The look and feel hasn't changed since 2001, there is always nothing much to see in these screen shots. However, the devil will be in the detail....
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 Screenshots Show Little New
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hopefully a "match the MacBooks" dealio, even if they white plastic on top is just exchanged for black glass.
They'll use an nVidia chipset, so it'll be 4GB official and 6GB should work, which will be NICE for the Mini.
If they have any sense, they'll say goodbye to that thing, five years late. They finally dropped it from all MacBooks, so I can see them getting rid of it here.
It is this exact naive attitude that has enabled Microsoft to turn out trash for decades. Thankfully Apple doesn't really care if you understand. They simply make a better product and let it stand on it's own merit.
Upgrading not always required.
"I'm not a developer and my computer runs very fast already. Apple is going to have to do a lot more than that to convince me to upgrade."
And that is why I'm still running Tiger. Skipping generations generally makes sense. I skipped 7.6, 8.5, 10.0, 10.3, and 10.5. 10.1 came with my quicksilver, and was so unstable that I did upgrade to 10.2, which I was quite happy with until software stopped supporting 10.2 and 10.4 shipped. The quicksilver (dual 1 Ghz CPUs) continues to thunder on with quite acceptable speed, so I've skipped the G5 series as well, and the first generation Intels. When Nehalem CPUs ship with Snow Leopard, then we'll see whether to go all-Apple, Hackintosh, or Linux.
More and more software is coming out for Intel-only, so I don't think I can hold-out with the quicksilver much longer as my front-line machine.
"I'm not a developer and my computer runs very fast already. Apple is going to have to do a lot more than that to convince me to upgrade."
And that is why I'm still running Tiger. Skipping generations generally makes sense. I skipped 7.6, 8.5, 10.0, 10.3, and 10.5. 10.1 came with my quicksilver, and was so unstable that I did upgrade to 10.2, which I was quite happy with until software stopped supporting 10.2 and 10.4 shipped. The quicksilver (dual 1 Ghz CPUs) continues to thunder on with quite acceptable speed, so I've skipped the G5 series as well, and the first generation Intels. When Nehalem CPUs ship with Snow Leopard, then we'll see whether to go all-Apple, Hackintosh, or Linux.
More and more software is coming out for Intel-only, so I don't think I can hold-out with the quicksilver much longer as my front-line machine.
If you like small apps, you should download a copy of Xslimmer and give it a trial run. On my Leopard machine Mail.app is 24.7 MB and iCal 11.4 MB. All it does is strip out the localisations and the PPC code, the stuff the computer ignores anyway. I remember hearing that Apple were slimming apps for 10.6 by doing the same thing, presumably adding lots of new code to bulk it back up somewhat. Leopard is one chubby tabby...
Entourage is very slow. iCal can start faster than Entourage can switch between Mail and Calendar views. Entourage will probably never run as fast as any of Apple's apps, period.
Entourage is simply a WebDAV client. It is limited by whatever the Exchange server can pipe out over HTTP. Entourage is unable to schedule resources, sync tasks, sync notes etc.
Apple licensed Microsoft's ActiveSync protocol for use in the iPhone so that it could directly communicate with the exchange server to view/update calendars, reply to event invitations, send receive mail, browse the LDAP directory etc. This protocol can more directly work with a user's mailbox than a WebDAV client can.
Now, in Snow Leopard, Apple will be using Microsoft's new replacement to MAPI (which has been in use since Outlook's inception) called 'Exchange Web Services.' This is a new approach to communicating with an Exchange server, one that actually embraces XML and SOAP standards and allows full functionality of any third party product that uses the EWS API.
No longer will OS X users be unable to fully utilize Exchange features and Apple's apps will now be welcome citizens on that platform.
Entourage may be alright if you are just using it on a personal basis, but when you begin working with others in a more corporate environment, you start realizing all of the features that you are missing out on.
As an aside: Other than not supporting many Exchange features, other problems exist:
It is unable to view multiple calendars in one view. If you wanted to compare calendars with a colleague, you cannot look at them side by side.
HTML support is horrible in message bodies, and you are not even able to use HTML in messages. You honestly are unable to create a link in the body of a message.
Entourage uses a single file database store for all messages, events etc. This is bad for a couple reasons, mainly: Time Machine is unable to back up this file properly, the single file can grow to a size where the entire database becomes corrupt and all data is lost.
Oh and yes, it is incredibly slow.
