Its the same thing as your restore discs, just updated. No matter what version of SL you purchase you get the same content. There are no "multiple versions" stunt here. The price you pay is based on what OS you currently have or when you purchased your Mac.
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.
Snow Leopard Build 10A421 Seeded to Developers
- Thread starter nozebleed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its the same thing as your restore discs, just updated. No matter what version of SL you purchase you get the same content. There are no "multiple versions" stunt here. The price you pay is based on what OS you currently have or when you purchased your Mac.
People claim Bill Gates said it - which he never did.
The same people who claimed that Al Gore said he invented the internet - when in actual fact what he said was that as a congressman he voted for funding the internet.
But then again, when has facts ever gotten in the way of regurgitating the same lie multiple times?
I think that's more of kernel taking advantage of the GCD than the application actually using GCD directly. It's like a two prongs thing, there's the GCD built in every part of Snow Leopard with the APIs getting the performance from that already and there's the applications being specifically optimized for GCD.
Right. I didn't say Bill Gates for this reason. I just want the emphasis on the quote because it does raise the point of predictions and how it can so far off the scale. Even if Bill Gates didn't say it, somebody did somewhere.
Umm, you might want to read up on that; this has been covered numerous times on macrumors in extensive threads and in the Apple documentation; you can either access it directly or you benefit from it via various parts of Cocoa utilising it.
I'd assume that direct access GCD is for those who still have Carbon applications and want them to take advantage of it - with that being said, if you're going to re-write your application using Cocoa, you inherit GCD. Carbon is a dead end so I doubt that any part of it is taking advantage of it.
And if you took the time to read my post - where did I state that you attributed it to Bill Gates? I was answering his question/post - not yours.
Oh no, don't take it seriously, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I was expanding on what you said to explain the purpose of what I was trying to say.
I have read many of those threads and Apple Docs. You need to remember that GCD APIs are designed for programmers to take advantage for their applications specifically, it is not done automatically for every application.
Snow Leopard itself, all the parts of it already have GCD optimized code, that's why when an application is based on Cocoa, it'll take advantage of already inherit GCD optimized APIs. But the actual application itself can gain MORE from GCD by optimizing the code to be more "blockified", so that the GCD dispatcher knows which code that can be dispatched following the code inside the application.
In other words, any Cocoa applications on SL will run a bit efficient because the Cocoa APIs itself is already more efficient by being GCD/OpenCL optimized. However the applications can be even more GCD optimized by using blocks and units and that's done by using ObjC's block syntax, ^= and so on that's explained in the PDF that I sent you.
You did a great job of nicely calling me stupid. But in the long run I'm right.
Show me where I called you stupid; or are you going to silence a forum member by getting the moderators to ban me?
All I was trying to say is that everyone is hyped about 64bit and its really not performance increase.... for most of us. The other Tech is going to be more important. Thats it... and no need to ban anyone here not trying to do that.
There is more to 64bit mode than just '64bit', there is a whole host of security and performance features as well; if all these features existed in 32bit mode - I wouldn't care a flying continental about 64bit mode.
Maybe I should have rephrased it given that my emphasis was on 64bitness rather than the features that come with moving to Long Mode - of which one of the benefits is 64bit along with a flat memory model, XD bit, more registers, performance enhancing related to SSE and other extensions.
Edit: I've had a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit#Mac_OS_X
And I am confused as to whether something compiled into 64bit gains XD bit or whether one has to boot into 64bit mode for a 64bit application to gain XD bit support.
Only Apple reserves the XD bit for 64-bit code, Windows has been enabling no-execute security protections in 32-bit XP for five years.
XD is not related to bitness - although I don't believe that any 32-bit only CPUs have XD. It just happened to come along at the same time as x64 - it doesn't require x64 mode.
(Correction: Later revisions of the Dothan had XD, so it is available in some 32-bit only CPUs.)
x86 has a flat memory model for 32-bit, nothing new there. (It's bigger, but no flatter, for x64.)
Confusion is easy here. The XD bit is the high bit (bit 63) of the 64-bit page table entry.
On Windows, any system with PAE (36-bit memory addressing) support uses 64-bit page table entries - even on 32-bit operating systems.
Starting with XP SP2, Windows will use the 64-bit PAE page tables if the CPU supports XD. XP doesn't support full PAE including greater than 4 GiB of RAM, however.
______________
I find it amusing that something that Apple touts as a major feature of their latest "for sale" major OS version is a feature that Microsoft shipped for free in a service pack in August 2004. Five years later, Apple is charging for support of an important hardware security feature....
Mac OS X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
Microsoft Windows
Remember that even 32bit kernel with PAE can actually get most of the features of Long Mode 64bit, just there's going to be overhead and so on that a pure 64bit kernel will get rid of and NX can be emulated by software, which is what MS did as well. So it's not exclusive to 64 bit OS, it's just built in to every 64 bit CPU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
Microsoft Windows
Source
Remember that even 32bit kernel with PAE can actually get most of the features of Long Mode 64bit, just there's going to be overhead and so on that a pure 64bit kernel will get rid of and NX can be emulated by software, which is what MS did as well. So it's not exclusive to 64 bit OS, it's just built in to every 64 bit CPU.
has anyone tried iLife 09 with this latest build of SL?
or maybe final cut express?
