or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master - Page 2

post #41 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That really doesn't make sense, because the IGP isn't the CPU. If Apple really is going to do that, then I'm a bit disappointed. Remember the Keynote slide showing the Apple computers that are 64 bit capable? It was the entire lineup except the mini, which only had a Core Duo chip at the time. There's no sense in promoting 64 bit capability in machine models that won't get a 64 bit kernel.


That doesn't make sense either because Apple doesn't use a big variety of CPUs. For example, the models with the nVidia IGP don't use different kind of CPU as the ones that used a discrete nVidia chip, it's just a different clock speed. Excepting the Air of course, I don't know about that one.

Dont kill the messenger. I am just reporting on what has been done so far. We are close to Snow Leopard going Golden Master, with DVDs made and packaged, yet no support for a 64-bit kernel in their most common machines.

I understand if they made it 32-bit by default to keep driver issues to a minimum, but to not include it when they have done the legwork for their other machines running the same CPUs in most cases boggles my mind, too.
post #42 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Woohoo.....time to torrent when leaked!

What a dick...
post #43 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Doesn't the two different kernels require separate drivers for both? That could get confusing with third parties. I thought the main difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard (as far as the OS architecture) was Leopard's 32 bit kernel since everything else is already 64 bit. I have a Penryn / Santa Rosa Macbook (4,1). Will it be fully 64 bit?

They do require separate drivers, which is one reason why Windows going 64-bit was wrought with so many issues. They had a separate 32-bit and 64-bit installation so if you didnt have the 64-bit driver the HW wouldnt work. Apple has made it very easy to jump back to 32-bit OS with a restart and holding down of the 3 and 2 keys (6 and 4 keys to get back to 64-bit). The drivers that are 64-bit are also 32-bit capable, too, which makes it easy.

So far, your MacBook and my MacBook Pro hasnt supported a 64-bit kernel. Well see what the results are after the next Beta, but it been more than enough time for them to add it by now, so it doesnt look good.
post #44 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Woohoo.....time to torrent when leaked!

No! Pay for the the update!
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #45 of 235
From Apple's support pages:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3696

Processor Name..................32- or 64-bit
==========================
Intel Core Solo.....................32 bit
Intel Core Duo.....................32 bit
Intel Core 2 Duo..................64 bit
Intel Quad-Core Xeon..........64 bit


I hope that settles things.
post #46 of 235
It isn't just the cpu. I believe the chipset must be 64 bit as well, And you can have a 64 bit cpu with a 32 bit chipset. That could be the limiting factor with some of these machines. I don't remember for certain, but I think Intel had 32 bit chipsets with the first 64 bit chips.
post #47 of 235
The supporting chipset need not be 64-bit in order to run 64-bit apps, but it is possibly required to run the 64-bit kernel. A 32-bit chipset just won't run 64-bit applications as fast as if a 64-bit chipset was present.
I believe a 64-bit EFI is also required to run the 64-bit kernel, but again the EFI doesn't matter for running 64-bit apps.

So... who knows of any Apple laptops that use a 64-bit EFI?
post #48 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

The supporting chipset need not be 64-bit in order to run 64-bit apps, but it is possibly required to run the 64-bit kernel. A 32-bit chipset just won't run 64-bit applications as fast as if a 64-bit chipset was present.
I believe a 64-bit EFI is also required to run the 64-bit kernel, but again the EFI doesn't matter for running 64-bit apps.

So... who knows of any Apple laptops that use a 64-bit EFI?

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying.
post #49 of 235
Can 64-bit apps run in a 32-bit kernel?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #50 of 235
[QUOTE=Logisticaldron;1463591Where can i find info on OpenGL versioning in OS X?.[/QUOTE]
http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/

You could try to download GLView and it'll tell you what OpenGL version is supported. Although of course you need an nVidia 8000 series or ATI HD2000 series and up for hardware support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

From Apple's support pages:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3696

Processor Name..................32- or 64-bit
==========================
Intel Core Solo.....................32 bit
Intel Core Duo.....................32 bit
Intel Core 2 Duo..................64 bit
Intel Quad-Core Xeon..........64 bit


I hope that settles things.

That is only CPU support. I think the issue might be that Apple doesn't want to bother writing and supporting so many 64-bit drivers. Since all the drivers for built-in hardware are written by Apple, if they don't write them then you are stuck. Even if the kernel would technically run on any 64-bit compatible CPU and chipset.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Can 64-bit apps run in a 32-bit kernel?

