Snow Leopard to see HFS+ compression, default gamma switch

[AppleInsider]

Details of Apple's first Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard build for developers since WWDC have been published on the web, including confirmation of a Cocoa Finder and HFS+ compression.

Cocoa Finder

The full build details published by World of Apple confirm that 10A190 now has a Finder rewrite in Cocoa, marking the first time it has moved away from Carbon since the introduction of Mac OS X.

The Cocoa object-oriented program environment has also been used for re-writes of "almost all" visible applications Apple ships with Mac OS X; the transition is expected be finished by the time Snow Leopard is available to the public.

64-bit kernel

The site leaking the details further notes that Snow Leopard's move to a 64-bit kernel is underway, although only some Macs can run natively in this mode with this early test version.

HFS+ file compression

Also, the new Mac OS X update is now known to include support for file compression to the HFS+ file system that focuses primarily on reducing the weight of Apple's system files and built-in apps in normal use. The compression applies just to read-only files and is also designed to be backwards-compatible in such a way that Tiger and Leopard systems won't render files unreadable.

New default display gamma

More conspicuous if still subtle changes have also been made, including one to the default gamma (luminance) settings for display output. Macs to date have typically employed a lower-contrast but lighter 1.8 gamma level, but the new Snow Leopard build now changes this to a deeper 2.2 gamma that was previously only an option in earlier Mac OS X editions. This is to appease both visual editors as well as the everyday user, according to Apple.

Applications

Individual apps have similarly been given a handful of changes, including rudimentary hooks for creating and viewing content pulled from Microsoft Exchange servers in Address Book, iCal and Mail. Automator can also send out its completed workflows as operating system services.

While many of these changes are significant, the new Snow Leopard build reveals a definite work in progress that reflects the several months to go before Apple's publicly planned mid-2009 release of the new software: several features are either suspended or exhibit quirky behavior.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=10314)

[wizard69]

Not to pollute this thread with more 64 bit garbage but the latest portables are not supported which should indicate to people that hardware specific code is lagging.

In any event it is always interesting to see how MacOS evolves overtime. I still see this as a more radical update then Apple wants us to believe. Sure userland won't change significantly but in many ways it looks like a good portion of the rest of the OS will. Hopefully all of these changes secure Apples goals for a faster more reliable OS.

Hopefully part of that fastness will come from Apple successfully making much of the OS multi processor aware. Finder is one place where lag seems really excessive. Of course some of that is I/O but hopefully that can be addressed to. I'm wondering too if they will get speedups from the GPUs for things like file compression and other CPU intensive operations.

All in all it looks like Snow Leopard ought to give me a couple of extra years out of my MBP!


Dave

[walshbj]

I'm loving the Saturday OT by AppleInsider! No time off for you guys?!

[Ireland]

Zfs.....

[ltcommander.data]

While many of these changes are significant, the new Snow Leopard build reveals a definite work in progress that reflects the several months to go before Apple's publicly planned mid-2009 release of the new software: several features are either suspended or exhibit quirky behavior.
So Apple has publicly confirmed that they are having a mid-2009 release for Snow Leopard? The early assumptions were for a January 2009 Macworld launch which I always thought was too soon. I wonder if they'll release before WWDC 2009 so that development sessions will be available at WWDC or will they release a near-final build to developers at WWDC for a final round of testing and then ship in time for back-to-school. They probably want to get it in with a decent gap before Windows 7 since Microsoft seems to be rushing it in time for a late 2009 release.

[walshbj]

Zfs.....

haven't heard about zfs in months. Since before leopard.

[Ronbo]

So Apple has publicly confirmed that they are having a mid-2009 release for Snow Leopard? The early assumptions were for a January 2009 Macworld launch which I always thought was too soon.

Whose "early assumptions" were those?

Jobs talked about Snow Leopard at WWDC 08 and said it'd take about a year. That suggests Apple's target is WWDC 09. And there have been no auguries to suggest otherwise.

