OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432

[Bueller007]

Quote: Originally Posted by pika2000
"Okay, can we at least get a confirmation whether one can fresh install SL on an empty hard-drive (without Leopard installed)? I mean come on, this is the biggest question right now. Who cares about the packaging/pictures."

"$9.95 Snow Leopard Up-to-Date Program disc will permit an erase and install per Apple customer service yesterday."

So, I'm running 10.5.8 on my MacBook... if I buy the $29.95 Snow Leopard Upgrade disc, can I do a clean install directly off of that?
Or will I have to hunt down my old Leopard disc, install that, then throw in the the Snow Leopard disc to upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard?

Total guess, but I would imagine the way it works is to look for an existing installation of Mac OS X upon boot-up from media. If it finds 10.5 or 10.6, it'll allow you to install (including the ability to wipe the partition and install from scratch). If it finds 10.4 or earlier, a non-Apple OS, or nothing at all, then it won't allow you to install.

Probably best to keep your 10.5 DVD laying around.

==

Edit to add: It would also make sense if they were checking computer model numbers. For example, since all unibody laptops shipped with 10.5 (or later), unibodies should be automatically approved by the 10.6 upgrade installer without even considering the OS that is installed on the computer.

 

[THX1139]

If you consider a hybrid, lower-performance solution to be "better implemented" than true 64-bit operating system, OK.

Also, note that Windows x64 will run on any Apple with a Core 2 Duo CPU, but OSX x64 skips quite a few models. That's "better implemented"?

I gotta agree with you. I can boot into Windows on my early 2006 Mac Pro and have true 64bit performance, but I can't do that with Snow Leopard? And I'm on a Mac? That's messed up. It's forcing me to "think different" on the next system I invest in. I like OSX, but I use the Mac primarily for Final Cut Pro. With Windows7 and 64bit support of CS4- and practically all of my primary apps, it makes a compelling argument to move in that direction. I've been a Mac user since 1985, but it looks like they just can't keep up. Sure, if you need a personal device like an iPhone or iPod, then Apple is hard to beat. But for high-end computer tasks and best bang for the buck, PC's have the advantage. Will Apple catchup? Hard to say, I've been waiting for quite a few years now. There is a reason that PIXAR doesn't use Mac even though Steve has a heavy influence.

 

[Lordedmond]

Ok question

hypothetically does the acquired 432 build number relate to the actual OS or the entire DVD?

the version that is being released on the 28 from apple may contain revisions to the apps ?

 

[Eidorian]

Why wouldn't the 8600GT let you decode h.264?
This card is fully capable of performing hardware decoding for h264, mpeg2 and vc1: its does so on both Windows and Linux (with VDPAU)

Plenty of Apple's GPU hardware has hardware video decoding support nowadays across many lines. The 9400M G seems to be it though. It already has it under Leopard too.

I gotta agree with you. I can boot into Windows on my early 2006 Mac Pro and have true 64bit performance, but I can't do that with Snow Leopard? And I'm on a Mac? That's messed up. It's forcing me to "think different" on the next system I invest in. I like OSX, but I use the Mac primarily for Final Cut Pro. With Windows7 and 64bit support of CS4- and practically all of my primary apps, it makes a compelling argument to move in that direction. I've been a Mac user since 1985, but it looks like they just can't keep up. Sure, if you need a personal device like an iPhone or iPod, then Apple is hard to beat. But for high-end computer tasks and best bang for the buck, PC's have the advantage. Will Apple catchup? Hard to say, I've been waiting for quite a few years now. There is a reason that PIXAR doesn't use Mac even though Steve has a heavy influence.

It's tough nowadays. I decided on only getting Apple notebooks. You have to jump through to many hoops on the desktop side.

 

[SG1-1]

So what about those of us with a late 2008 unibody macbook? I have 64-bit EFI and intel core 2 duo, but unless Apple enables something I will not be able to boot 64-bit kernel?

