Photos of Snow Leopard Disc and Retail Packaging?

[altecXP]

Some people here need to learn more about the windows 7 Kernel versions.

Windows 7 IS a version 7 of the Kernel. It is CALLED 6.1 to help backwards compatibility with programs as many check for the OS version before installing, and either install or fail based on that number. So a Application designed for Vista will read 6.0 so that it wont install on XP(5.1), and install, if it sees a 7 it would fail. Making it 6.1 insures that app will still install correctly.

the name "6.1 is for Compatibility only.

 

[Bill Gates]

Some people here need to learn more about the windows 7 Kernel versions.

Windows 7 IS a version 7 of the Kernel. It is CALLED 6.1 to help backwards compatibility with programs as many check for the OS version before installing, and either install or fail based on that number. So a Application designed for Vista will read 6.0 so that it wont install on XP(5.1), and install, if it sees a 7 it would fail. Making it 6.1 insures that app will still install correctly.

the name "6.1 is for Compatibility only.

No, it's not version 7, and go start another thread instead of pulling this one off-topic.

 

[altecXP]

No, it's not version 7, and go start another thread instead of hijacking this one.

And how many Windows 7 dev articles/interviews have you read or seen? Maybe if people KNEW wtf they were talking bout threads wouldn't get jacked.

--Microsoft employee “ We named it Windows 7 from the beginning, it wasn’t even marketing that originally chose that brand, it was our internal "code name." The builds were versioned at 7.0. It broke compatibility for too many apps/drivers, so we changed the versioning APIs to report 6.1 to reflect the level of compatibility that should be expected by pre-existing software.”--

 

[Bill Gates]

And how many Windows 7 dev articles/interviews have you read or seen? Maybe if people KNEW wtf they were talking bout threads wouldn't get jacked.

I don't have to read 5000 articles and interviews to know that the file version is 6.1. I'm dual-booting with Windows 7 right now. Microsoft made the kernel version 6.1 for compatibility purposes. They didn't make it version 7 but report version 6.1. "Windows 7" is purely the name of the whole product and does not denote the version number. Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1, and as such has the NT kernel 6.1. End of story.

Edit: Don't forget about this either which supports my claim. The whole deal about Windows 7's kernel actually being 7.0 is a load of crap being copied and pasted by one site after another. Notice how they all reference the same source, a page on MSDN which has since been modified to remove all references to 7.0.

 

[Bill Gates]

You just said the EXACT same thing I did, stupid.

Do you have reading difficulties?

Some people here need to learn more about the windows 7 Kernel versions.

Windows 7 IS a version 7 of the Kernel. It is CALLED 6.1 to help backwards compatibility with programs as many check for the OS version before installing, and either install or fail based on that number. So a Application designed for Vista will read 6.0 so that it wont install on XP(5.1), and install, if it sees a 7 it would fail. Making it 6.1 insures that app will still install correctly.

the name "6.1 is for Compatibility only.

I don't have to read 5000 articles and interviews to know that the file version is 6.1. I'm dual-booting with Windows 7 right now. Microsoft made the kernel version 6.1 for compatibility purposes. They didn't make it version 7 but report version 6.1. "Windows 7" is purely the name of the whole product and does not denote the version number. Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1, and as such has the NT kernel 6.1. End of story.

Edit: Don't forget about this either which supports my claim. The whole deal about Windows 7's kernel actually being 7.0 is a load of crap being copied and pasted by one site after another. Notice how they all reference the same source, a page on MSDN which has since been modified to remove all references to 7.0.

Our posts convey an entirely different message. You said that the kernel version is 7.0 but that it reports 6.1 for compatibility purposes. I said that they made it version 6.1 for compatibility purposes and therefore it reports version 6.1. Subtle, I know.

 

[Mac-a-Mac]

It's official! Here's what the box art is going to look like. Straight from Apple's online store!

Using Firefox on Windows? Shame on you!


Macs rule

 

[TheSpaz]

Using Firefox on Windows? Shame on you!


Macs rule

It's actually not my screenshot. I have a Mac Pro and I always use Safari. I'm a hardcore Mac user.