[SpamSandwich]

Well, that means it will finally be safe to upgrade to 10.5!

[digiology]

Looks like they're really trying to push the OS's footprint down, I bet its with the long term expectation of the OS being installed on smaller devices (like a netbook).

[fuyutsuki]

So Apple has publicly confirmed that they are having a mid-2009 release for Snow Leopard? The early assumptions were for a January 2009 Macworld launch which I always thought was too soon. I wonder if they'll release before WWDC 2009 so that development sessions will be available at WWDC or will they release a near-final build to developers at WWDC for a final round of testing and then ship in time for back-to-school. They probably want to get it in with a decent gap before Windows 7 since Microsoft seems to be rushing it in time for a late 2009 release.

I've long assumed the latter.

Also: don't be surprised if 10.6 slips a bit, in a similar manner to 10.5, although hopefully not as much. The work described in the article sounds like a man-hour mountain, and Apple is still of course busily extending the iPhone OS as described in another of today's articles.

Snow Leopard is a vital release for Apple. I seriously don't expect to get my boxed copy in much under a year from now.

[meelash]

I don't think it can be overemphasized how big of a deal this is, if Apple is really re-writing all of their code into Cocoa. An OS-wide overhaul of all the core applications is a REALLY good thing for performance and security, and something I doubt MS or even any of the Linux derivations has the time or manpower to match.

Apple is really lucky to have gotten far enough ahead on features and then having the sense to step back and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb while they have some breathing space in terms of competition.

[ltcommander.data]

Whose "early assumptions" were those?

Jobs talked about Snow Leopard at WWDC 08 and said it'd take about a year. That suggests Apple's target is WWDC 09. And there have been no auguries to suggest otherwise.
Citing a person familiar with the situation, the technology website confirms several details of the next major Mac OS X upgrade first reported on Tuesday, including a scheduled release as soon as Macworld 2009 this coming January, and that it will not introduce any major new features.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/04/apples_mac_os_x_10_6_code_named_snow_leopard_repor t.html

Well the rumors of a possible Macworld 2009 release were reported on AppleInsider itself. And Steve Jobs has said that he'd like to maintain a 12-18 month period between OS X releases. Now AppleInsider reports a mid-2009 date. I'm just wondering when that changed. In any case, given that many of the new features aren't fully implemented yet, a January 2009 launch is highly unlikely.

[Henriok]

haven't heard about zfs in months. Since before leopard.

ZFS will be a supported, non bootable, read/write filsystem on Mac OS X 10.6 Server.
And probably unsupported on Client.

[Ireland]

ZFS will be a supported, non bootable, read/write filsystem on Mac OS X 10.6 Server.
And probably unsupported on Client.

Wow, that's useless to me, and basically every other OS X user. Regular Mac users will never see OS X Server.

[wheelhot]

Apple is really lucky to have gotten far enough ahead on features and then having the sense to step back and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb while they have some breathing space in terms of competition.

Yeah, sometime I pity MSoft, imagine the pressure they have for Windows 7. People don't want to see another Vista and Microsoft need to show improvements (adding more features...good and bad), so that is a lot of pressure for a new OS which is basically Windows Vista SE.

[Tenchi211]

...and STILL no GPS Navigation...or voice dialing. The wait continues. Sigh...

[Tenchi211]

oops! Sorry. Wrong Thread...

[PG4G]

hehe I love Apple's dedication to developing Mac OS X like this.

I could definitely be ok with delays. Apple should work on making it clean and beautiful for end users.

Snow leopard has me excited

[MacTel]

Looks like they're really trying to push the OS's footprint down, I bet its with the long term expectation of the OS being installed on smaller devices (like a netbook).


They won't call it a netbook, but I agree with you.

The point of Snow Leopard is to make it fit nicely on iPod devices and the iPhone. The last time Steve spoke about the Netbooks he said Apple's iPhone fits nicely in that category.

