The more I read about Leopard the less I give a crap about the "major" features that Apple is advertising. Where its at seems to be under the hood.
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.
Other Leopard Improvements: Multicore Support
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone dissing the prospect of increased performance in Mail: you obviously don't obsessively keep thousands of messages in various folders; if you did, you'd bump into the sort of spinning beach ball problems with the app that I do. I'd love to see improved Mail performance; I have a dual 1.8 G5, so hopefully these improvements will work with multiple processors and not just multiple cores.
Josh
Josh
Speed
Finally, a snappy and responsive OS with apps that open instantly. Resizing windows will be a breeze, and the spinning beach ball will be a legend of the past.
Finally, a snappy and responsive OS with apps that open instantly. Resizing windows will be a breeze, and the spinning beach ball will be a legend of the past.
I was gonna say that the mac mini wasn't, but i just check and it is hmm...anyway with this news I am even more excited about how fast Leopard is going to run apps n such (I hope they design all apps eventually to use multiple cores in one way or another
)WHY didn't steve mention this stuff at WWDC, maybe the stock wouldn't have dived 6 points then
yes...atm the top apps are being designed for multi-core
give it a few years and it'll be like widescreen...everything will be in the same format
give it a few years and it'll be like widescreen...everything will be in the same format
G5s
Yes and no - Yes, multi-threading addressing in Leopard should accelerate things quite a bit with Dual and Quad Core G5s, while utilizing all processors more efficiently. However, Intel Multi-Core chips will have an even greater advantage, as each chip is multi-core, and Leopard will be optimized for Intel's multi-core architecture.
Yes and no - Yes, multi-threading addressing in Leopard should accelerate things quite a bit with Dual and Quad Core G5s, while utilizing all processors more efficiently. However, Intel Multi-Core chips will have an even greater advantage, as each chip is multi-core, and Leopard will be optimized for Intel's multi-core architecture.
Right on the money
VERY unlikely. Application loading and dynamic linking is not a task that benefits from more cores. Buy a faster hard drive instead.
In other news.. Glad to see that Leopard is getting a new scheduler; a few months ago, few people on MacRumors believed that Tiger had any problems in this area. Now, they cheer for the feature that should have been available long before the 8-core was shipped with a deficient OS and twenty year old scheduler. (Hey, Mach was state of the art in the 80s, and I'm afraid much of it hasn't aged well.)
I also want to note that I was right about NSOperation, even though I had no access to beta developer documentation. Other posters claimed that Apple could invent a magical API that would improve multithreading, and I said it is impossible for an API to do that. They said it was premature to say without seeing the API. No way, said I.
Concurrency is a language problem, not an API problem. We have more than enough APIs. What we need is a better way to write code that exposes parallelism. For that, you need to continue to look to OpenMP or the more exotic new languages. GCC already supports OpenMP, and with any luck the Xcode version will support it soon.
(Don't confuse Open-MPI with OpenMP. Two different technologies..)
VERY unlikely. Application loading and dynamic linking is not a task that benefits from more cores. Buy a faster hard drive instead.
In other news.. Glad to see that Leopard is getting a new scheduler; a few months ago, few people on MacRumors believed that Tiger had any problems in this area. Now, they cheer for the feature that should have been available long before the 8-core was shipped with a deficient OS and twenty year old scheduler. (Hey, Mach was state of the art in the 80s, and I'm afraid much of it hasn't aged well.)
I also want to note that I was right about NSOperation, even though I had no access to beta developer documentation. Other posters claimed that Apple could invent a magical API that would improve multithreading, and I said it is impossible for an API to do that. They said it was premature to say without seeing the API. No way, said I.
Concurrency is a language problem, not an API problem. We have more than enough APIs. What we need is a better way to write code that exposes parallelism. For that, you need to continue to look to OpenMP or the more exotic new languages. GCC already supports OpenMP, and with any luck the Xcode version will support it soon.
(Don't confuse Open-MPI with OpenMP. Two different technologies..)
I was gonna say that the mac mini wasn't, but i just check and it is hmm...anyway with this news I am even more excited about how fast Leopard is going to run apps n such (I hope they design all apps eventually to use multiple cores in one way or another
WHY didn't steve mention this stuff at WWDC, maybe the stock wouldn't have dived 6 points then
Because Steve would have to admit that the current product is crap at multiprocessing/multithreading, and always was.
Steve would have faced further questions about why the 8-core Mac was shipped one week before Leopard was delayed. (Answer: Apple needed the money to support the 2nd quarter.) None of that makes for pleasant discussion.
Odds are that you are wrong, unless you care to explain what you mean. G5s are going to benefit very much. 8-core intel Macs will benefit the most, but that's simply because Tiger scheduler really goes to crap above 4 cores, not because that system happens to be Intel rather than PowerPC. (Caveat: Well, in a sense, it does benefit intel more, in that the 8-core doesn't have enough memory bandwith due to the fact that Intel 'quad' chips are actually two 'Duos' duct-taped together, and then they cram two of those on to one memory bus.)
Dude, Apple has lots and lots and lots and lots of cash. 8-core Mac Pros have NOTHING to do with Apple Inc.'s solvency. Seriously how could you not realize that?
I'll pay $129 for no more beach ball in the Finder all by itself!! Hopefully it goes away in other applications like Safari too. It seams like Tiger doesn't time out quick enough on a bad network connection across the board.
While I agree what steve showed was mostly fluff you have to look at it from a marketing standpoint. Most AVERAGE users aren't going to know what the hell a multithreaded finder means but they will notice how it looks. As much attention as these events get from the press they have to show the features that appeal to their biggest marketshare.
I wonder if he didn't want too much hype about better multicore usage and other new features, because then everyone at MacRumors would get Leopard, expecting an exponentially faster system, and only get a blazing fast system, then give "Apple ships Leopard" 1999 negatives...
All I want for my $129 is for my entire machine, all applications, to NOT freakin' completely lock up for several minutes when the Finder suddenly can't find a previously-mounted network volume. Is that too much to ask?
Pardon my ignorance, but will Leopard run on G5 machines or will it require Intel processors? In either case, I have an eight-year old G4 400 and am very much looking forward to getting a new machine early next year; hopefully Penryns will be in new Mac Pros by then.
New Scheduler
Well, after two decades of the Mach scheduler, the new kernel scheduler should make for the most dramatic improvement in speed, responsiveness, and reduction of latency. It really seems like Apple had to ship the cart before the horse when it released the 8 core MPs.
Well, after two decades of the Mach scheduler, the new kernel scheduler should make for the most dramatic improvement in speed, responsiveness, and reduction of latency. It really seems like Apple had to ship the cart before the horse when it released the 8 core MPs.
Leopard on G5
Yes, Leopard will run on G5 machines, and really well indeed. It will even run on your G4 400, although you'd need to upgrade your graphics card to at least an ATI 8500 to allow the Core Animation to run well. (yes, it can handle it power wise, if this is a tower we're talking about) Hopefully, we will see Penryns in the new MPs in 2008.
Yes, Leopard will run on G5 machines, and really well indeed. It will even run on your G4 400, although you'd need to upgrade your graphics card to at least an ATI 8500 to allow the Core Animation to run well. (yes, it can handle it power wise, if this is a tower we're talking about) Hopefully, we will see Penryns in the new MPs in 2008.