 

[IT-Pro]

Okay guys, there's some new information from Macenstein:

According to reliable sources, support training for Snow Leopard has begun, signaling an imminent release of the next major release of OS X. Sources claim a date of Friday, August 28th is extremely likely. Below are screenshots from the current Apple Support Snow Leopard training course for those of you are who are so into Apple minutia that you’d care about such things (guilty!).

http://macenstein.com/default/2009/...riday-august-28th-support-training-has-begun/

 

[JFreak]

You said that the kernel version is 7.0 but that it reports 6.1 for compatibility purposes. I said that they made it version 6.1 for compatibility purposes and therefore it reports version 6.1

Forget compatibility, Windows version numbering is pure marketing.

Actually, forget Windows as well. It was the Microsoft's attempt to copy classic Macintosh System during 1985 to about 2000. It failed. Yes, they managed to support i386 in 1990, which was huge at that time, but under the hood things did not improve much ever since. The huge hype about Windows 95 was all about new interface and nothing substantial that would have made things better. Last of MS Windows family was the huge failure of Windows ME, which was essentially Windows 3.1 with "new" '95 interface and lots of new bugs.

What we consider "Windows" today is in fact not an MS product at all. It was originally a joint development by IBM/Digital/VAX and MS only marketed/sold the product. I'm talking about "Windows NT" which means New Technology. It was done in 1993 (NT3.1) - 1994 (NT3.5) - 1995 (NT3.51) - 1996 (NT4) and back then (NT4SP3) it was a very good, high-performance and multi-platform product !!! Sadly, soon after that MS axed the original dev team and begun developing it by themselves [which was a huge mistake]. They failed to deliver NT5 because of that, but in 2000 they had to get something out so they released NT5 as Windows 2000 that was far from finished product. It is safe to say that Windows XP (released in 2001) should have been called "NT5 done right" (except the horrible interface but we're talking internals here).

So... I'm getting to my point soon.

MS indeed counts NT kernel major versions which are different than their marketing names:

Kernel 1 = NT 3.1
Kernel 2 = NT 3.5 and NT 3.51
Kernel 3 = NT 4.0 (basically NT3.51 plus W95 interface)
Kernel 4 = Windows 2000 (NT 5 beta)
Kernel 5 = Windows XP (NT 5 done right)
Kernel 6 = Windows Vista (NT 6 beta)
Kernel 7 = Windows 7 (NT 6 done right)

It is marketing names that makes it all confusing. First of all, they should not have called first NT kernel a "NT 3.1" just because that was their current Windows version. They should've just called it a "NT 1" to make things simple. MS has been a victim of their own marketing names ever since. Luckily, with Windows 7 they have finally got their marketing version numbers on par with their kernel.

For what it's worth, I consider this the Worthy Windows honor roll:

1993: Windows NT 3.1
1996: Windows NT 4.0
2001: Windows XP
2009: Windows 7

Gap between worthy releases: 3 years, 5 years, 8 years ... given this pace MS releases next worthy release in 2021 ;D

 

[AidenShaw]

What we consider "Windows" today is in fact not an MS product at all. It was originally a joint development by IBM/Digital/VAX and MS only marketed/sold the product. I'm talking about "Windows NT" which means New Technology. It was done in 1993 (NT3.1) - 1994 (NT3.5) - 1995 (NT3.51) - 1996 (NT4) and back then (NT4SP3) it was a very good, high-performance and multi-platform product !!! Sadly, soon after that MS axed the original dev team and begun developing it by themselves [which was a huge mistake]. They failed to deliver NT5 because of that, but in 2000 they had to get something out so they released NT5 as Windows 2000 that was far from finished product. It is safe to say that Windows XP (released in 2001) should have been called "NT5 done right" (except the horrible interface but we're talking internals here).

Wow, that's inaccurate. "Digital" and "VAX" developed it? ("VAX" was the name of Digital's main computer line.) Windows 2000 was a failed attempt at NT5?

You can look at Microsoft's timeline http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx , any of the wikis, or just about any article that a search for "windows nt history" turns up and not come up with JFreak's story.

A good article is http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/12_b.htm, which describes NT's roots in Digital's VMS system.