[nagromme]

I have set my gamma to 2.2 now, in honor of Snow Leopard.

(Surprisingly, I don't actually notice much difference.)

I guess Macs and PCs will now share the same gamma. I liked Mac's gamma better, but standardizing on one setting sounds good too.

[mdriftmeyer]

Wow, that's useless to me, and basically every other OS X user. Regular Mac users will never see OS X Server.

http://blogs.sun.com/timf/entry/zfs_on_your_desktop

Seeing as how Sun hasn't managed to get ZFS ready for the desktop I'd be willing to wager that both OpenSolaris and OS X Snow Leopard will have this before Linux Btrfs:

http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page

This won't reach Linux until 2010/2011.

ZFS for the desktop will be a reality long before Btrfs.

[1337_5L4Xx0R]

I liked Mac's gamma better, but standardizing on one setting sounds good too.

agreed... the fewer differences there are in terms of default behavior, the more compatible the mac is. Linux/X11 uses 2.2 as well, IIRC.

[Lorre]

What the hell does gamma have to do with compatibility? Isn't it just a color setting for the screen?

I have mine on 2.2 too, but I'd like a 2.0 setting. Too bad I can't achieve that without also changing every other screen calibration setting, which always leads to worse results than what I began with.

[jrui]

"The early 2008 models of the Mac Pro, 15" and 17" MacBook Pro and Xserve can be used for 64-bit kernel developmen"


What does this means ?? That the later 2008 MBP is not 64 Bits Hardware Capable ? :???:

Thanks.

[emulator]

when HD prices will fall below 10 cent/GB by black friday (they are almost there as of now, with a little search), file compression is what people really need, right!.

[columbus]

when HD prices will fall below 10 cent/GB by black friday (they are almost there as of now, with a little search), file compression is what people really need, right!.

They'll still always nearly be full, so yes.

[Walter Slocombe]

Wow, that's useless to me, and basically every other OS X user. Regular Mac users will never see OS X Server.

I want I want

without actually understanding the complexities involved :no:

Don't get me wrong, I want too, :) but we just gotta wait, otherwise one just wishes ones life away.

BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

[kaiwai]

"The early 2008 models of the Mac Pro, 15" and 17" MacBook Pro and Xserve can be used for 64-bit kernel developmen"


What does this means ?? That the later 2008 MBP is not 64 Bits Hardware Capable ? :???:

Thanks.

Hmm, no. If you read the first line it states:

"although only some Macs can run natively in this mode with this early test version."

Which means that not all drivers are 100% 64bit pure and perfect.

[Ireland]

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

Ok Leo.

[TBell]

I don't think it is luck, but strategy. While Microsoft is trying to come up with the next version of Windows to get past the negative associated with Vista, it only has Leopard to look to for inspiration. Since, Apple is focusing on under the hood improvements, it is not showing it's hand as to future planned features. This almost assures that Microsoft will not jump past Apple in terms of mind share in regards to the OS.

I don't think it can be overemphasized how big of a deal this is, if Apple is really re-writing all of their code into Cocoa. An OS-wide overhaul of all the core applications is a REALLY good thing for performance and security, and something I doubt MS or even any of the Linux derivations has the time or manpower to match.

Apple is really lucky to have gotten far enough ahead on features and then having the sense to step back and go over everything with a fine-tooth comb while they have some breathing space in terms of competition.

[PXT]

hehe I love Apple's dedication to developing Mac OS X like this.

I could definitely be ok with delays. Apple should work on making it clean and beautiful for end users.

Snow leopard has me excited

I'm with you on being ok with delays for a cleaner system.

I'm a future switcher because I just want my computer to work.

And if Microsoft are rushing to get Windows 7 ready, Apple can continue their game of letting everyone get annoyed at Microsoft, then putting out a great system. QA QA QA.

[PXT]

So, if 10.6 is the under-the-hood release, when do we start posting our wants for 10.7?

