Snow Leopard Screenshots Show Little New

[kastenbrust]

What worries me is not that Snow Leopard has little new, because we all know that and were expecting that, but that the uptake of 64bit software with Windows XP and Vista 64 bit has been incredibly slow. Very few people have actually installed the 64bit versions of the operating system, and if you have then there isnt a lot of 64bit software manufactured specially for 64bit operating systems.

Another problem is that there is hardly any drivers available for 64bit windows when it comes to hardware, even new hardware such as my new Sony video camera, less than a year old, wont work with my computer, which is very annoying.

I hope this trend doesn't continue with Mac and Snow Leopard, Apple needs to get almost everyone who can, to swap over to Snow Leopard somehow, so those who have wont get left in the dark.

 

[Mal]

What worries me is not that Snow Leopard has little new, because we all know that and were expecting that, but that the uptake of 64bit software with Windows XP and Vista 64 bit has been incredibly slow. Very few people have actually installed the 64bit versions of the operating system, and if you have then there isnt a lot of 64bit software manufactured specially for 64bit operating systems.

Another problem is that there is hardly any drivers available for 64bit windows when it comes to hardware, even new hardware such as my new Sony video camera, less than a year old, wont work with my computer, which is very annoying.

I hope this trend doesn't continue with Mac and Snow Leopard, Apple needs to get almost everyone who can, to swap over to Snow Leopard somehow, so those who have wont get left in the dark.

The 64bit Windows problems stem from the fact that Windows is offered in both versions. Apple will only offer one version of their operating system, and even if it runs on 32-bit systems (I bet it will), it will always run in 64-bit mode on 64-bit systems (probably only installing the 64-bit kernel, though there will be that 32-bit compatibility mode). The incentive for companies to make their software 64-bit compatible will thus be much higher, and we'll see a far greater level of adoption if Apple's history with these types of shifts holds true.

jW

 

[diamond.g]

The 64bit Windows problems stem from the fact that Windows is offered in both versions. Apple will only offer one version of their operating system, and even if it runs on 32-bit systems (I bet it will), it will always run in 64-bit mode on 64-bit systems (probably only installing the 64-bit kernel, though there will be that 32-bit compatibility mode). The incentive for companies to make their software 64-bit compatible will thus be much higher, and we'll see a far greater level of adoption if Apple's history with these types of shifts holds true.

jW

By definition Apple would have to provide two versions of the kernel as compatibility mode would be in fact a 32-bit kernel. So in the end Apple would still have the same problems Microsoft had.

 

[liptonlover]

I think we've seen the last of 32 bit. Apple may have limited support or something, but when they switch they'll make it a real switch, not a choice. The best way to switch in my opinion though, is to get the word out that the next OS will not support 32 bit at all, get your software to work on 64 bit mode right now.

 

[AidenShaw]

By definition Apple would have to provide two versions of the kernel as compatibility mode would be in fact a 32-bit kernel. So in the end Apple would still have the same problems Microsoft had.

Yep.

The best way to switch in my opinion though, is to get the word out that the next OS will not support 32 bit at all, get your software to work on 64 bit mode right now.

I hope that you mean that 10.6 will require an x64 processor, which would be a very good move (unless you have a Core Duo or Core Solo system).

If you mean that all applications must be x64, that would be a suicidal move.

 

[ppc750fx]

By definition Apple would have to provide two versions of the kernel as compatibility mode would be in fact a 32-bit kernel. So in the end Apple would still have the same problems Microsoft had.

Uh... no.

While that would make compatibility easier, it's certainly not a requirement.

 

[diamond.g]

Uh... no.

While that would make compatibility easier, it's certainly not a requirement.

Wait, so you are saying that you can run a 64-bit kernel on a 32-bit system?

Cause all I was saying is supporting 32-bit systems will require a 32-bit kernel, thus leaving Apple with the same problem that Microsoft had.

 

[Povilas]

I'm also a switcher and I'd like to cut through your BS and introduce you to the concept of "different users, different experiences." Maybe you've had some problems with Vista, but I, and many others, haven't. It's amazing that you can make a wholly wrong blanket statement such as "second everybody had or still have poblems (sic) with Vista." It's quite clear you're nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who doesn't know very much about the two operating systems.

Please save it ... Problems with Vista begin the second you login. The whole concept makes me sick: firewalls, anti-virus software, application installation procedure is joke nothing more compared to drag and drop on OS X for most of the apps. Fanboy? Please ... Switched in the end of 2006 and already a fanboy? And you are? Whole business sector is skipping vista and so on. So that's just a coincident.


For the record: I'v used all Microsoft operating systems starting with DOS, still use XP, which is great.

 

[Patcoola]

only a mac pro user would benefit right now for snow leopard, but never the less tiger users would like this.

i'd wait to buy a leopard mac till the quad cores are out.
dual core users will have very little benefit for this.