You can if you want to chance it, but not all printer drivers and Other Have been Written to 64 Bit as yet, And you may have problems Running some 3rd Party Devices as stated above.

Edit this file:

/Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist

Change this:
<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string></string>

To this:
<key>Kernel Flags</key>
<string>arch=x86_64</string>

Boots into the 64-bit kernel

fix courtesy of Netkas.org

Links:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=4734&tag=btxcsim


P.S. And Remember This Also;

Quote Macworld;

Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.

Link Added to Article for Authentication.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1423...64_bit.html?t=

 

[akac]

Most of the people reporting bugs are running third party crapware or did upgrades. As soon as a person mentions, "and I upgraded", everything from that moment forward I ignore. They created their own problems for which I have no sympathy for.
..

Did you do a clean install - because none of those issues appear on either my iMac or MacBook installation.

Snow Leopard doesn't do upgrades. It does an Archive/Install by default.

 

[fredsarran]

Maybe it is me, but his Spanish packaging looks different to the UK !? Are they all the same over the world or different depending of countries ? As well, how does he know this is the same build ? no real screenshots to prove ! And how come he got it before the launch day ?

I did say that I will not purchase 10.6 if if it is the latest build seeded to the dev people. But I did simply because I love the new box design and that I will anyway need to upgrade sooner or later.

I hope that it is not the latest build, that the main bugs got "bugged" away, and/or a update will appear soon.

I am not so excited about this release, and I truly cannot wait for 10.7 That will be a awesome release.

 

[Nugget]

11 pages ago...

Yeah, figured, this should end those discussions now.

Heh

 

[TripHop]

The Up-To-Date DVD & The Retail DVD Are Identical

Quote: Originally Posted by pika2000
"Okay, can we at least get a confirmation whether one can fresh install SL on an empty hard-drive (without Leopard installed)? I mean come on, this is the biggest question right now. Who cares about the packaging/pictures."

"$9.95 Snow Leopard Up-to-Date Program disc will permit an erase and install per Apple customer service yesterday."

So, I'm running 10.5.8 on my MacBook... if I buy the $29.95 Snow Leopard Upgrade disc, can I do a clean install directly off of that?
Or will I have to hunt down my old Leopard disc, install that, then throw in the the Snow Leopard disc to upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard?

Yes. There is no difference between the DVD you get either way.

 

[akac]

32-bit Windows server can access 64 GiB, on purely 32-bit CPUs.




No Apple supports more than 32 GiB of RAM, so the "over 32 GiB" part's wrong.

10.5 (and 10.6) have significant overhead on kernel calls when running a 64-bit app with a 32-bit kernel. So, it isn't compute crunching that benefits, it's 64-bit applications doing heavy I/O or other kernel calls.




If you consider a hybrid, lower-performance solution to be "better implemented" than true 64-bit operating system, OK.

Also, note that Windows x64 will run on any Apple with a Core 2 Duo CPU, but OSX x64 skips quite a few models. That's "better implemented"?

I am someone with experience with both Win x64 and Mac x64. Yes, Mac x64 *is* better implemented. One OS that runs both 64-bit and 32-bit kernels, and 32-bit and 64-bit apps. Not two separate installs completely. Right there is a Windows FAIL. Second, many apps simply do not run properly on x64. It wasn't until recently that QuickBooks or even Visual Studio worked correctly. Even today, if you're a Windows Mobile dev, you cannot run half the tools on x64. There are countless more examples.

Yet on the Mac x64 - stuff just works. So why did Apple limit itself to newer machines instead of all Core2Due machines? No idea. It may be that they'll expand the device support as 10.6.x goes along (like they are doing with OpenCL) or it may be due to some non-64-bit clean EFI that causes issues with their 64-bit kernel. No idea. But the fact is that Apple's solution is better for consumers than Microsoft's. No two ways around it.

 

[Krafty]

11 pages ago...



Heh

Typed that one too early.

