Video Walkthrough of Mac OS X Lion Developer

[3282868]

10.6 almost certainly won't work on a new generation of Mac Pros.

A new design for a system requires low level hardware support. Apple doesn't typically (perhaps never) retrofit that support into older operating systems.

Look at the threads about the developer release of Lion - it won't install on the latest ThunderPort equipped models of the MacBook Pro. The new MBPs are running a special build of 10.6, and those updates haven't been merged into 10.7 yet.

There's almost no chance that a Mac Pro that ships with Lion will be supported by any version of 10.6.

This is because the new MacBook Pro's use "Sandy Bridge" processors, and ship with specific versions of 10.6.6. 10.6.7 is still in beta stage, and Lion has a long time before its release.

…and what is this about 10.6 not working on a new generation of Mac Pro's? I'm assuming you mean the next 2011 line? Apple has supported older systems with new OS's. Until "Snow Leopard", Apple supported PowerPC processors that Apple replaced with Intel processors in 2006. That is roughly three years of support for an old system, and roughly the lifespan of AppleCare. Lion will run on older systems, that's been made clear. Yet as with any company, such as Microsoft, new OS's require hardware upgrades. Technology cannot remain stagnate.

I once got Leopard to run on an old eMac simply by modifying the install package to lower the required RAM. Leopard ran blazingly fast compared to Tiger.

…and hey, you on I agree on lots of points, but this one

 

[wizard]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Maybe it is to early to ask but how does Lion perform performance wise? Overall does it feel faster on legacy hardware or slower?

I only ask because Snow Leopard has a few areas where it could use a performance boost. That might be a legacy hardware issue and it might be hard to tell with debugging code in Lion.

Considering how I currently use my Mac there isn't a lot here to get real excited about. It is compelling enough that I would upgrade right away though. I just don't see anything that will reach out and grab me as a gotta have.

 

[tgurske]

I agree. Very gimmicky and strange.

I agree too. I work on mac literally 100+ hours a week and I still prefer one desktop. What's the point of a 27" screen if you're not going to have email and your work program on the screen at the same time?

The "about this mac" thing and new mail apps are cool but I am alot underwhelmed by the rest of it. Maybe I will finally be able to color folders in mail...

I'm not really sold on turning my mac into an ipad either. If I could be productive on my ipad I would just use it.

All that being said, I think when it's released they will have made it perfect as always!

 

[KnightWRX]

I agree too. I work on mac literally 100+ hours a week and I still prefer one desktop. What's the point of a 27" screen if you're not going to have email and your work program on the screen at the same time?

That huge e-mail window is robbing pixels from my work app. Spaces is great in that it lets you run everything and yet keep them from interfering with each other without having to minize apps.

I've had virtual desktops in my workflow since the 90s. Couldn't live without them (and hate using Windows because of its lack of the feature in the default UI).

Having the option for those of us who want it sure doesn't hurt you. Just don't use it.

 

[QuarterSwede]

That huge e-mail window is robbing pixels from my work app. Spaces is great in that it lets you run everything and yet keep them from interfering with each other without having to minize apps.

I've had virtual desktops in my workflow since the 90s. Couldn't live without them (and hate using Windows because of its lack of the feature in the default UI).

Having the option for those of us who want it sure doesn't hurt you. Just don't use it.

I don't usually agree with you but this time I definitely do. It's an OPTION people, just like most of what's being added in Lion.

 

[PVguy]

"am i the only one who finds Launch Pad pretty pointless?"

No. LaunchPad or Launcher or something like it was part of OS 9 if not even older.

On the other hand, it was useful for the kids, as you could load up what they used a lot and they could launch it with one click from a biggish button.

For myself, I'd just customize the dock. Step 1 of that is to move the application folder to the dock below the divider. Set it to list mode, and no more than two clicks and a scroll to anywhere.

 

[Saturn1217]

Not sure about Mission Control

OP thanks for the preview! I thought the videos did a really good job of showing the changes in lion (both big and small). I was one of the people who was very depressed about lion coming out initially (i'm not a fan of iOS) but these videos give me hope.

I am curious about mission control however. I agree with another poster that this could be horrible for heavy multitaskers who rely on spaces/expose. I work on a 13inch MBP as my main work computer (I'm a grad student) and I sometimes have an absurd number of windows open. I rely heavily on expose of only one application's windows as well as spaces, as well as regular expose with the minimized window option.

