While Snow Leopard is said to be fully 64-bit, as the screenshots show it will work on 32-bit (Core Solo and Core Duo) Intel processors. It will not be compatible with PowerPC, although Orchard Spy has learned that Apple is at this point continuing to churn out builds for PowerPCbut only internally.
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.
OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' Seeded to WWDC Developers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While Snow Leopard is said to be fully 64-bit, as the screenshots show it will work on 32-bit (Core Solo and Core Duo) Intel processors. It will not be compatible with PowerPC, although Orchard Spy has learned that Apple is at this point continuing to churn out builds for PowerPCbut only internally.
This is correct. 64-bit kernels can take full advantage of RAM above the 32-bit addressing limit (4GB), but they are not limited to running in such environments. Heck, if a machine with a 64-bit kernel in its OS was made that had only 512 MB RAM (well below the 32-bit address limit) it would run just fine.
looks sweet but freeing up hard drive space = non-issue, i have 3TB my step mom 120GB, she'll never use it, I way past the OS X 10GB footprint, i care less.
The libraries that kernel extensions depend on are already 64-bit clean. You can build a 64-bit driver today using XCode (but you can't test it, obviously).
Right now the key things Apple needs to do in order to move the kernel to 64-bit is push devs to be building 64-bit when they build their drivers, port the kernel to 64-bit, and build/test the current kexts against 64-bit.
It isn't as much work as one would think at first. They did a lot of the foundation work to make the move possible in Leopard. Apple will have to be a bit louder if they do intend to force devs into releasing 64-bit drivers though, otherwise we see wonderful XP 64 and Vista 64 issues all over again in 10.6...
No wonder Sun's UltraSPARCs were so expensive
Imagine having to get 4GB in your workstation in the mid-90's. I remember when 4MB was about a grand.
Now question is where is the torrent
Waiting is fullness.
I want my serial number for 10.6 server. Yes, I have a "Legal" copy.
Now question is where is the torrent
I know, I want to start testing this Exchange support!
Or DEC's Alpha Servers in 1992! A gig of ram back then probably cost the same as a new car.No wonder Sun's UltraSPARCs were so expensive
oh ok. i knew they gave out the client version, didn't know they gave out the server version also.
Yes, if you use Exchange 2007. The Exchange 2003 support is (as far as i can see) the same as we have in Leopard today.
No. I am going to do something I rarely do and call Apple support with one of my support issue uses. Oh well.
I will keep trying.
To me, all this means is that Snow Leopard has refined the 64-bit GUI support to the point where making Apple's own applications support it isn't terribly difficult in most cases. Trust me, this is a GOOD thing.
Enter: Power Overwhelming?
I don't think we're picking up on what the use of OpenCL really means. Unlocking the processing power of the GPUs will be immense. The only example that comes to mind of what this can really do is the PS3. The PS3 using it's CPU(s) alone can pull about 218 gigaflops. But what allows to have its mark of 2 teraflops is its ability to utilize its GPUs for processing power. Imagine what a Mac Pro with dual quads and dual Quadro FX 5700 could do. This is a big deal.
I don't think we're picking up on what the use of OpenCL really means. Unlocking the processing power of the GPUs will be immense. The only example that comes to mind of what this can really do is the PS3. The PS3 using it's CPU(s) alone can pull about 218 gigaflops. But what allows to have its mark of 2 teraflops is its ability to utilize its GPUs for processing power. Imagine what a Mac Pro with dual quads and dual Quadro FX 5700 could do. This is a big deal.
what apple needs to do close to release of this is put dedicated GPUs in all their macs, or at least hybrid GPUs. If you are buying a laptop, for example, how awesome would it be to see a macbook that has usually comparable performance with the rest of the crowd, to use (even a semi powerful GPU) to out preform higher priced/ clocked competitors. thats the upgrade i'd pay for.
Awesome Snow Leopard gotta get it.
Where do I get a copy?
MacNotes.de
Apple has seeded WWDC developers with an early release of Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' today. A photo of the installation disc was posted to MacNotes.de. Meanwhile, a site called OrchardSpy claims to have posted screenshots from the actual installation and reveals a build number of 10A96:
OrchardSpy
Article Link
Where do I get a copy?
Are you a Select or Premier ADC Member? If you are you'll have to wait until Apple releases seeds to these folks. If not, then I'm afraid you cannot get one until it's officially released - at least by legal means.
The discussion about who would pay $129 (or whatever the price will be) for Snow Leopard seems a bit odd to me. I definately would (and as a FOSS fan boy, that's pretty rare).
Consider it this way, Nvidia has shown CUDA speeds up many processes between 10-100 times. Seriously, transcoding HD video is 10 times faster and Folding@Home is 100 times faster. When Apple starts posting bechmarks showing how OpenCl and Grand Central affect real-world apps like Photoshop, Final Cut and even iTunes encoding, I think we'll all see the light. After all, which is more cost effective, a $129 software upgrade or a new Mac Pro?
Snow Leopard promises to breathe new life into our hardware and keep us satisfied with its performance for a few more years. While this gives Apple an edge in the long run and is a great idea over all, it might actually be a bad deal in the short run for a company that makes so much of its money on hardware sales (unless of course those benchmarks bring new converts to the Apple fold).
Consider it this way, Nvidia has shown CUDA speeds up many processes between 10-100 times. Seriously, transcoding HD video is 10 times faster and Folding@Home is 100 times faster. When Apple starts posting bechmarks showing how OpenCl and Grand Central affect real-world apps like Photoshop, Final Cut and even iTunes encoding, I think we'll all see the light. After all, which is more cost effective, a $129 software upgrade or a new Mac Pro?
Snow Leopard promises to breathe new life into our hardware and keep us satisfied with its performance for a few more years. While this gives Apple an edge in the long run and is a great idea over all, it might actually be a bad deal in the short run for a company that makes so much of its money on hardware sales (unless of course those benchmarks bring new converts to the Apple fold).
One of the reasons Apple is doing this because they want to win the "who's OS is better" argument hands down. If you can show that ported apps run 10x quicker on your OS than on the other guy's, you've got something compelling that the other guys would have a hard time countering.
Windows for years has lived off the fact that the OS didn't need to get trimmer, because computers always got faster and faster. In fact, from a Wintel standpoint, windows becoming more of a resource hog was a GOOD THING because it drove hardware sales.
Apple taking the other approach, and actually losing a development cycle worth of opportunity cost in order to position their OS for the next round of hardware, is a gutsy move, but one that I believe will pay off handsomely over the next 2-3 years.