 

[akac]

i agree. the native apple apps run great. but my third party apps freeze up often. lots of beachballs over here and i only have a few idling apps open. when going safari to word (rosetta) its bad.

I'm running dozens of third party apps on two different SL machines. In my experience, issues like you're describing happen when you have non-compatible plugins installed as they are messing with the OS's internals that have changed significantly.

 

[qwerty1]

*

 

[markm49uk]

One would think it wouldn't but in my case it's changing all the time however, most likely I'll just wait to make the updates to Reunion in a week or two.

BTW, the reason it's changing is that my grandfather did a bunch of genealogy work in the 1970's and 1980's. He passed away in 2003 and my mother was the executor of the estate. Last year she handed over all these yellowing pages and said, "Maybe you can find a program and put this information in there so it isn't lost." So off I went realizing along the way that most of the information I had was 25+ years old. In that much time tons of people have died, married, had children, divorced, etc. So, in the last year I've used Facebook to track down long lost relatives and in the process I'm regularly getting information on many changes I need to make. At this point I've identified more than 1,500+ relatives and the list is growing all the time

Wow that is some effort but I can't be alone in thinking anymore then 10 or so relatives is more than enough !

 

[Krafty]

11 pages ago...



Heh

Actually, I was speaking on more of the "OMGz 10A839 is da gm buildz" rampage. The "OMGz Y no 64-Bitz 4 me?!?!??!?!?!" discussion will go on forever it seems.

 

[SG1-1]

Thanks for that but i don't quite have SL yet. I'm just confused about the whole "only macbook pros can have 64-bit kernel" thing.

I am Too, And I don't blame anyone for the confusion I was And Still am tring to figure all this out.

Good Luck to you, Please check out the Link in My post for Macworld, iT really Explains allot of the Confusion and Misrepresentative type reporting that is floating around.

Take Care,

After these last few weeks my brain wants to explode.

I apologize to the rest for the Off topic posting, There are allot of good points on this thread, When friday comes I am sure we will see allot of information that might clear allot of this confusion up.

 

[Iori]

Big misunderstanding

I gotta agree with you. I can boot into Windows on my early 2006 Mac Pro and have true 64bit performance, but I can't do that with Snow Leopard? And I'm on a Mac? That's messed up. It's forcing me to "think different" on the next system I invest in. I like OSX, but I use the Mac primarily for Final Cut Pro. With Windows7 and 64bit support of CS4- and practically all of my primary apps, it makes a compelling argument to move in that direction. I've been a Mac user since 1985, but it looks like they just can't keep up. Sure, if you need a personal device like an iPhone or iPod, then Apple is hard to beat. But for high-end computer tasks and best bang for the buck, PC's have the advantage. Will Apple catchup? Hard to say, I've been waiting for quite a few years now. There is a reason that PIXAR doesn't use Mac even though Steve has a heavy influence.

Actually, there is a good reason why Snow Leopard wont install with a 64-bit kernel on macs running under 4GB of RAM, and that's because they run better on a 32-bit kernel. The only way to benefit from a 64-bit kernel is if you have a computer that has 32GB of RAM. Nonetheless, all 64-bit apps will still run on Snow Leopard.

Gizmodo posted a statement from Apple that clarify this confusion:

"The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM."

So there you have it.

 

[THX1139]

So, I'm running 10.5.8 on my MacBook... if I buy the $29.95 Snow Leopard Upgrade disc, can I do a clean install directly off of that?
Or will I have to hunt down my old Leopard disc, install that, then throw in the the Snow Leopard disc to upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard?

Snow Leopard is actually an upgrade, not a full OS install. You have to have Leopard installed in order to upgrade it. It make sense to me that if you tried to install Snow Leopard on empty hard drive, it would ask for Leopard. If you have Leopard already installed, I think you can do a clean install because it has a way rewrite the primary components of the base OS... or something like that. Guess, we will know for sure come Friday.