Is there any way to still view anything like regular expose - in particular the application window expose or is MC all we get (I think especially on a small screen that would get very cluttered without too much effort)

Do we still get to see minimized windows in expose/MC/whatever?

Maybe it's just something you have to use to get used to it, but I hope they give us some other option for windows management. It already isn't that great in OSX and I'd hate to see it get worse instead of better

 

[diamond.g]

This is because the new MacBook Pro's use "Sandy Bridge" processors, and ship with specific versions of 10.6.6. 10.6.7 is still in beta stage, and Lion has a long time before its release.

…and what is this about 10.6 not working on a new generation of Mac Pro's? I'm assuming you mean the next 2011 line? Apple has supported older systems with new OS's. Until "Snow Leopard", Apple supported PowerPC processors that Apple replaced with Intel processors in 2006. That is roughly three years of support for an old system, and roughly the lifespan of AppleCare. Lion will run on older systems, that's been made clear. Yet as with any company, such as Microsoft, new OS's require hardware upgrades. Technology cannot remain stagnate.

I once got Leopard to run on an old eMac simply by modifying the install package to lower the required RAM. Leopard ran blazingly fast compared to Tiger.

…and hey, you on I agree on lots of points, but this one

You misunderstood the post. The OP was saying that if the Mac comes with Lion, SL won't work on it as Apple has never offered old OS compatibility with new Mac.

 

[chrono1081]

So much bragging… So little content...

Um....what? All I did was list the features I'm excited about. There was no bragging and the content was the features I am excited about...

 

[3282868]

You misunderstood the post. The OP was saying that if the Mac comes with Lion, SL won't work on it as Apple has never offered old OS compatibility with new Mac.

I understood and that's untrue. You can install Leopard on Mac's that shipped with Snow Leopard, my point was taking the vice versa to prove that it's not fact. It depends on differing variables. My 2010 Mac Pro shipped with SL but I have installed Leopard beta's on it. I've also installed new software on older Mac's that Apple claims aren't supported.

Mac's that ship with Lion should be more than capable of utilizing SL and Leopard, as long as the processors are supported Intel chips and the hardware kexts are available, there should be no reason for older OS's to be installed on new systems should someone wish to do so.

 

[Crispy Duck]

New Address Book

Seems to me Apple have missed the BEST feature that iOS Address book has over the desktop version:
The A to Z list!
I've been wanting this for years and got my hopes up when I saw the newly designed Address Book which resembles the one on iOS.

However, unless I am missing something, there are no A to Z tabs one can quickly click to jump between contacts with the same letter name.
Plus it's nicer on iOS to have all your contacts grouped by letter, instead of just on one long list. Much easier to find the contact you are looking for. I hope they add this.

 

[arkmannj]

You know, I think a lot of the new updates are things I'm not totally interested in. I'm not saying they are useless or that they are not of interest to a lot of people, but what I'm really interested is what is happening under the hood, and from a systems perspective. Like what's going on with

• the Kernel, extensions, included apps like pine/pico, 64bit/32bit handeling
• Backwards compatibility of Apps, etc. (I think I heard Rosetta is going away, I'm sad to see that as I have quite a few PPC apps. Maybe Apple could open-source the Rosetta code so other companies could fill this gap)
• System Resource utilization, delegation & optimization
• Open GL,
• Resolution Independance
• The "Core" API's,
• Terminal,
• How about some of the "forgotten apps" like Automater,
• Applescript,
• The Finder (Tabs like Total Finder, cut/paste, ftp support, an address bar that can be hidden for those that don't want it, etc.),
• Disk Utility (resizing of HFS+ volumes, merging of volumes, etc.),
• Quicktime Pro,
• ZFS support,
• Will we see a new iWork launched with Lion ?
• Will they allow different wallpapers on different spaces (like Hyperspaces)
• Will we see a multiple clipboard option (example: command+Shift+C) to allow more than one item on the clipboard at a time
• The Mail App, iCal
• The Directory Utility
• User Account options (dumb example: option to hide account from login screen)
• Parental Controls
• How about that old feature where you could store a mobile home folder on an external drive or iPod to take with you
• Frontrow
• Better Applications Folder organization
• Screen Sharing application
• ODBC Administrator
• Configurability and general system options
• Menubar options, orginization
• iChat
  and so on...
  I"m not trying to say I think all of these should receive big updates, just wanted to illustrate that I'm really interested in the whole package, not just the UI elements that seem to be getting most of the attention.