Thats precisely the point. Entourage is lacking in true MAPI (thats the Exchange Protocol) that it doesn't work how Outlook does. Microsoft cobbled together this awful app thats barely any better than Outlook Web Access (well, its arguably worse). Its resource intensive, and as somebody who looks after 165 Windows Users and 15 Mac users, I can't wait to be able to show my manager that OSX is becoming a viable alternative for some more of our users.
Matthew's reply above is much more concise though... I guess we both know what a pain Enoturage is in a corporate environment that uses all of Exchange's groupware features...
Totally, totally submitted this last night!!
+1 biscuit for self
But our German friends should leak more pertinent information through these screenshots- although no much has changed, the OS build number is important (and missing)! We did get some OS X application build numbers though.
I'm just hoping Grand Central is a hit - I want my 8 core Mac Pro to really scream with Snow Leopard.
I would say he has the sensible attitude. People (largey) didn't want to upgrade to Vista. XP does what people need it to on the hardware they use - and Microsoft and developers will support XP for ages to come.
Why should you upgrade just because Apple (and, as it happens, OS X developers) practically force you to? Apple has always been a "we do things our way, you either come with us or you don't" company; just look at Steve Jobs' stance on Blu-Ray! They certainly aren't pushing forward with optical discs are they (my theory: to peddle the iTunes Store...)?
Apple don't make a better product, they make an alternative product that is better in some areas, worse in others. And it doesn't stand on its own merits, Apple release adverts that bend the truth all kinds of places about Windows just to make them look better.
Yes, you have to make a trade off between supporting older systems and pushing further with newer ones. The problem I have is "pushing" us onto Leopard SP1 and charging $129.00/£83.00 for the privilege.
Old news (yesterday) but whatever.
http://gizmodo.com/5119136/more-shots-of-os-x-106-snow-leopard-leak-some-german-required
Nothing too interesting. Hopefully mw won't be too lame.
http://gizmodo.com/5119136/more-shots-of-os-x-106-snow-leopard-leak-some-german-required
Nothing too interesting. Hopefully mw won't be too lame.
If you don't like the price don't buy it, simple as that. I skipped Leopard because I did not see the point and am still running happily on Tiger all my Apps run fine, nothing to complain about.
I will hopefully get 10.6 preinstalled when I get my new MacBook (Pro) come back to school, but I won't really care for my older equipment unless they can really prove it will speed up my old machines and is not really just meant for speeding up new machines. Otherwise my old 10.4 computers will keep running just fine.
Steganographic screen caps?
I'm waiting for Apple to silently incorporate steganography into the screen cap util. Either that or have a steganographic watermark on the desktop and possibly all window backgrounds.
Using something like perhaps they could track which developer leaked these images.
If I were them I'd keep it really quiet and just monitor who is doing what and then use other means to nail them for violating NDAs and such.
I'm waiting for Apple to silently incorporate steganography into the screen cap util. Either that or have a steganographic watermark on the desktop and possibly all window backgrounds.
Using something like perhaps they could track which developer leaked these images.
If I were them I'd keep it really quiet and just monitor who is doing what and then use other means to nail them for violating NDAs and such.
I've wondered the same, but then thought, really how would they make unique DMG packages for every developer downloading the seed?
It actually doesn't matter to me at all, except as a curiosity.
I mean, Apple is known to be really crazy about secrecy and tracking down these kinds of leaks. This seems like an obvious and easy thing to implement.
Mainly, I just wonder if they perhaps haven't already done something like this. I'm also curious about the people who do make these leaks and whether that sort of thing concerns/worries them.
So... doesn't matter to me at all (I'm not an Apple dev, I write server software mainly for Linux). Just curious.
Good question. Instead of having a unique download for each developer they could have each developer enter a unique key when they install/activate the software. When that key is entered they could then either sign/watermark the necessary files and/or use that key to sign/watermark the images as they are drawn or capped.
That way they wouldn't have any unique downloads and it would require the person to circumvent a copy protection mechanism (ahem, DMCA) in order to get around it... if they even realized it was there. They might be harder to track down, but if they were Apple would be in a much better position to go after them on DMCA grounds as well as NDA violation.
That was my understanding, however the last line of the article states,
This leads me to believe that the current 8800GS is not configured as well as it could be, or as well as the newer nvidias that are going to be in the new imacs..
No, that's not what it means. That last bit referred to just the Mac Mini's. The iMac's will likely be using the 9400 just as a support chipset, not for actual GPU work.