Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432

Photoshopped box

Here you can see the difference between the retail version of the art and the stock photo. They removed the blood from his mouth, and changed the shape of the eyes.

snowleopard.gif
 
maverick808 said:
Yes, the 13" MBP can do it. The 13" uni-MB can't. As the 13" MBP is just a rebadged uni-MB, and the internal hardware is the same, I don't see a valid reason for this discrepancy.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between the two is that the 13 MBP supports up to 8GB, while the uMB only officially supports up to 4GB. I think this is a more important discrepancy than the 64 bit kernal discrepancy. But, I'm sure the two are connected.

All in all, I don't think, if you are running a uMB, that you will notice any difference if you could boot in 64 bit kernal. I'm sure there is a reason Apple created the limitation and it very likely has to do with the Ram capacity differences.
 
wgravitas said:
Here you can see the difference between the retail version of the art and the stock photo. They removed the blood from his mouth, and changed the shape of the eyes.

snowleopard.gif
Click to expand...

They also realigned it's jaw. Snow Leopard gets plastic surgery... lol!
 
wgravitas said:
Here you can see the difference between the retail version of the art and the stock photo. They removed the blood from his mouth, and changed the shape of the eyes.

snowleopard.gif
Click to expand...

looking at this for too long almost induces a seizure.
 
THX1139 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, last I heard, PIXAR doesn't use Windows either. They use Sun workstations and Linux for their servers, correct? So, I'm not sure the little dig at the end really supports your argument.
 
Two things!

1) For those who are interested (and I personally am not - by the time I buy Snow Leopard it will be different anyway): Where is the screenshot confirming the build? (Clicking on "version" in "about this mac" shows "build")...

2) Here's hoping that this doesn't turn into a Vista equivalent (by which I mean software that, while rushed to market, works quite well on a computer less than a couple of months old, but causes all sorts of curious problems on older systems and third party hardware). I don't think it will though - there has been quite a bit of time to get this under-the-hood tinkering done, particularly as it is reported that there aren't many new features.

To all those due to install 10.6.0 over the course of the week, good luck and enjoy!
 
MacRumorUser said:
Mac OS does not use a serial number for licensing.

They use the 'honor' system where they expect people to show a bit of moral and buy the appropriate version be it single / family pack.

Hence any serial in 'about this mac' is the serial of the hardware. Not the OS.
Click to expand...

Thanks all for the info, cant believe I didnt spot that! :rolleyes:
 
wgravitas said:
Here you can see the difference between the retail version of the art and the stock photo. They removed the blood from his mouth, and changed the shape of the eyes.

snowleopard.gif
Click to expand...

Somebody needs to photoshop a Top Hat and Monocle onto the second frame.
 
benlee said:
I think the difference between the two is that the 13 MBP supports up to 8GB, while the uMB only officially supports up to 4GB. I think this is a more important discrepancy than the 64 bit kernal discrepancy. But, I'm sure the two are connected.

All in all, I don't think, if you are running a uMB, that you will notice any difference if you could boot in 64 bit kernal. I'm sure there is a reason Apple created the limitation and it very likely has to do with the Ram capacity differences.
Click to expand...

there is even no reasons why 32-bit efi cant run 64-bit kernel.

the only reason here is pure marketing - no macmini or macbook allowed to have 64-bit kernel, and no old machine allowed to have 64-bit kernel
 
Does anyone know if the up-to-date disk is an update disk, or a full installation disk? The Mac Box Set product page says it only includes a Snow Leopard DVD, iLife and iWork, no Leopard, which implies that it can be used on empty HDD, while there are several reports that the upgrade disk will only install if it detects Leopard. In other words, there should be two different installation disks of Snow Leopard.
 
Cybbe said:
Does anyone know if the up-to-date disk is an update disk, or a full installation disk? The Mac Box Set product page says it only includes a Snow Leopard DVD, iLife and iWork, no Leopard, which implies that it can be used on empty HDD, while there are several reports that the upgrade disk will only install if it detects Leopard. In other words, there should be two different installation disks of Snow Leopard.
Click to expand...

No one is 100% sure yet. We'll soon find out on Friday once people have got their hands on the two versions.
 
netkas said:
there is even no reasons why 32-bit efi cant run 64-bit kernel.

the only reason here is pure marketing - no macmini or macbook allowed to have 64-bit kernel, and no old machine allowed to have 64-bit kernel
Click to expand...

I think this is correct, and I think the 13" uMB is the perfect example of Apple's approach here. The hardware is identical to the 13" MBP. Indeed, my 13" uMB's CPU is faster than the low end 13" MBP's so it is, undeniably, a "better" machine. Yet it'll probably never be allowed to run a fully 64-bit OS X.
 
Bevz said:
Nothing official, just did a bit of googling and found a few people claiming it works fine on an original macpro, even though the apple website only states compatibility with macpros after 2008... I've made a mental note to ring applecare and find out if this is true! Sorry, probably shouldn't have mentioned it in my post without double checking with apple first...
Click to expand...

I'm running a 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 with the HD 4870 and it works great!
 
johny5 said:
Are the install disks individually serialised?
When you click "about this mac" and click the version/build text eventually a serial number comes up. Surely everyone who has downloaded the "copy" floating around the internet will have the same serial number?

This linked in to those that run things like mobile me will surely ring alarm bells with Apple when they connect and show up the same serial number?
Click to expand...

Like the thousands of people who have pirated Leopard already have done?
 
netkas said:
there is even no reasons why 32-bit efi cant run 64-bit kernel.

the only reason here is pure marketing - no macmini or macbook allowed to have 64-bit kernel, and no old machine allowed to have 64-bit kernel
Click to expand...

There's also no reason that Apple can't release an EFI upgrade to upgrade the EFI32 systems to EFI64 - except for marketing (AKA "forced obsolescence").

After all, the EFI (Extensible Firmware Interface) is there to make it easier to support new features and devices. Just because a system shipped with EFI32, nothing (other than marketing) prevents Apple from upgrading the firmware.

I upgraded some Dell and HP servers from dual-core to quad-core Xeons - and both Dell and HP provided new BIOS updates to allow the older systems to recognize the quad core chips.
 
If you have any question about why none if your computers boot default in the 64bit kernel read this and it will clear everything up. check your activity monitor in snow leopard and you'll see the programs that are suppose to run in 64bit have 64bit listed next to them the 64 bit kernel is only useful for machines with ram 32gb+ none of the current machines except xserve has that much.

http://gizmodo.com/5343443/snow-leopard-currently-restricts-64+bit-booting-to-newer-macs
 
S3rgin said:
Yes I did. Clean install.

Let's just hope that when Friday comes and I install the "box" version all theses issues won't appear anymore, or at least some of them.
Click to expand...

I did both an upgrade and clean install. My upgrade had beachball fever so I wiped and did a clean and restored via time machine. runs SOO much better after the clean install. But I guess this doesn't really help your case.
 
I love how everyone is still complaining about the 64-bit kernel. Right now, as it stands, NOT EVERY DRIVER IS 64-BIT YET! So why should Apple use the 64-bit kernel, if there's going to be issues with drivers? Apple wants the transition to be seamless, not catastrophic like Vista. Besides, you can't even run VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop on the 64-bit kernel.

Apple will enable the 64-bit kernel through a software update later down the line, once a good majority of drivers (which includes 3rd party drivers) is 64-bit. The most important part is, is that 64-bit programs WILL use more than 4GB of RAM, which is still very scarce right now. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back