. No big deal though. Mediocre (aka Movie) Maker, Photo Gallery and Media Player are terrible and cannot be compared with iMovie, iPhoto and QuickTime respectively.
Even the name is similar
No way!! Windows 7 is way better then Vista, its actually Vista + Leopard imo.. your right the applications are a bit useless, but even when i was using my Macbook I never used iWork or iLife.. useless!! I tried iDvd but it didn't work out because the video and audio would never sync, so It was just me wasting Dvd's i tried it about 3 times then I quit... I'm a designer I only find Adobe products useful.. And btw Windows Media Center imo is still superior then Apple's Front Row..
Go into terminal app and type "man zfs". It's already there but can only be used on external drives I believe ( not sure on this one ).
It certainly isn't perfect nor intuitive.
People generally complain when there are real issues with a piece of software. Mail unfortunately is a pile of crap. Frankly Mail on my iPhone gives me less grief.
Consider for instance how easy it is to get filtering to work in Thunderbird as opposed to Mail. I just find Mail to be a mess to configure and use.
Dave
People generally complain when there are real issues with a piece of software. Mail unfortunately is a pile of crap. Frankly Mail on my iPhone gives me less grief.
Consider for instance how easy it is to get filtering to work in Thunderbird as opposed to Mail. I just find Mail to be a mess to configure and use.
Dave
Have they actually stated that this will be supported in Snow Leopard? There has been a lot of speculation, but I haven't seen anything definitive.
I remember reading that in SL library code that is generally now reproduced in each app will be moved into common files or something, thus drastically reducing application size. Anybody know?
bah humbug... I was not one of those notified...
I wouldn't worry about it. It looks like Apple is targeting folks that submit a lot of bugs and/or do printer drivers and/or Exchange support with Windows servers. Not the first time Apple's done this and won't be the last.
The Mac Pro is fine but it has a small specialized customer base. In consumer computers, the product line has a lot of issues. The Macbook Air is under-featured and way overpriced. The mainline Macbooks offer no quad-core CPUs (possibly because of heat, as in "thinner" strikes again). Firewire, Apple's own technology, was dropped from the entry-level MB. Non-glossy screens available only in the 17" (I think). In "desktops," well, the mini isn't even worth mentioning anymore, it's been so neglected. iMacs are mostly laptop parts nowadays (the "thin" obsession again), and way overdue for an update. And the gaping hole of a lack of a midrange tower. No product below the Mac Pro offers the kind of upgradeability and expandability that was standard for Apple in the past.
I don't think Apple is entirely without blame here. They appear to have no problems convincing either of these companies to make cards for all their computers as and when they need them. I guess Apple just doesn't see user-upgradable graphics as a strong priority for the Mac platform.
ZFS Read-only Implementation
ZFS on OSX is implemented as a readonly filesystem by default. This means that only the ZFS subcommands that do non write operations are permitted. Permitted subcommands are list, get, mount, unmount, and send.
A full ZFS implementation that allows all subcommands and is read/write is available for download at http://developer.apple.com/.
Now don't all go downloading it and hose your drives
Your problem was that you didn't market the overhaul. When the teachers came back you should have given them a printed notice, with all the mind-numbing stats on the throughput, and tech specs, and MTBFs (regardless whether applicable or not) etc etc and then told them that from now on the network would be referred to as the "Assured School Situational Holistic Network v2" (or some other cool sounding name). Now the teachers have something to brag about with the teachers from other schools. Now you'll get some credit.
It's strange - ZFS mentioned for Server, but not for consumer edition. However, from what I can see, only Daniel Eran Dilger is the only person i've seen pushing that the consumer version will get it also.
Apple's word thus far:
* All features on this page are subject to change.
Speculation:
Appleinsider from 2007 - "Developers receiving the latest ZFS preview, however, are granted access to full read and write capabilities under Leopard, including the ability to create and destruct ZFS pools and filesystems."
The article also linking to a Chief Executive at Sun saying it was being built in.
Daniel's got stronger in tone on ZFS:
>6 months back:
Kim's take in August 08: was "there has been no official word on the consumer version"
Not sure if there has been anything really about how they shrunk the sizes of apps down. Mind you there was no word about concurrency either. (I'd imagine WWDC will have plenty on that and Grand Central).
Anyone got more recent links on ZFS?
This is exactly why I have a Mac Pro. I have it all!!! I really love it, but I wish there was a mid-range tower. I think Apple thinks desktops are on the way out.
Spotlight can search system folder or library, just not directly
Spotlight does index those folders, and you can use Spotlight to search system folders and the library, it just takes a couple of extra steps: You have to open the folder, type in your search query, then select the folder name. I assume that this is handled this way so that people won't accidentally delete system/library files from a general Spotlight search, but they can search those folders if they clearly need to. I do it all the time when I want find it something in the library that may be causing a problem, for example.
Spotlight does index those folders, and you can use Spotlight to search system folders and the library, it just takes a couple of extra steps: You have to open the folder, type in your search query, then select the folder name. I assume that this is handled this way so that people won't accidentally delete system/library files from a general Spotlight search, but they can search those folders if they clearly need to. I do it all the time when I want find it something in the library that may be causing a problem, for example.
If they don't add smart file copying like in Windows I'm going to go crazy. It's one of the features you don't use that often, but when you do need it its a god-send.
Say, for example you are copying over a large amount of files and one file is corrupted or damaged somehow. Currently, that one file will stop the entire process and you'll have to find that one offending file, remove it, and pray that there are no more. When you do simple software based harddrive recovery this makes copying the files back an extreme pain in the ass because many small/useless files will become corrupt preventing you from copying it all back and sorting through it later. If you're doing it for a customer you have to sort while you transfer taking up way too much time (time you must charge for), instead of letting them sift through what's important.
In Vista, the errors will be displayed at the end of the process after eveything else is copied/moved. Also, if there are duplicate names, OS X will only let you replace them or do nothing, whereas Vista will let you do both, AND choose to rename the new file "xxxx (2)", and let you keep both.
Again, those aren't things most regular users run into often, however, when they do, or when someone like me is moving hundreds/thousands of files over to a new drive and it stops because "file '342xcp8com' could not be transfered because it is corrupt or missing", is just flat out retarded.
Say, for example you are copying over a large amount of files and one file is corrupted or damaged somehow. Currently, that one file will stop the entire process and you'll have to find that one offending file, remove it, and pray that there are no more. When you do simple software based harddrive recovery this makes copying the files back an extreme pain in the ass because many small/useless files will become corrupt preventing you from copying it all back and sorting through it later. If you're doing it for a customer you have to sort while you transfer taking up way too much time (time you must charge for), instead of letting them sift through what's important.
In Vista, the errors will be displayed at the end of the process after eveything else is copied/moved. Also, if there are duplicate names, OS X will only let you replace them or do nothing, whereas Vista will let you do both, AND choose to rename the new file "xxxx (2)", and let you keep both.
Again, those aren't things most regular users run into often, however, when they do, or when someone like me is moving hundreds/thousands of files over to a new drive and it stops because "file '342xcp8com' could not be transfered because it is corrupt or missing", is just flat out retarded.