P.S. on "FUll screen apps" do they still use the main bar at the top of the screen? if not, is there a way to force it to always be visible? I would like that to always be consistant.

 

[diamond.g]

I understood and that's untrue. You can install Leopard on Mac's that shipped with Snow Leopard, my point was taking the vice versa to prove that it's not fact. It depends on differing variables. My 2010 Mac Pro shipped with SL but I have installed Leopard beta's on it. I've also installed new software on older Mac's that Apple claims aren't supported.

Mac's that ship with Lion should be more than capable of utilizing SL and Leopard, as long as the processors are supported Intel chips and the hardware kexts are available, there should be no reason for older OS's to be installed on new systems should someone wish to do so.

Interesting, I was always under the impression that the previous OS wont work, shoot it seemed like you couldn't even use a retail SL disc on a new Mac either (due to missing drivers).

 

[Sky Blue]

it seemed like you couldn't even use a retail SL disc on a new Mac either (due to missing drivers).

You can't.

 

[3282868]

You can't.

Sure ya can. If you have the latest release of SL or such not a problem. Ever notice that boxed versions have "10.6.X" or such on them? I've installed Leopard on a my 2010 Mac Pro, and it was a BETA (I wanted to check out an old beta feature that wasn't released in the GM build).

Blanket statements such as "NO!" or "YOU CAN'T" don't apply.

 

[Sky Blue]

Sure ya can. If you have the latest release of SL or such not a problem. Ever notice that boxed versions have "10.6.X" or such on them? I've installed Leopard on a my 2010 Mac Pro, and it was a BETA (I wanted to check out an old beta feature that wasn't released in the GM build).

Blanket statements such as "NO!" or "YOU CAN'T" don't apply.

What are you on about? Go buy a SL retail disc and install it on the latest MacBook Pro, or even the previous one. Won't work.

Got an image of 10.6.6 (build 567)? Try putting that on the latest MBPs.

Wether or not an older OS will install on newer hardware is very hit and miss and usually won't work.

Please don't spread misinformation like that.

 

[3282868]

What are you on about? Go buy a SL retail disc and install it on the latest MacBook Pro, or even the previous one. Won't work.

Got an image of 10.6.6 (build 567)? Try putting that on the latest MBPs.

Wether or not an older OS will install on newer hardware is very hit and miss and usually won't work.

Please don't spread misinformation like that.

The latest SL discs won't install on the MacBook Pro's released today as Thunderbolt and Sandy bridge aren't supported (they ship with a "custom" build with the necessary kexts), but that is ONE instance. You're cherry picking my friend. About 75% of systems in the three year release range from Apple will/do support older OS's as the hardware changes up until now have been minimal. Gulftown, Bloomfield, Harpetown, and Nehalem, named after the coastal town in Oregon and introduced on a Mac Pro in 2009 was the first to use integrated memory controllers and Intel QuickPath interconnect and yet they all run Leopard/Snow Leopard. Thunderbolt and Sandy Bridge are exceptions to the norm.

Now, PowerPC only OS X will not run on Intel systems that were introduced in 2006 (Tiger 10.4.4 was introduced to support Intel systems). OS X 10.3 Panther is PowerPC only and will not run on systems introduced in 2006 (Intel systems). Tiger 10.4.4 will run on Intel systems, and does run on my Westmere 2010 Mac Pro. What we are discussing is the reasonable expectation of running OS X in a yearly range of hardware updates, which up until Snow Leopard has been the case (Leopard was the last OS to support both Intel and PowerPC code natively). We're not discussing running "Cheetah" on a 2010/11 Mac, of course that won't fly (without some tweaks which can be done, but why?).

Some facts on OS X:

OS X coding related very much so to supported hardware.

- Panther (2003):

PowerPC only. Will not run on Intel systems introduced in 2006 or Support for some early G3 computers such as "beige" Power Macs and "WallStreet" PowerBooks was discontinued (the G3 retired in 1999, four years prior).

