Mine doesn't do it either. In fact, in their example on the Snow Leopard site they show the Apple Store site as an example.
Mine/Demo:
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
Mine doesn't do it either. In fact, in their example on the Snow Leopard site they show the Apple Store site as an example.
Mine/Demo:
mine is an original (2006) macpro and is showing a 32bit kernel, perhaps u have a later model?
i think the new SL background looks way better then the leopard background does.. compare then by going back and forth and there is a huge difference..
It has already been covered a trillion times - ALL MAC'S BOOT BY DEFAULT USING THE 32BIT KERNEL UNLESS THE HARDWARE IS XSERVE.
Whiny Brits scoff at price: 
Blighty angry at Snow Leopard exchange rate
http://www.macworld.com/article/142448/apple_exchange_rate.html
Meanwhile some say SL is an EP (epic fail)... fanboys here better put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la":
Snow Leopard Is a Pale Imitation of Windows 7
http://www.pcworld.com/article/170783/snow_leopard_is_a_pale_imitation_of_windows_7.html
Blighty angry at Snow Leopard exchange rate
http://www.macworld.com/article/142448/apple_exchange_rate.html
Meanwhile some say SL is an EP (epic fail)... fanboys here better put their fingers in their ears and go "la-la-la":
Snow Leopard Is a Pale Imitation of Windows 7
http://www.pcworld.com/article/170783/snow_leopard_is_a_pale_imitation_of_windows_7.html
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"?
Prepare for a HUGE firestorm. I've been running 10A432 for about four days on two different systems, and it still has pretty significant problems, especially apps under Rosetta. Too many spinning beach balls and frozen apps....even Apple apps.
It does install and boot quickly, though.
I really don't know what the problem may be. I've got a few 3rd apps installed and all of them are Universal since I did not install Rosetta during setup..
One thing that came to my mind is that when I installed Snow Leopard I did it on a small partition on the same HD that Leopard is installed. Maybe it has something to do with it. I don't know, but those visual glitches appears even when I haven't installed a single app nor codecs whatsoever.
Also regarding those visual glitches it does not matter if you use the integrated or the dedicated GPU.
Did you enable 64-bit by default? If so, try making it boot back into 32-bit and see if the errors persist. Perhaps Apple is aware of it and disabled 64-bit boot for a reason until 10.6.1 or so is released. Just a thought!
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.
No one is talking about Windows Server - what is being discussed is Windows client and the fact that many drivers included with Windows Client are not compatible with PAE hence it isn't enabled by default.
Their Virtual Memory subsystem is 64bit - able to address up to 15TB.
Pardon - have you actually USED 64bit applications on a 32bit kernel? I've run 64bit applications in a 64bit kernel and 32bit applications on a 64bit kernel. To try and claim there is a spontaneous improvement in performance is ignorance of reality.
Nice to see you're talking about something you're unqualified to speak about - but hey, that hasn't stopped you in the past.
Did you enable 64-bit by default? If so, try making it boot back into 32-bit and see if the errors persist. Perhaps Apple is aware of it and disabled 64-bit boot for a reason until 10.6.1 or so is released. Just a thought!
Missing drivers and extensions should mean that it won't boot, or some devices don't show up. Maybe some kernel panics if the drivers/extensions are there or flaky.
Wonky application behaviour shouldn't be a symptom, unless the app is doing something funky with a device.
It's funny to see some say that "Apple's 64-bit implementation is wonderful and much better than Windows'", while other people say "make sure that 64-bit is disabled" if someone reports problems!
Missing drivers and extensions should mean that it won't boot, or some devices don't show up. Maybe some kernel panics if the drivers/extensions are there or flaky.
Wonky application behaviour shouldn't be a symptom, unless the app is doing something funky with a device.
It's funny to see some say that "Apple's 64-bit implementation is wonderful and much better than Windows'", while other people say "make sure that 64-bit is disabled" if someone reports problems!
I didn't enable 64bit on my machine even though it's capable and I haven't had any problems with third party apps/drivers/prefpanes/etc. That's why I suggested what I did
thats worth it i need new ones for my truck anyway
Message to thieves:
White Apple sticker on car = possible Apple computer inside.
Then people should say "client" or XP or other words to qualify - especially since "XServe" pops up quite frequently. Since many 32-bit versions of Windows support more than 3.5 GiB, it was worth clarifying.
Then the reference to "above 32 GiB" is confusing. If the application VA is 64-bit, then why is the 64-bit kernel better above 32 GiB VA?
