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 Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, when does your NDA expire? Hopefully before you posted that...
After dealing with a bunch of BS from Apple I really don't care anymore. If 10A432 is the GM then Apple has gotten as bad as Windows.
and as far as the screen grab goes. I did that from inside Windows as a "guest user". Anybody could do that so that makes the NDA moot doesn't it?
You're using Windows, so you need to configure it to limit access to those drives....probably via group policy but as I have not used Windows 7 much, I'm not sure of the exact steps, but it can be done.
There are two strands as to why Apple are failing to support various Mac models with a full 64bit kernel - the first is whether the EFI is 32bit. This doesn't seem to be an absolute technical limit, and is already being worked around by the hackintosh hackers. Apple *could* fix this.
The second is drivers; Apple have not yet updated all their drivers. This is pretty amazing considering the time they've been baking SL in the oven and the small hardware pool they have to support. Apple *could* also update their drivers through the lifecycle of SL, but will they? This is a different point than 3rd-party drivers being ready for SL - 32bit kernel by default is critical to ensure smooth upgrades, and is a good move by apple.
Some other points about a 64bit kernel - as I understand it, a 64bit memory address space makes the kernel more secure (memory ransdomisation is much easier) - again something touted by Apple in its marketing, but obviously not thought about for the core of the OS. Why shouldn't the kernel gain the benefit of 64bit memory randomisation?
So a 64bit kernel, may be faster (if 64bit registers are utilised), or may be slower (more bits to shuffle around), will cause less TLB flushing (which actually benefits 32bit apps most), will use more memory use irrespective of how much you have installed, yet can use more memory consistently than a 32bit kernel.
32bit kernel by default makes sense. Artificial and trivial limits to what *can* run 64bit kernels doesn't. Apple are artificially limiting their hardware based on an incomplete development process. Now we can only ponitificate on what their reasons are, whether it be fair or not.
The second is drivers; Apple have not yet updated all their drivers. This is pretty amazing considering the time they've been baking SL in the oven and the small hardware pool they have to support. Apple *could* also update their drivers through the lifecycle of SL, but will they? This is a different point than 3rd-party drivers being ready for SL - 32bit kernel by default is critical to ensure smooth upgrades, and is a good move by apple.
Some other points about a 64bit kernel - as I understand it, a 64bit memory address space makes the kernel more secure (memory ransdomisation is much easier) - again something touted by Apple in its marketing, but obviously not thought about for the core of the OS. Why shouldn't the kernel gain the benefit of 64bit memory randomisation?
So a 64bit kernel, may be faster (if 64bit registers are utilised), or may be slower (more bits to shuffle around), will cause less TLB flushing (which actually benefits 32bit apps most), will use more memory use irrespective of how much you have installed, yet can use more memory consistently than a 32bit kernel.
32bit kernel by default makes sense. Artificial and trivial limits to what *can* run 64bit kernels doesn't. Apple are artificially limiting their hardware based on an incomplete development process. Now we can only ponitificate on what their reasons are, whether it be fair or not.
It's up to you to keep the information from being disclosed. You have to protect it.
Right!! This is why 2/3 of the people on this board are using pirated copies of the "GM" right now eh?
EFI is software (firmware), meant to be upgraded in the field.
Even if EFI32 was a hard block (which it apparently is not), Apple should release EFI updates to upgrade existing EFI32 systems to allow the x64 kernel.
This 64-bit kernel issue is Apple's self-inflicted wound on 10.6.
Very well written! Too bad that the people who are whining about 64bit won't read it. They are too busy crying that they don't get something that they don't need just because other (professional) machines are able. The issue of having computers blocked from 64 is actually a smart move on Apples part. Look how many people have already tried to do it and failed. Those are the same people who will be calling Apple to find out why their systems is so unstable, or they will be posting here saying how crappy Snow Leopard runs on their computers.
No one has been able to explain why they need 64bit on a laptop. They just complain that they aren't able and it is just soooo unfair of Apple to take that away from them. Apple is actually doing them a favor. There will be the day that 64bit will be important on laptops, but that day is a long way off and todays laptops will be very old by then.
Oh I know, I'm not claiming any moral high ground. But the people that pirated copies of the OS are not bound by an NDA they didn't sign.
Agreed.
Pirating OS X is pretty low at this point considering it's only $30! Even if i wanted to pirate it (which I would never, ever do), it would probably take days to download, completely not worth it. Apple spent so much time on this and all they're asking for is $30...many of us were ready to shell out $129 for this!! There's a lot of fun and excitement in pre-ordering then trying it out for the first time legitimately
We understand what you're getting at, but GM is a technical term. Don't use it incorrectly. If Apple released a 10.6 install DVD containing nothing but old Barney shows in H.264 just to dick with everyone, it would still be the GM.
GM = whatever disc image went into production.
Doesn't matter where the stuff was printed. There is no import duty of any kind on computers and software into the UK (and a host of other European countries). The only tax payable is VAT.
It wasn't touted as a 6GB install, it mentioned that you can RECLAIM 7GB by upgrading from Leopard. That is all.
No, I'm not. I understand perfectly that you expected better "quality", but that's your opinion, and that's not contradictory to the fact that the version designated by Apple as GM, is the GM.
You can express your opinion, but clearly not make decisions for the others. Only Apple can decide which version is GM, whatever you or anyone else think about the "quality" of this version.
As lannister80 reminded you, GM is a technical term with a clear signification and your opinion has nothing to do with it.
Without all the printer drives, languages etc 10a432 was under 5gb for me.
Attachments
I see. The reason why I ask is because online people have been saying it was a 6GB install. This must have been a misunderstanding on my part. Thank you.
I don't think they said the install would be 6GB... they originally said that by installing Snow Leopard, you would free up 6GB of space on your hard drive. However, Apple has now changed it from 6GB to 7GB.
Lemme just reiterate: After installing Snow Leopard, you should have 7GB of extra unused space on your hard drive.
The other thing that led me to think this way is because system requirements are listed as '5GB of hard drive space'. >_> Aaaah it's all so confusing. Can't wait to figure out what the deal is on Friday.
Well the tech specs say "5GB of available disk space":
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
However, I think it's more a matter of YMMV.