- Tiger (2005):

10.4.4 introduced Intel support, certain systems running Intel processors still support Tiger. certain older machines were no longer supported

- Leopard (2007):

Leopard dropped support for the Classic Environment and all Classic applications, and can be run on systems with Intel and PowerPC processors

- Snow Leopard (2009):

The biggest change in OS X as Apple adopted Intel processors in 2006 (yet supported PowerPC processors for almost four years with Leopard), Apple dropped PowerPC support:

Snow Leopard only supports machines with Intel CPUs, requires at least 1 GB of RAM, and drops default support for applications built for the PowerPC architecture. As before, Intel systems introduced will not run PowerPC systems but will run Tiger 10.4.4 and up. Rosetta is an option to allow PowerPC applications to run on Intel processors

Apple has a section that states what OS X's may be run on introduced hardware. Apple states not to run older OS X's than the OS X that shipped with your machine, however that is not entirely accurate. For reference, here is Apple's information:

Mac OS X versions (builds) included with Intel-based Macs


As OS X releases average about a 2-3 years which equates to the AppleCare coverage and significant hardware releases, most newer systems can run OS X with some exceptions. Since there has been so many various hardware releases over the years it is impossible to list what hardware will run the oldest OS X (and some require "tweaks"), however it is unreasonable to state that new Mac's cannot run older OS X systems (of course within a reasonable time frame).

Random fact:

- Not named just after cats, but a little known fact named after German tanks:

German armored vehicles and Apple Mac OS X

It suddenly struck me while watching Discovery Channel the other day: Both OSX and the german military’s armored vehicles are named after big cats

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X


Now to "politely" ask you, "What are YOU on about?"

and please don't spread information like that. Truthfully, I hate this nitpicking, it's so lame and serves no purpose other than to be obnoxious. Honestly, you're taking this way too personally.

(and damn, now I have to change my avatar as it's confusing who is posting what lol)

 

[sochet]

Heya guys,

Does anyone know the music used in the video?

Thanks!

 

[diamond.g]

Why is TB and SNB different? The CPU is Intel so it should run Leopard just fine no?

The latest SL discs won't install on the MacBook Pro's released today as Thunderbolt and Sandy bridge aren't supported (they ship with a "custom" build with the necessary kexts), but that is ONE instance. You're cherry picking my friend. About 75% of systems in the three year release range from Apple will/do support older OS's as the hardware changes up until now have been minimal. Gulftown, Bloomfield, Harpetown, and Nehalem, named after the coastal town in Oregon and introduced on a Mac Pro in 2009 was the first to use integrated memory controllers and Intel QuickPath interconnect and yet they all run Leopard/Snow Leopard. Thunderbolt and Sandy Bridge are exceptions to the norm.

Now, PowerPC only OS X will not run on Intel systems that were introduced in 2006 (Tiger 10.4.4 was introduced to support Intel systems). OS X 10.3 Panther is PowerPC only and will not run on systems introduced in 2006 (Intel systems). Tiger 10.4.4 will run on Intel systems, and does run on my Westmere 2010 Mac Pro. What we are discussing is the reasonable expectation of running OS X in a yearly range of hardware updates, which up until Snow Leopard has been the case (Leopard was the last OS to support both Intel and PowerPC code natively). We're not discussing running "Cheetah" on a 2010/11 Mac, of course that won't fly (without some tweaks which can be done, but why?).

Some facts on OS X:

OS X coding related very much so to supported hardware.

- Panther (2003):



- Tiger (2005):


- Leopard (2007):



- Snow Leopard (2009):

The biggest change in OS X as Apple adopted Intel processors in 2006 (yet supported PowerPC processors for almost four years with Leopard), Apple dropped PowerPC support:



Apple has a section that states what OS X's may be run on introduced hardware. Apple states not to run older OS X's than the OS X that shipped with your machine, however that is not entirely accurate. For reference, here is Apple's information:

Mac OS X versions (builds) included with Intel-based Macs


As OS X releases average about a 2-3 years which equates to the AppleCare coverage and significant hardware releases, most newer systems can run OS X with some exceptions. Since there has been so many various hardware releases over the years it is impossible to list what hardware will run the oldest OS X (and some require "tweaks"), however it is unreasonable to state that new Mac's cannot run older OS X systems (of course within a reasonable time frame).