(And, most of us know that only a few programs can run with usable performance when the VA in active use exceeds the physical RAM available. Most apps turn "glacial" when forced to page.)
I did not claim a "spontaneous improvement" - I said that the class of applications most likely to benefit are those doing a lot of system calls. There are many benchmarks and articles describing the performance issues that 10.5 (and 10.6 with 32-bit kernel) have, for example:
Stupid question but just curious. I'm currently running the 10A432 Build and well before reading this topic I purchased/pre-ordered my copy of SL. NOW, do you think I'll be able to re-install from the disc on top of the same build?
Clean Install vs. Re-Install. Whatcha think?
Clean Install vs. Re-Install. Whatcha think?
I'm really looking forward to all the threads where people who boot into 64 bit say that it's a piece of crap and doesn't work on their machines. It's off by default for a reason. The average user is not going to benefit from booting into 64 bit; it will actually cause problems if they don't have the drivers. People just gotta have 64 bit cause they think they are missing out on something magical.
It's funny to see some say that "Apple's 64-bit implementation is wonderful and much better than Windows'", while other people say "make sure that 64-bit is disabled" if someone reports problems!
It's not contradictory. The 64 bits implementation can be a very good one, but Apple (not even Steve Jobs) is not a god, and can't avoid inevitable issues that ALL OS makers face when switching to a 64 bits kernel.
Whatever OS you try with a 64 bits kernel, being Linux, Windows, Mac OS X or <put any OS name with 64 bits kernel available here>, when you use a 64 bits kernel, you must use 64 bits kernel extensions as well (also called kernel modules on Linux), which includes generally drivers, and some low level software features use by some software like, for example, virtualization software (VMWare, Parallels, VirtualBox...).
That's why no OS maker dared to offer 64 bits version by default, some PC manufacturers tried to put 64 bits version of Windows Vista pre-installed on their PC, but guess what? Most users of them asked to get a 32 bits version because the device <name of a device without 64 bits driver> didn't work.
And clearly enabling 64 bits kernel by default on a general consumer OS, for the first version of it having a 64 bits kernel (which is the case of Mac OS X 10.6), would be plainly stupid, except if the OS maker likes to receive device compatibility complains
.
Not as excited for SL as I was for Leopard, but still looking forward to trying it out. At $30 it's a steal with all these supposed improvements. I'm glad Apple is trying to avoid the "feature creep".
Does quicktime X allow you to speed up videos to 1.2, 1.3x etc?
Does quicktime X allow you to speed up videos to 1.2, 1.3x etc?
Yeah! And another thing, none of that software is available online as bittorrent, so why would anyone steal.... oh, wait! Crap... nevermind.
Yes I am aware of Windows server. MS is capable, but on the desktop they disabled the ability to access more than 3.5 gigs. I have no clue why.
OSX can access 32 gigs in 32-bit mode, but 64-bit is required for efficient access of this memory due to address space overhead, the overhead you are talking about. But unless you are shoving 30 gig hashes into memory like we do, you'd never even notice this.
The computational overhead of the 32-bit kernel with 64-bit app is only for kernel calls. We run Mac Pro's with 32-gigs memory doing intensive number crunching. There is a very small % increase in speed when going 64-bit kernel (the program is 64-bit). For this application where the crunching goes on for 24-30h, a few % in speed increase makes a difference, most of this comes thread management for large data structures in memory from the kernel and why it makes sense to go full 64-bit.
Again, the kernel design of OSX is much different than windows and makes no difference if the kernel is 16-bit, 32-bit or 64-bit unless you have a genuine program that is making extensive kernel calls. If not the program can access its 64-bit registers just fine with little overhead.
But, unless you are doing really intense stuff like we do with our mac pro's there simply is no difference. This was why Leopard was such a great OS design. While windows is dealing with a hard-break to 64-bit, OSX can soft transition and can work simultaneously in both modes with very little/no overhead.
In fact, hardware compatibility argues that 32-bit was a good decision as is the memory loss to increased address space.
Plus, who is surprised by this? Apple has been telling us for a long time that SL would be 32-bit kerneled and 64-bit would be optional. We have used their advice to steer hardware purchases of new Mac Pros and also why we run a few Sun machines. But again, these machines are doing things that no user would ever do on a regular system.
unfortunately it does not. it is my only complaint about quicktime x: that you cannot change the playback speed... well that and you cannot access the video and audio streams in order to correct improperly coded videos whose audio gets out of sync with the video.