 

[JFreak]

Okay, I stand corrected. Though the linked article proves many of my points, it was fun to read again after so many years. And I did say NT4 was a very great product, didn't I? Up until NT4SP3, after which it was deliberately broken because multimedia software required straighter access to hardware.

One could question, why MS did drop support for non-i386 platforms in the first place? They had great product in their hands, why dumb it down? I can never forgive MS for what they did, NT was truly great OS in the 20th century. Now, I couldn't care less if my work laptop broke or was stolen. It's just junk (Dell/Vista).

 

[AidenShaw]

No question, it's the apps (& P6)

One could question, why MS did drop support for non-i386 platforms in the first place? They had great product in their hands, why dumb it down? I can never forgive MS for what they did, NT was truly great OS in the 20th century. Now, I couldn't care less if my work laptop broke or was stolen. It's just junk (Dell/Vista).

As someone who was working for Digital evangelising Alpha NT systems -- it was the [lack of] applications.

People buy applications, not computers. It doesn't matter if you have a much faster box - if you can't run the applications.

Application vendors didn't climb on the "let's make several difference versions of our app for the RISC systems" bandwagon.

The nail in the Alpha NT (the only non-x86 Alpha platform that had any traction) was when Intel introduced the P6.

Here was a chip that was 80% to 90% the speed of an Alpha, half the price, and the main chipsets were dual-socket capable.

Seems like Apple backed a non-x86 chip for a while, and threw in the towel for similar reasons....

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Wow, that's inaccurate. "Digital" and "VAX" developed it? ("VAX" was the name of Digital's main computer line.) Windows 2000 was a failed attempt at NT5?

You can look at Microsoft's timeline http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx , any of the wikis, or just about any article that a search for "windows nt history" turns up and not come up with JFreak's story.

A good article is http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/12_b.htm, which describes NT's roots in Digital's VMS system.

Too bad it didn't completely re-implement OpenVMS from the top down

Windows NT was interesting at around 3.x but then things started to become wonky when speed was put ahead of correctness - and here we are putting up with the sludge from that decision.

 

[AidenShaw]

...when speed was put ahead of correctness...

Or "when pragmatic considerations overcame dogma" is another way of putting it.

One can look at "correctness" in the abstract (but even that is subjective, can one design philosophy be "correct" and another "wrong" - in reality both have advantages and disadvantages), but if the supposed "correct" way of doing things gives you a dog of a system, then you consider other designs.

...and here we are putting up with the sludge from that decision.

There's sludge everywhere - witness Apple's erratic steps toward (and away from) true 64-bit support.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Or "when pragmatic considerations overcame dogma" is another way of putting it.

One can look at "correctness" in the abstract (but even that is subjective, can one design philosophy be "correct" and another "wrong" - in reality both have advantages and disadvantages), but if the supposed "correct" way of doing things gives you a dog of a system, then you consider other designs.

Mate, they put their graphics subsystem into the kernel - anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can see the result of that has been. Making everyone administrator for the sake of being able to retrofit win32 and maintain compatibility between their 9x and NT lines - again, more stupidity. It has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with Microsoft using nasty hacks than addressing the issue in a way that didn't undermine system security and integrity.

There's sludge everywhere - witness Apple's erratic steps toward (and away from) true 64-bit support.

What is sludgy about Mac OS X? atleast you can damn well separate parts off, draw lines and there aren't massive trailing dependencies from the top down to the bottom and form the bottom half way up the system stack as there is with the case of Windows!

 

[pilotError]

Too bad it didn't completely re-implement OpenVMS from the top down

Windows NT was interesting at around 3.x but then things started to become wonky when speed was put ahead of correctness - and here we are putting up with the sludge from that decision.

MS owns the IP rights to VMS, but they don't own the code.

MS actually has a number of technologies that it buried for some god unknown reason. One of them was True Shared disk clustering for NT that was built by Compaq??? (not sure who owned it then). It was essentially modeled after what was built for Digital Unix at the time.

I was sitting in a DECUS or whatever they were called after Compaq bought them (Compaqus - old joke) when the product manager walked in looking flustered and didn't know whether to give the presentation or not. Ultimately he didn't, but he did relay that MS bought the technology (like yesterday) and ordered him and his team to hand over the doc's and source. That product never saw the light of day, it's a shame too.