I still have my friends iLife '09 and my copy of final express is getting here like in a week
I'm just wondering if these apps work for this latest build of SL
because i remember the 2 builds before this, iLife 09 didn't work.
My DVD drive is still not working so, I wouldn't know if iLife '09 works or not...
thanks
or maybe final cut express?
I still have my friends iLife '09 and my copy of final express is getting here like in a week
I'm just wondering if these apps work for this latest build of SL
because i remember the 2 builds before this, iLife 09 didn't work.
My DVD drive is still not working so, I wouldn't know if iLife '09 works or not...
thanks
has anyone tried iLife 09 with this latest build of SL?
or maybe final cut express?
I still have my friends iLife '09 and my copy of final express is getting here like in a week
I'm just wondering if these apps work for this latest build of SL
because i remember the 2 builds before this, iLife 09 didn't work.
My DVD drive is still not working so, I wouldn't know if iLife '09 works or not...
thanks
I never had any issues with iLife '09 SL. There is some GUI glitch but nothing to be concerned about.
I know all of this. However, the overhead is not as large as you suggest since what's computationally intensive in applications is not made, usually, of system calls. And, back to my GeekBench results, you can see that the overhead you're speaking of is less then 1%.
And you've skipped the fact that 64-bit applications do have access to the new registers regardless of the kernel
Isn't RAM going to be always infinitely faster than an SSD (I know it doesn't have to be, but with our current system architecture)? RAM is in direct communication with the CPU, whereas data has to still be transferred to the RAM, even for an SSD.
I know all of this. However, the overhead is not as large as you suggest since what's computationally intensive in applications is not made, usually, of system calls. And, back to my GeekBench results, you can see that the overhead you're speaking of is less then 1%.
And you've skipped the fact that 64-bit applications do have access to the new registers regardless of the kernel
If the sources that I just read specifically for OS X is accurate then you're right, the OS X has a clever method of a pass-thur method of calling long mode 64bit calls. My bad for being inaccurate in that.
I was sure that it was only possible in a pure 64bit kernel and drivers. The info that I read was insisting (especially x86-64 spec) that the only way to get full access to the additional registers is to run a pure 64bit OS, drivers and so on. The 32bit applications would continue to run in a comparability sub mode on the CPU. OS X engineers and probably linux if they did the same thing were clever of taking advantage of the 64 bit long mode compatibility mode for running a 32bit kernel, and even more clever was AMD who came up with that specs.
Even so, I still think Geekbench doesn't tell the whole story.
SSD has less than .1 latency to read and send data. There's no need to preload data to RAM. It's so fast, it's not even funny how much faster it'll become over time. People are not going to notice if there's preloaded data in RAM or an SSD, not without a benchmark.
SSD can easily go 1GBps within 3-4 years and 10GBps within 15 years. HD can't scale like that. It'll always be limited by the spinning platters and with that the 10ms latency and 5ms for some superfast 15K drives.
RAM isn't always going to be "infinitely" faster. There'll be other technology to replace it. SSD is the "RAM" for the long term storage.
While I agree with that being a possibility, it would still require a change in modern computer architecture to make CPUs have access to secondary storage in the same way that they have access to primary.
RAM will remain the short term memory for CPU for a long time while SSD will become the long term memory. Even our brain acts like this and we got the most complicated computer in the universe right inside our head. SSD has a limit of how much it can write, that's what the RAM is very good for, it can last a long time with massive amount of data changes that doesn't reduce the lifespan like MLC/SLC NANDs would. Also random speed is still low for SSD.
The storage subsystem will have to be radically changed anyway for SSD as the SATA standards are too slow for SSD. But SSD is too small of a market to justify the cost for doing so. We have to wait it out until the market gets big enough to start thinking about this.
Now I am getting off the main point of your original point, I don't think there's a need to preload apps and data to RAM as the SSD's extremely low latency remove the need in the first place because you originally said that it would eliminate the waiting for HD to respond. Intel has been trying to do this with the technology they called Turbo Memory (aka Robson) in which they used super fast flash memory to cache data. What I do agree is placing this flash cache right next to the CPU and use that to store the entire OS within as readonly so that it'll actually be protected as well. Configurations can be stored in the SSD to customize the OS but I think this would be much better to move toward.
Guys.. i am a little... confused...
I just upgraded to 10A421a today and after the installation the computer booted as normal.. i was astonish to notice that.... ahn... my quicktime icon was the same as previous builds!!
How the F*** is it possible?
Just i case, i didnt restart the computer a second time as i was late to get to work and yes, my system profiler is idicating the correct version... 10A421a.
Is anyone in this world who faced that problem?? Is a second restart necessarily to change the icon (i know.. its a stupid questuion...)
Any ideas?
I just upgraded to 10A421a today and after the installation the computer booted as normal.. i was astonish to notice that.... ahn... my quicktime icon was the same as previous builds!!
How the F*** is it possible?
Just i case, i didnt restart the computer a second time as i was late to get to work and yes, my system profiler is idicating the correct version... 10A421a.
Is anyone in this world who faced that problem?? Is a second restart necessarily to change the icon (i know.. its a stupid questuion...)
Any ideas?