[JeffDM]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/06/04/apples_mac_os_x_10_6_code_named_snow_leopard_repor t.html

Well the rumors of a possible Macworld 2009 release were reported on AppleInsider itself. And Steve Jobs has said that he'd like to maintain a 12-18 month period between OS X releases. Now AppleInsider reports a mid-2009 date. I'm just wondering when that changed. In any case, given that many of the new features aren't fully implemented yet, a January 2009 launch is highly unlikely.


I don't remember that. That must have fallen by the wayside. I think Apple reps publicly suggested it might be WWDC09 timeframe.

Personally, I don't see every 12-18 months being sellable or sustainable. OS X is a lot more complicated now than it was in the beginning, putting in enough updates to make the purchase worthwhile that often doesn't sound sustainable. I'm perfectly happy with every three years.



I thought cocoa finder was supposed to be in Leopard. Why redesign and rework it so much and not cut out carbon too?

[vinea]

I want I want

without actually understanding the complexities involved :no:

Don't get me wrong, I want too, :) but we just gotta wait, otherwise one just wishes ones life away.

BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

It's not drive space but the fact that it's a far more reliable filesystem that is also easy to manage.

[Walter Slocombe]

It's not drive space but the fact that it's a far more reliable filesystem that is also easy to manage.

by reliable we mean?

data doesn't exist at all unless its in at least two places.

Time machine is already there, but i appreciate that that will require an ever increasing amount of drive space, hence the link to the expandable raid array.

I'm not sure how Apple are going to integrate ZFS into OSX easily via an upgrade, from my understanding its likely to need a completely fresh install, with the new file structure.

which could be where time machine comes in {make your backup, install OSX with ZFS and then dump your stuff over, which makes it more odd that they look to be dumping Firewire.. but hay ho}

anyway, how has the current file system suddenly gone rubbish all of a sudden? so far as i can see it works pretty reliably, where as ZFS is looking vapourous, at least from a consumer point of view... so how do you compare something that is in effect, to something that isnt shipping? at least with any degree of fairness.

haven't Apple and Sun both said there are issues with it?

--

to clarify :) it sounds amazing and YES I really would like it, please, thank you.

[Walter Slocombe]

Ok Leo.

No prob bob ;)

lemmie know what you think

[bokuwaomar]

Looks like they're really trying to push the OS's footprint down, I bet its with the long term expectation of the OS being installed on smaller devices (like a netbook).

I don't think so. SSDs quickly approaching common laptop drive capacities, and in the long term, they will be really really cheap. The OS doesn't even take up that much space when you remove the unnecessary localizations. It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS

[TjOeNeR]

It's seems like the compression is being done simply for the sake of improving the OS

Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.

That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...

[aplnub]

I want I want

without actually understanding the complexities involved :no:

Don't get me wrong, I want too, :) but we just gotta wait, otherwise one just wishes ones life away.

BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

That DROBO and drobo share look very neat. We have OSX Server unlimited for 10.5 but have never set it up due to time and learning curve restraints. We just want a big file server with redundancy backup that is a no fuss setup/install.

[JeffDM]

Don't forget that a CPU can decompress that data way faster than a hard-drive can read it. And the less data that needs to be read from a drive, the faster your program launches.

That's why I compress my program files on windows too. Just makes em start faster...

It would be nice to compress files in such a way that many files are packed into one contiguous file. Seeks are a bit of a problem too, every file is one seek, more if it's fragmented.

[mdriftmeyer]

So, if 10.6 is the under-the-hood release, when do we start posting our wants for 10.7?

10.6 is classified as a whole-sale under-the-hood-change, but the reflection to the UI will be across the entire user space.

[vinea]

by reliable we mean?

End to end data integrity. Each block has a checksum stored in its parent block point, not in itself. A ZFS storage pool is a tree of blocks so the whole thing self validating. ZFS by itself can't fix it but it can tell you that data corruption has occured.