 

[maverick808]

I have a 13" alu-MacBook and SL will NOT boot into a 64-bit kernel regardless of what I try. Seems Apple have decided to do what they always do and shaft non-Pro owners even though the machine is perfectly capable.

 

[TripHop]

Snow Leopard DVD Allows Full Installs On Empty Hard Drives

Snow Leopard is actually an upgrade, not a full OS install. You have to have Leopard installed in order to upgrade it. It make sense to me that if you tried to install Snow Leopard on empty hard drive, it would ask for Leopard. If you have Leopard already installed, I think you can do a clean install because it has a way rewrite the primary components of the base OS... or something like that. Guess, we will know for sure come Friday.

I think you are mistaken. My understanding is that there is a full install possible on blank HDs. The "upgrade" thing is a misnomer & a myth.

It's a full new OS. Default is Archive and Install. You will not need to install Leopard on new HDs before applying Snow Leopard to that.

 

[macgoesBOOM]

Snow Leopard is actually an upgrade, not a full OS install. You have to have Leopard installed in order to upgrade it. It make sense to me that if you tried to install Snow Leopard on empty hard drive, it would ask for Leopard. If you have Leopard already installed, I think you can do a clean install because it has a way rewrite the primary components of the base OS... or something like that. Guess, we will know for sure come Friday.

An upgrade in the sense that nothing revolutionary has been added but the OS has rather been streamlined and "just works" better and faster than before.

You're confusing the whole up to date versus $29 "upgrade" disc with how it actually installs. If Snow Leopard upgrade discs actually check for Leopard (which many people are doubting) it's merely a verification that the user isn't using the $29 disc instead of the $169 disc to upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard.

As for a clean install, it's means exactly what it says. The installer cleans everything off the hard drive and installs the new OS in its entirety (no upgrading old code).

 

[ryuworks]

Snow Leopard is actually an upgrade, not a full OS install. You have to have Leopard installed in order to upgrade it. It make sense to me that if you tried to install Snow Leopard on empty hard drive, it would ask for Leopard. If you have Leopard already installed, I think you can do a clean install because it has a way rewrite the primary components of the base OS... or something like that. Guess, we will know for sure come Friday.

I thought this issue has already been discussed, and confirmed.

Snow Leopard is NOT A FXXXing upgrade!

It installs on blank drives! It does not require an installed Leopard to work (you don't need to have Leopard system files to create SL system files)

And you certainly don't need a prior OS to install it at all, as confirmed by this article.


For gawd's sake, some of you people should READ before POSTING.

This is the google translated part of the article which states that the 29 USD SL disc does not check for Leopard

"The validation system DOES NOT EXIST. Our friend Pedro10 have installed the final version on a hard drive completely empty and has not asked any kind of formal or Leopard DVD or have it installed."

 

[THX1139]

Gizmodo posted a statement from Apple that clarify this confusion:

"The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM."

So there you have it.

Yeah, I get all that. I am actually not that hyped up about having a 64bit OS just to have it. What I want to be able to do is ACCESS more ram in my primary applications, and that is clearly lacking in Leopard until those apps get written with 64bit extensions. For the everyday user 64bit isn't going to amount to much, especially when it comes to a 64bit OS. But when I'm doing heavy duty rendering of video, the thing that is going to help me speed things up (besides a faster processer), is having more tasks loaded into ram. Currently, most 3rd party applications have a ram limitation that could be solved by going 64bit.

 

[TripHop]

4GB Minimum Needed For 64-bit Booting

I have a 13" alu-MacBook and SL will NOT boot into a 64-bit kernel regardless of what I try. Seems Apple have decided to do what they always do and shaft non-Pro owners even though the machine is perfectly capable.

You have 4GB installed in that Unibody MacBook?

 

[ryuworks]

You have 4GB installed in that Unibody MacBook?

Does he have 32GB RAM installed in that unibody MacBook?