If you've ever done any NT system programming, you can see where the VMS influence ended and MS influence began.

It's amazing to see how many companies MS screwed to get where they are today.

I'm talking about "Windows NT" which means New Technology.

That name was actually a Marketing term.

Internally, the rumored joke was VMS++

V -> W
M -> N
S -> T

 

[jalyst]

Mate, they put their graphics subsystem into the kernel - anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can see the result of that has been. Making everyone administrator for the sake of being able to retrofit win32 and maintain compatibility between their 9x and NT lines - again, more stupidity. It has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with Microsoft using nasty hacks than addressing the issue in a way that didn't undermine system security and integrity.



What is sludgy about Mac OS X? atleast you can damn well separate parts off, draw lines and there aren't massive trailing dependencies from the top down to the bottom and form the bottom half way up the system stack as there is with the case of Windows!

Oh no here we go again, please guys don't get into a slinging match!

I know neither of you started this debate but can all of us get-off the freakin discussion of Windows?
I mean, WTF's up with that?!!

By all means create a Windows V OS X thread & lay the "smack-down" on on another if you want.*
Just don't hijack this one!

*I'd prolly be a enthusiastic spectator to that one, pop-corn in hand.

 

[DMann]

Mate, they put their graphics subsystem into the kernel - anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature can see the result of that has been. Making everyone administrator for the sake of being able to retrofit win32 and maintain compatibility between their 9x and NT lines - again, more stupidity. It has nothing to do with dogma and everything to do with Microsoft using nasty hacks than addressing the issue in a way that didn't undermine system security and integrity.

What is sludgy about Mac OS X? atleast you can damn well separate parts off, draw lines and there aren't massive trailing dependencies from the top down to the bottom and form the bottom half way up the system stack as there is with the case of Windows!

MS owns the IP rights to VMS, but they don't own the code.

MS actually has a number of technologies that it buried for some god unknown reason. One of them was True Shared disk clustering for NT that was built by Compaq??? (not sure who owned it then). It was essentially modeled after what was built for Digital Unix at the time.

I was sitting in a DECUS or whatever they were called after Compaq bought them (Compaqus - old joke) when the product manager walked in looking flustered and didn't know whether to give the presentation or not. Ultimately he didn't, but he did relay that MS bought the technology (like yesterday) and ordered him and his team to hand over the doc's and source. That product never saw the light of day, it's a shame too.

If you've ever done any NT system programming, you can see where the VMS influence ended and MS influence began.

It's amazing to see how many companies MS screwed to get where they are today.

That name was actually a Marketing term.

Internally, the rumored joke was VMS++

V -> W
M -> N
S -> T

It's almost surreal to listen to certain Windows zealots (apologists) who maniacally crusade around here in an attempt to extoll the paltry mediocrities of MS's products, claiming that the OS and product market share were actually attained by virtue of being somewhat less inferior to those which got skewed, trashed, and buried along the way. The incoherent attempts made, to equate the relatively smooth transition of SL to full 64-bit, with that of the abomination manifested by Vista, make the intent all the more suspect. Sadly, one can only imagine how many advances in tech have been held back and squelched by the actions of this lackadaisical company - as for their attitude, and mantra - business as usual.

 

[AidenShaw]

MS owns the IP rights to VMS, but they don't own the code.

That's one I've never heard!

It's much more likely that HP owns OpenVMS, since they're still building and selling OpenVMS systems.

http://h71000.www7.hp.com/index.html?jumpid=/go/openvms

MS actually has a number of technologies that it buried for some god unknown reason. One of them was True Shared disk clustering for NT that was built by Compaq??? (not sure who owned it then). It was essentially modeled after what was built for Digital Unix at the time.

Buried? Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_Shared_Volumes ...

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Oh no here we go again, please guys don't get into a slinging match!

I know neither of you started this debate but can all of us get-off the freakin discussion of Windows?
I mean, WTF's up with that?!!

By all means create a Windows V OS X thread & lay the "smack-down" on on another if you want.*
Just don't hijack this one!

*I'd prolly be a enthusiastic spectator to that one, pop-corn in hand.