Yes. Leopard already does so. And even Tiger supported 64-bit apps as long as the 64-bit parts are spun off in non-GUI worker threads. Mathematica supported 64-bit in Tiger, for both PowerPC and Intel although I believe 64-bit PowerPC has been discontinued.
post #51 of 235
So, when I go into the store and find my favorite ice cream on sale I will just steal it because hey the store can make it's money elsewhere. Yeah, right.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.
post #52 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Intels chips were even hotter in the end with the Prescott. As the chips get scaled down with new process technology, they got cooler.

I would imagine that a 45nm G6 or G7 would have been pretty cool (in more ways than one).



Intel dumped that architecture years ago. It was used only to win the gigahertz race wiu amd.

All intel cpu's are now based on the centrino technology from a few years ago which was developed in Israel and is a derivative of the pentium 3.
post #53 of 235
I hope us 32-bit Core Duo users get a little love. Will be interesting to see if most of the improvements are from 64-bit or whether older Intels will benefit too.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #54 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post

Intel dumped that architecture years ago. It was used only to win the gigahertz race wiu amd.

All intel cpu's are now based on the centrino technology from a few years ago which was developed in Israel and is a derivative of the pentium 3.

Yes. But years ago may include Apple's early 64 bit machines.
post #55 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Can 64-bit apps run in a 32-bit kernel?

Yes, 64-bit apps can run on top of a 32-bit kernel, as they have for years, starting with Tiger and then Leopard (the difference between Tiger and Leopard being that Leopard supports 64-bit GUI apps while Tiger supports only 64-bit command line apps).
post #56 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


All intel cpu's are now based on the centrino technology from a few years ago which was developed in Israel and is a derivative of the pentium 3.

Centrino was the whole mobile architecture, not the CPU - the current Core CPUs were based on the Pentium M, which was based on the P3. You're absolutely right about the P4... many of us back in the day were more interested in the Pentium M than the P4 (although my gaming rigs had AMD64).

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #57 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

From Apple's support pages:

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3696

Processor Name..................32- or 64-bit
==========================
Intel Core Solo.....................32 bit
Intel Core Duo.....................32 bit
Intel Core 2 Duo..................64 bit
Intel Quad-Core Xeon..........64 bit

I hope that settles things.

Their chart doesn't settle things for my case, I have a Dual-Core Xeon. It's really two Dual-Cores, but I'm reporting what my System Profiler line shows. I think it's probably going to fall into the 64 bit category since it's the same die used on the first Apple Quad-Core Xeons.
post #58 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

I hope us 32-bit Core Duo users get a little love. Will be interesting to see if most of the improvements are from 64-bit or whether older Intels will benefit too.

10.6.x should run fine on your 32-bit Core Duo hardware. Just don't expect 10.7.x to run on 32-bit CPUs.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #59 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

10.6.x should run fine on your 32-bit Core Duo hardware. Just don't expect 10.7.x to run on 32-bit CPUs.

Hopefully, 10.7 will be two years from now, and 32 bit will be old hardware.
post #60 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

http://www.realtech-vr.com/glview/


That is only CPU support. I think the issue might be that Apple doesn't want to bother writing and supporting so many 64-bit drivers. Since all the drivers for built-in hardware are written by Apple, if they don't write them then you are stuck. Even if the kernel would technically run on any 64-bit compatible CPU and chipset.
.

I smell a petition if this is the case...
post #61 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

10.6.x should run fine on your 32-bit Core Duo hardware. Just don't expect 10.7.x to run on 32-bit CPUs.

No and that's fine, I just want 4 good years from my 2006 MacBook.

I've also read that OpenCL requires at least an 8600m to be useful, so I guess my GMA950 isn't going to cut it.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #62 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Hopefully, 10.7 will be two years from now, and 32 bit will be old hardware.

That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.
post #63 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.

Right.

I just don't get the people who have machines that are four or five years old and expect all the newest features to work.

Also, when companies are undergoing cpu and gpu transitions, lifetimes are going to be shorter.

If one has a 32 bit machine, and Apple has spent all that money to allow the new 64 bit OS to work well on it, though in 32 bit, people should be thrilled.

If a newer version drops 32 bit support, and we don't know that 10.7 will yet, it's just speculation right now, that's a good thing.