Random fact:

- Not named just after cats, but a little known fact named after German tanks:

German armored vehicles and Apple Mac OS X



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X


Now to "politely" ask you, "What are YOU on about?"

and please don't spread information like that. Truthfully, I hate this nitpicking, it's so lame and serves no purpose other than to be obnoxious. Honestly, you're taking this way too personally.

(and damn, now I have to change my avatar as it's confusing who is posting what lol)

 

[silentnite]

Lion is already looking like king of the jungle to me. Just hoping it's released as planned. June is the month I get my new Macbook Pro.

 

[3282868]

Why is TB and SNB different? The CPU is Intel so it should run Leopard just fine no?

Do you mean "Tiger Build" and "Snow Leopard Build"? If so, hmmmm. Good question.

"Snow Leopard" was coded to support Intel systems (Rosetta Emulation ran PowerPC applications in "Snow Leopard"). "Tiger 10.4.4" released with the Intel processor in 2006 was coded for Intel support while retaining PowerPC support. "Snow Leopard" was the first Intel only OS X build with no OS native Intel CPU support. As "Tiger 10.4.4" was released with Intel support in 2006 it does run on some newer systems (exceptions exist). I bet "Tiger" won't run on some Mac's introduced in 2009+ as some kexts necessary to run newer GPU's and memory controllers may be an issue.

 

[superfula]

What are you on about? Go buy a SL retail disc and install it on the latest MacBook Pro, or even the previous one. Won't work.

Got an image of 10.6.6 (build 567)? Try putting that on the latest MBPs.

Wether or not an older OS will install on newer hardware is very hit and miss and usually won't work.

Please don't spread misinformation like that.

As the previous fella stated, no it won't work on the newest MBP for reasons that should be extremely obvious. It installs just fine on the 2010 MBP though, as I have one and it worked fine.

It seems you are the one spreading misinformation.

 

[wallaby]

Thank you for the videos, JasoCo (good choice of music in the first one).

I'm curious to hear from all the other Quicksilver users about whether they see any use for LaunchPad, or worry about the new design of Mission Control. For us (or me at least), the Dock and the Finder have fallen by the wayside; Quicksilver is faster for both launching applications and navigating files on the hard drive. I personally still use Expose (and am finally playing around with Spaces and Time Machine) to quickly find what I'm looking for, plus it doubles as a mental re-organization tool ("okay, what was I working on again?"). Mission Control looks like a streamlined system of all these; my only concern is that I want to be able to get to where I'm going with the least amount of 'clicking.' Launchpad looks to just be a prettier, longer-to-get-there way of finding apps. I'm sure it will delight new and normal users, but for us Quicksilver users, there really looks to be no point.

In the land of trackpads and gestures, the keyboard is king.

 

[diamond.g]

Do you mean "Tiger Build" and "Snow Leopard Build"? If so, hmmmm. Good question.

"Snow Leopard" was coded to support Intel systems (Rosetta Emulation ran PowerPC applications in "Snow Leopard"). "Tiger 10.4.4" released with the Intel processor in 2006 was coded for Intel support while retaining PowerPC support. "Snow Leopard" was the first Intel only OS X build with no OS native Intel CPU support. As "Tiger 10.4.4" was released with Intel support in 2006 it does run on some newer systems (exceptions exist). I bet "Tiger" won't run on some Mac's introduced in 2009+ as some kexts necessary to run newer GPU's and memory controllers may be an issue.

I was asking why the 2010 macbook pros could run leopard, but the 2011 models can't. The CPU and chipset shouldn't prevent it since the 2009 macbook pro had a different chipset than the 2010 model.

 

[3282868]

I was asking why the 2010 macbook pros could run leopard, but the 2011 models can't. The CPU and chipset shouldn't prevent it since the 2009 macbook pro had a different chipset than the 2010 model.

Sandy Bridge is a very different chipset with changes in memory controllers and Thunderbolt (aka Intel's "LightPeak") requires necessary drivers. The new 2011 MacBook Pro's shipped with a specific 10.6.x disc/OS X with kext's necessary for these changes to operate. This is one extreme instance in which you cannot run an older version of OS X due to major hardware changes/introductions. So it's not about Leopard/Snow Leopard, it's about Snow Leopard that ships with the new MacBook Pro's being a version only available for use with these new systems.