I don't want to turn it into a Windows vs. Mac OS X thread; it just chafes my willy when people make blatantly false posts based on nothing more than the regurgitating of what others have told them.

I'm a bit ignorant of all operating systems from the point of view that I am not top to bottom expert but I'm learning and know my limits. The problem is that there are people on here who don't know their limitations and try to come off as expects on everything from operating systems to how one can have a 2 hour orgasm (and everything in between).

 

[tabasco70]

I already posted on this how I thought it looked pretty legit, although I didnt really like the snow leopard image.

But I was wondering, wouldn't the box art be this?? ( Apple Website)
Its also the image used in the preorder thing on MacRumors.
Just wondering...
I mean its a slight upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard, so it would make sense that they would use the same kind of box art. And since they're still using the space theme.


http://www.apple.com/macosx/notify-me.html


And do you think it will be released August 28th?
Apple's websites claim September. Fingers are crossed, though.

 

[pdjudd]

But I was wondering, wouldn't the box art be this??

Not necessarily. Anything on Apple's website regarding unreleased products is subject to change.

 

[Daveoc64]

to equate the relatively smooth transition of SL to full 64-bit, with that of the abomination manifested by Vista, make the intent all the more suspect.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

You can install a 100% 64-bit Windows Vista or Windows 7 System on virtually any Mac (i.e. the Kernel and most included apps are 64-bit), yet Apple, who happens to make all of those computers, has intentionally disabled the 64-bit Kernel on some of its computers and not enabled it by default on all but one model (the Xserve) in it's next OS.

While Snow Leopard can run 64-bit apps with a 32-bit Kernel, it's still a sloppy approach when Apple has the ability to change things with some small software tweaks.

I'm running Windows 7 64-bit on my MacBook without any problems (Ubuntu too), but Apple doesn't even want to let me try with Snow Leopard.

 

[Bill Gates]

Do you even know what you're talking about?

You can install a 100% 64-bit Windows Vista or Windows 7 System on virtually any Mac (i.e. the Kernel and most included apps are 64-bit), yet Apple, who happens to make all of those computers, has intentionally disabled the 64-bit Kernel on some of its computers and not enabled it by default on all but one model (the Xserve) in it's next OS.

While Snow Leopard can run 64-bit apps with a 32-bit Kernel, it's still a sloppy approach when Apple has the ability to change things with some small software tweaks.

I'm running Windows 7 64-bit on my MacBook without any problems (Ubuntu too), but Apple doesn't even want to let me try with Snow Leopard.

While I agree that Apple should not block the use of a 64-bit kernel on the MacBook, the fact remains that there are many driver and software incompatibilities with a 64-bit kernel under OS X. The likelihood of an incompatibility arising with a desktop or portable Mac is much higher than it is with an Xserve due to the sheer number of 3rd-party accessories and programs that exist for consumers.

If you look at Windows, Microsoft had sort of a testing ground for 64-bit drivers with Windows XP, their first consumer release for x86_64 processors. Apple has had no such luxury. There hasn't been a special version of OS X for tech enthusiasts with a 64-bit kernel. Even Windows Vista 64-bit did not have universal adoption due to incompatibilities that remained, but Microsoft took a bold step and required manufacturers to produce 64-bit compatible drivers in order to declare products "Made for Windows Vista," which has almost completely eliminated problems with Windows Vista 64-bit and in turn Windows 7 64-bit, since Windows Vista has been on the market now since 2006.

Apple can not be expected to have full compatibility when using a 64-bit kernel at this point. I think that we can expect a "sufficient" level of compatibility for most people by a 10.6.4 point release or perhaps a bit later, and a level equivalent to that provided in the Windows world by 10.7.

 

[ID_Field_Blank]

Note, if you look at the file names, they don't menton "snow leopard" but rather leopard.

As usual, the British never read.

Ummm... What file names do you mean? The ones for the images? All I did was link them from the Apple site itself and I think t
you will find that they both have the wording "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" on them.

The Brits don't read? What are you talking about? Surely I must have read the wording on the images to have even noticed (in fact it appears I am the only one who did notice) that these two images, which may or may not be the real thing, have the words Snow Leopard on them.