If you use raid-z, even across partitions on a single drive, you get self healing. Obviously raid-z is designed for multiple drives and you lose some space/performance and this is a seriously oddball configuration (if it works...I should try it sometime when I have time). It certainly won't help you when your drive fails.

anyway, how has the current file system suddenly gone rubbish all of a sudden? so far as i can see it works pretty reliably, where as ZFS is looking vapourous, at least from a consumer point of view... so how do you compare something that is in effect, to something that isnt shipping? at least with any degree of fairness.


It's the default filesystem for OpenSolaris 2008.5. OpenSolaris 2008.11 should be out next month (hence the .11). They're adding a few things to zfs in .11 if I recall correctly...compression, case insensitivity, etc. And a real CIFS (not Samba) for SMB shares.

http://www.opensolaris.com/

If I couldn't run OSX, I'd run OpenSolaris.

[mdriftmeyer]

End to end data integrity. Each block has a checksum stored in its parent block point, not in itself. A ZFS storage pool is a tree of blocks so the whole thing self validating. ZFS by itself can't fix it but it can tell you that data corruption has occured.

If you use raid-z, even across partitions on a single drive, you get self healing. Obviously raid-z is designed for multiple drives and you lose some space/performance and this is a seriously oddball configuration (if it works...I should try it sometime when I have time). It certainly won't help you when your drive fails.



It's the default filesystem for OpenSolaris 2008.5. OpenSolaris 2008.11 should be out next month (hence the .11). They're adding a few things to zfs in .11 if I recall correctly...compression, case insensitivity, etc. And a real CIFS (not Samba) for SMB shares.

http://www.opensolaris.com/

If I couldn't run OSX, I'd run OpenSolaris.

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/smbfs/

The Solaris smbfs implementation is a port from the Darwin smbfs implementation, which is Apple Computer's BSD variant used in Mac OS X.

Hate to shock you, but Darwin's smbfs is a port of Samba3.

Darwin's next version will be a port of Samba4.

If I check out Darwin: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/Current/

I can get the samba port in Darwin.

The Samba4 project will do all the heavy lifting, and does get code back from Sun and Apple.

http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4

It seems to me that everyone showed up at CIFS Plugfest

http://www.snia.org/events/storage-developer2008/plugfest

including Microsoft.

So, Sun may have modified their implementation for OpenSolaris just as Apple did, but they sure as hell aren't going to re-invent the wheel on this, but will contribute and accelerate the release of Samba4.

Samba4 is definitely worth the effort and even Microsoft realizes if people are going to go to the trouble of making CIFS available across enterprises, they have to work in heterogenous networks, not the fantasy of just homogeneous networks.

[theBigD23]

I actually changed to Gamma 2.2 and it looks MUCH better than 1.8. Wish I would have known about this earlier. 1.8 looked bland previously.

[vinea]

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/smbfs/

Hate to shock you, but Darwin's smbfs is a port of Samba3.

Darwin's next version will be a port of Samba4.

If I check out Darwin: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/Current/

I can get the samba port in Darwin.

The Samba4 project will do all the heavy lifting, and does get code back from Sun and Apple.

http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Samba4

It seems to me that everyone showed up at CIFS Plugfest

http://www.snia.org/events/storage-developer2008/plugfest

including Microsoft.

So, Sun may have modified their implementation for OpenSolaris just as Apple did, but they sure as hell aren't going to re-invent the wheel on this, but will contribute and accelerate the release of Samba4.

Samba4 is definitely worth the effort and even Microsoft realizes if people are going to go to the trouble of making CIFS available across enterprises, they have to work in heterogenous networks, not the fantasy of just homogeneous networks.

