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

Screenshots of Latest Snow Leopard Seed

Peace said:
Just a guess here but maybe the Carbon versions of some of the apps are inherently larger than their Cocoa counterparts.
Click to expand...

Tastic Bycrom said:
Any thoughts on the decrease of app sizes? Most of the size currently comes from the resources that come along with the app instead of the binary itself (nibs, localization, images)
Did they reorganize this to reduce duplication of files or change the format of bigger files... or just not include localizations you don't need?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the apps have both compiled version in one .app file. The resources files are used by both... The size reduction comes from not having Carbon versions included in the .app file (and presumably Carbon binary blobs are bigger than their Cocoa brethren)

PPC no longer being supported means this could happen.
 
Is the fast switching from OS X to Bootcamp expected to return in Snow Leopard? I was really excited about it in Leopard, then it got pulled. Haven't heard anything since.
 
Peace said:
Just a guess here but maybe the Carbon versions of some of the apps are inherently larger than their Cocoa counterparts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps on some, but one example I was looking at was Address Book - it's linked to Cocoa frameworks and has nibs - so its at least already Cocoa in some parts (I'm guessing completely), but it size on my mac is 55 MBs. Of that, 1.1MB is the core binary (/Applications/Address Book.app/Contents/MacOS/Address Book) and about 54 MBs is the resources directory in the app bundle.
 
Tastic Bycrom said:
Perhaps on some, but one example I was looking at was Address Book - it's linked to Cocoa frameworks and has nibs - so its at least already Cocoa in some parts (I'm guessing completely), but it size on my mac is 55 MBs. Of that, 1.1MB is the core binary (/Applications/Address Book.app/Contents/MacOS/Address Book) and about 54 MBs is the resources directory in the app bundle.
Click to expand...

Address book is running around 5 MB in SL right now. The complete bundle. Pretty sure. I'd have to take a look.
 
It may seem like a small thing, but I really miss the Put Away feature from OS 9. Why the hell did it take them eight freakin' years to put that feature back? Maybe Apple engineers need a Put Away feature in their code base because it took them a long time to add back a lot of the functionality from OS9. I think it was Command-Y in OS9?
 
Peace said:
Address book is running around 5 MB in SL right now. The complete bundle. Pretty sure. I'd have to take a look.
Click to expand...

The one on my Leopard machine is only 5MB also. Just delete all the language translations except for English and the size shrinks dramatically.
 
Jetson said:
I wonder whether Snow Leopard will be available as a free upgrade?

If Snow Leopard is released as version 10.6 and costs say, $100 I suppose it would be a way to compensate Apple for unlocking those previously costly Quicktime features.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think it will be the same price, or slightly lower than the price of Leopard. You are paying for a potentially large speed boost, as well as a few new end-user features.

By the way, Snow Leopard is being released as 10.6.
 
Speed it up!

Aqua really needs refinement to speed things up. I'm hoping SL accomplishes this but really haven't heard any comments about where it stands with respect to being faster.

Also, being an early 2008 MBP owner im really hoping that they have resolved the WiFi issues. Frankly WiFi currently sucks the bone on this portable with some acccess spots totally useless due to Apple bugs. Hopefully we will get a total rewrite of the drivers here. I've seen very little in the way of comments in general about drivers except when it comes to printers.


Dave
 
Enuratique said:
I understand your sad face but ultimately these kinds of under-the-hood optimizations couldn't be done (or wouldn't be worth Apple's time) if they didn't cut PPC support.
Click to expand...

Other than for OpenCL (which depends on newer GPUs), that is actually marketing speak for "buy our new computers" and not a technical assessment. Pretty much all other Snow Leopard under-the-hood optimizations happen in the compiler and are not CPU architecture dependent. See through the marketing speak!
 
tk421 said:
The Energy Saver icon is now an energy-saving bulb instead of a regular one. :D I don't know why, but I found that quite amusing.
Click to expand...

I think this was a 10.5.6 update; or maybe 10.5.5 even. I've had the new CFL icon for a while now.
 
Where's the BEEF?

I'm all for the changes that I'm seeing, but they're selling this thing on "improved performance". Yet I haven't seen a single benchmark since July. Is Grand Central still not in the builds?

I know, "benchmarks on beta versions aren't necessarily indicative..." But if the OS is truly tapping the power of GPUs, we would see it, right?
 
Hopefully the reduced file-sizes will result in much improved system-boot speed.
Really looking forward to SL and hoping for a fresh looking, updated GUI on top of the promising under the hood improvements.
 
cubedweller said:
I think this was a 10.5.6 update; or maybe 10.5.5 even. I've had the new CFL icon for a while now.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is. I'm running 10.5.6 and my Energy Saver preference pane icon is still a standard incandescent bulb.

EDIT: My preference pane doesn't have the CFL lightbulb because I don't have one of the newest MacBooks, MacBook Pro, or MacBook Air.
 

Attachments

  • energySaver.png
    energySaver.png
    13.1 KB · Views: 4,581
Chris Grande said:
The one on my Leopard machine is only 5MB also. Just delete all the language translations except for English and the size shrinks dramatically.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah... but that was the point I was originally making. If they Snow Leopard binaries are smaller than the Leopard one without modification, does that indicate a change or simply that they aren't complete yet, such as not shipping all the localizations.
 
HiRez said:
It may seem like a small thing, but I really miss the Put Away feature from OS 9. Why the hell did it take them eight freakin' years to put that feature back? Maybe Apple engineers need a Put Away feature in their code base because it took them a long time to add back a lot of the functionality from OS9. I think it was Command-Y in OS9?
Click to expand...

It seems more likely that no one on the dev or QA teams ever used Put Away. It's a lot easier to skip over rebuilding a feature if you never thought about doing so.
 
Sorry, I do not see the big leap from 10.5... this is not worth paying 130 bucks again...
 
I'm guessing when Snow Leopard comes out it will be around $59.00 as an upgrade only to Leopard. At the same time, Leopard's price will be reduced to $69.00.

It makes sense because if this is the first version of Mac OS X not to focus on end-user features, users may be unlikely to upgrade. So, it may be the first version of Mac OS X to be upgrade only (well, besides 10.1).
 
HiRez said:
It may seem like a small thing, but I really miss the Put Away feature from OS 9. Why the hell did it take them eight freakin' years to put that feature back? Maybe Apple engineers need a Put Away feature in their code base because it took them a long time to add back a lot of the functionality from OS9. I think it was Command-Y in OS9?
Click to expand...
I never used OS 9 (my first Mac was a Mini) but Windows has also had that feature for as long as I can remember. I believe that even Windows 3.1 had it. Windows also lets you see where the item came from without actually restoring it (putting it back). I wonder if SL can do that?
 
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