The more Apple can slim the OS down, and the more code they can drop, the shorter later development cycles will be.

And just as importantly, dropping all that code results in fewer bugs.

We all want fewer bugs.
post #64 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

That is only CPU support. I think the issue might be that Apple doesn't want to bother writing and supporting so many 64-bit drivers. Since all the drivers for built-in hardware are written by Apple, if they don't write them then you are stuck. Even if the kernel would technically run on any 64-bit compatible CPU and chipset.

I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.

Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.
post #65 of 235
I'd be curious to know if Vista 64 bit (or even 64 bit Linux), which have 64 bit kernels can be installed on the Macs that supposedly are unable to install a fully 64 bit SL.
post #66 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7600/132 View Post

I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.

Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.

If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
post #67 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7600/132 View Post

I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.

There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'

Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?
post #68 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post

If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.


All I want to know is ifmy brand spankin' new 13" Macbook Pro will be able to run full 64-bit.
post #69 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

Doesn't the two different kernels require separate drivers for both? That could get confusing with third parties. I thought the main difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard (as far as the OS architecture) was Leopard's 32 bit kernel since everything else is already 64 bit. I have a Penryn / Santa Rosa Macbook (4,1). Will it be fully 64 bit?

I have to ask why do you care? The applications you use will work under snow leopard and the size of the kernel is basically irrelevant except for really high performance apps. Apple is moving everything to 64 bit but will it be done at Snow Leopard answer is no, because lots of applications are not 64 bit so depending on what you do on your system your performance will vary. What are worried about. Is it an issue with address space or some other constraint that your trying to address?
post #70 of 235
if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.

So, that fits with going GM about now. Sweet.
post #71 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post

If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.

Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
Quote:
QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
post #72 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcommander.data View Post

Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html

Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?
post #73 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

.....

edit: let's not be so open about copyright infringement here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post

Hopefully you are just making a joke about getting it ASAP. If not, it is only $29.00 and we should be rewarding Apple for selling it so cheaply by buying it legally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wooster View Post

What kind of mentality is this? Do you like to work for free? Why should you not pay for something a lot of people have spent a lot of money and resources to create?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

They can, but that doesn't mean ripping off software is justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

What a dick...

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

No! Pay for the the update!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

So, when I go into the store and find my favorite ice cream on sale I will just steal it because hey the store can make it's money elsewhere. Yeah, right.

Here's a twist, kids. I've already pre-ordered my OSX Snow Leopard 5 User Family Pack (read paid for it) AND I'm gonna download (read bootleg) the Gold Master Build 10A432 when I find it. Did the same thing with my iPhone 3.0 software too! I was so pumped with 3.0 (3 weeks early) that I turned around and pre-ordered 2 new iPhone 3GSs!
Love The MAC, Hate On The FanBoy
Reply
Love The MAC, Hate On The FanBoy
Reply
post #74 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147:1463492

Woohoo.....time to torrent when leaked!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

What a dick...

I just downloaded my copy, installed, booted it up, and it said Ubuntu. Guess that's the code name for Snow Leopard. Looks good, either way. Will let you know when I'm done playing around how everything works.
post #75 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.

So, that fits with going GM about now. Sweet.

Well, no, since that person would have the 90 days to order it in advance. You don't have to order the upgrade once the OS is out, in fact, they'd rather you pre-ordered your Up-to-date disc.

But it sure would be nice for it to have an early September release rather than a late September one

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #76 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

What a dick

That's what she said
post #77 of 235
Frees up 6.5 GBs of disk space. Wow! They got rid of all that useless PPC code. Ha. Who cares. I'm buying it.
post #78 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanplusplus View Post

There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'

Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?

Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.

All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #79 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonefree View Post

I'd be curious to know if Vista 64 bit (or even 64 bit Linux), which have 64 bit kernels can be installed on the Macs that supposedly are unable to install a fully 64 bit SL.

I have Ubuntu 9.04 x86-64 (aka "64-bit") installed and running happily on my late 2007 MacBook. (Natively, not under VirtualBox, VMWare, Parallels, etc.)
post #80 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by pats View Post

Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?

I would not be surprised. It is well known fact in technical circles that entry level $50 ATI HD2600 card is beating $3000 nVidia Quadro 4800 in core animation benchmarks. And why? Because Apple doesn't know how to write the damn drivers and won't let nVidia do it.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard rumored to be Gold Master