"Served Via CIFS. No, this is not a re-packaged Samba with Solaris-specific tweaks. This is the real deal - a native, fully integrated CIFS server that implements the CIFS/SMB LM 0.12 protocol and MSRPC services. It can run in the simple Workgroup mode, or as a member of a Windows AD domain with the full ability to use a domain controller for conferring access and other rights, including the mapping of AD users to UNIX users (so this means that the ZFS or UFS filesystem that comprises a CIFS share can also be exported via NFS in dissimilar environments.) This makes OpenSolaris a truly viable alternative to Windows Server for high-performance, integrated CIFS share serving. Combined with the filesystem management of ZFS, this new CIFS server feature is very compelling. Have a ZFS filesystem that you need exported to some Windows (or Mac, or Linux) boxes? Just like it was with iSCSI, it’s this simple:

zfs set sharesmb=on pool/my/fs

You can set additional share parameters, such as its advertised name by replacing “=on” with other arguments. See the section for the set option in the sharemgr(1m) man page. Management of LM users, groups and server mode are accomplished with the separate smbadm(1M) command. "

http://elektronkind.org/2008/07/opensolaris-2008-11-storage

http://opensolaris.org/os/project/cifs-server/

I guess I should have been more specific in terms of server vs client but with respect to ZFS the server aspect is the relevant one since if you mount a SMB share on your machine it isn't under ZFS. Which you might have figured out if you weren't so quick to try and score some points on me.

Sun is putting a bit of effort to work in the windows environment between upgrading the SMB shares and better Active Directory support. OpenSolaris 2008.5 was just okay but if they keep this level of advancement every 6 months it should be pretty cool. 2008.11 should be nice for both desktop and small server.

What they need is to get the hell off GNOME. Yes, it would be expensive but looking like Ubuntu doesn't buy them much. On the other hand I was never too impressed with Sun's other desktop efforts so maybe they kinda know the limits of their own DNA.

But if they taken Looking Glass and implemented a Zoomable User Interface (ZUI) that might have gotten them a good user experience with a unique interface. Had Sun picked up Piccolo and run with it, it'd be a lot more impressive than Compiz as a core and seeking to sorta equal OSX. ZUI's seem poised to be the next widespread interaction metaphor. Of course, arguably, they've been "poised" for a few years now with little forward traction or major sponsor. Kinda still lodged in academia. Still though, there are some obvious zoom aspects on the iPhone and with any touch surface.

[NeilM]

How about something that users really want, like resolution independence?

[bloggerblog]

How about something that users really want, like resolution independence?

How is that something that users really want?

[sennen]

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

we just got one - pretty darn nifty...

[sennen]

How is that something that users really want?

i want it.

[seek3r]

I want I want

without actually understanding the complexities involved :no:

Don't get me wrong, I want too, :) but we just gotta wait, otherwise one just wishes ones life away.

BTW "useless" ?? how much storage do you need?

www.drobo.com get one, should change your life :)

Looks neat :-)

I do take issue with one thing on their site though. They say RAID is limited to < 12 drives... I have a Dell MD1000 with 15 1TB drives in RAID6 running at work right now.

Othern that looks nifty though, gonna have to poke around to see how they're implementing their system under the hood, maybe raidz (too lazy to hunt through their site or google now :-p)...

[Walter Slocombe]

That DROBO and drobo share look very neat. We have OSX Server unlimited for 10.5 but have never set it up due to time and learning curve restraints. We just want a big file server with redundancy backup that is a no fuss setup/install.

we just got one - pretty darn nifty...

had mine working flawlessly for the first few days, then added a 250GB drive I had spare, and thats when my probs started...

..but you know, i DIDN'T loose any data. I pulled the 250GB and have since added another 1TB drive, ZERO issues now in about two weeks, and that 250 drive, well... it clicks and knocks in its own little caddy, its definitely screwed.. imagine if id been relying on it (like i had been :( )

Pretty amazing little device to be honest, it runs pretty quiet, unless under heavy strain of traffic, its a very Mac like item, and its given me a great deal of peace of mind.

Firewire and USB, so even if Apple pull Firewire from everything, your still covered :)

I was relying on a 1TB drive (almost choked full) and backups of that on 400GB drives, just a mess of cables really, can't believe its all tucked away on on little device :)