or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple preparing first betas of Mac OS X 10.6.3
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple preparing first betas of Mac OS X 10.6.3 - Page 3

post #81 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

Sorry for being unclear. It's the encryption that MobileMe handles, which means not free.

iChat does desktop sharing, too, for free. It's fast too, I love that feature. It automatically connects a voice chat while you are connected to someone else's screen too, which is sweet.

The iChat sharing just uses the screen sharing.app I provided the path for above. Saves people the hassle of having to open iChat if they just want a sharing session
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #82 of 98
Dissapointing. The magic mouse driver posted above was already installed on my Windows Bootcamp Partition.

Still all Jerky and unresponsive (sigh)

How long does it take to write a driver?
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #83 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The iChat sharing just uses the screen sharing.app I provided the path for above. Saves people the hassle of having to open iChat if they just want a sharing session

That's nice to know, thanks. This means I can just type in someones IP address and it will connect? iChat was cool because it was two clicks and connected. The little box there just says Host:
post #84 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit View Post

That's nice to know, thanks. This means I can just type in someones IP address and it will connect? iChat was cool because it was two clicks and connected. The little box there just says Host:

Yes. IP or machine name (usually something like somemachinename.local)
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #85 of 98
Is it me or didn't Apple/Steve announce this would be the last "Cat" named OS?

Can the computer not decide to boot in 32 bit or 64 bit kernel based on processor automatically for 10.7? Why would this be a big deal to implement?

I don't think you start dropping support for 32 bit Intel in 10.7. I think you realize that minimizing the footprint was nice but not the real reason for the PPC dropped support. Too much work involved to keep to different platforms going IMHO.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #86 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Is it me or didn't Apple/Steve announce this would be the last "Cat" named OS?

Can the computer not decide to boot in 32 bit or 64 bit kernel based on processor automatically for 10.7? Why would this be a big deal to implement?

I don't think you start dropping support for 32 bit Intel in 10.7. I think you realize that minimizing the footprint was nice but not the real reason for the PPC dropped support. Too much work involved to keep to different platforms going IMHO.

It would be trivial to do so, but they haven't done so simply because of driver issues. Base Mac models will be fine for a few years using a 32 bit kernel, and those that have 4+ gigs will probably know to tweak the system just to boot into the 64 bit kernel on a more permanent basis. I would imagine that things will take care of themselves, just as they did in the 16 bit to 32 bit transition.

http://macperformanceguide.com/SnowLeopard-64bit.html
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #87 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

Is it me or didn't Apple/Steve announce this would be the last "Cat" named OS?

Can the computer not decide to boot in 32 bit or 64 bit kernel based on processor automatically for 10.7? Why would this be a big deal to implement?

I don't think you start dropping support for 32 bit Intel in 10.7. I think you realize that minimizing the footprint was nice but not the real reason for the PPC dropped support. Too much work involved to keep to different platforms going IMHO.

It would been a lot of work that would have set it back another year with little to no benefit. All these major changes benefit the modern x86 chips Apple is using. Then if they did change the UI in a major way it would have likely taken even more time. What Apple did was smart. It was just over 3 years since the last PPC Mac was switched to Intel. The last, not the first, and the uptake in Mac sales skyrocketed sicec moving to Intel so the number of people buying it likely wouldnt have warranted the expense, especially if they were going to offer a $29 price, which seems unlikely. The low price and no new UI seems more of a compromise for the PPC users and lets them really get set for 10.7.

I think theyll drop 32-bit support since its just for the CoreDuo and CoreSolo Macs, which wont account for much. This allows for an all x86_64 for 10.7 and all included Mac software and itll likely be 4 to 5 years since Macs dropped the 32-bit-only CPUs. By then all viable 3rd-party drivers should well be made 64-bit for OS X.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #88 of 98
It would not hurt my feelings if 10.7 dropped 32 bit support, I just don't think it will happen nor do I see a big reason for it too. Stranger things have prevailed. I can remember on this board when everyone was convinced that 64 bit just might be slower than a 32 bit chip. Now we are all running 64 bit chips (the lucky of us) and we are talking about dropping 32 bit all together. Things change, and fast.

I like how Apple forces their base to upgrade and encourages leaving support for older OS's six feet under. Probably the number one reason Windows sucks and OS X has gotten so much better. Legacy support is less important for Steve/Apple these days. This is not to say that every three years I believe new machines will be required.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #89 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

It would not hurt my feelings if 10.7 dropped 32 bit support, I just don't think it will happen nor do I see a big reason for it too. Stranger things have prevailed. I can remember on this board when everyone was convinced that 64 bit just might be slower than a 32 bit chip. Now we are all running 64 bit chips (the lucky of us) and we are talking about dropping 32 bit all together. Things change, and fast.

I like how Apple forces their base to upgrade and encourages leaving support for older OS's six feet under. Probably the number one reason Windows sucks and OS X has gotten so much better. Legacy support is less important for Steve/Apple these days. This is not to say that every three years I believe new machines will be required.

There was the entire PPC line that lasted nearly a decade where you could run the latest OS X, and the machine would actually improve in speed over that time. I think once the Intel transition completes itself, it will be a while before you'd need a new machine. I think we might be nearing that point, if you own a 64-bit capable Core2Duo. I doubt you'll "need" to upgrade anytime soon, as long as you have a decent video card.
post #90 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It still has it, though. Apple was quite clever to allow for both 32-bit and 64-bit apps to run on both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels. Really, having a 64-bit kernel as default right now is not the best option for most users. I forced my kernel to 64-bit but understand and agree with why Apple still defaults to a 32-bit kernel for consumers. You still get 64-bit native apps so the point is pretty much moot since the number one reason for 64-bit has been met.

Moving on I fully expect 64-bit will have a 64-bit kernel for 10.7 with no support for any CoreDuos. I dont expect a 32-bit kernel but I do expect 32-bit app support.

Solipsism, does that mean that Apple will give us all EFI updates so that we can run the 64bit kernel? I'm running a Mac Pro 2,1 with two 3GHz Quad core Xeon chips. While the chips themselves are fully capable of running 64bit, that POS EFI chip they dropped in only runs 32bit. Please tell me that there's a chance Apple will drop an EFI updater for us to upgrade our EFI chips.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #91 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, does that mean that Apple will give us all EFI updates so that we can run the 64bit kernel? I'm running a Mac Pro 2,1 with two 3GHz Quad core Xeon chips. While the chips themselves are fully capable of running 64bit, that POS EFI chip they dropped in only runs 32bit. Please tell me that there's a chance Apple will drop an EFI updater for us to upgrade our EFI chips.

I would guess that the EFI chip would play a non-essential role in ensuring your computer runs the 64 bit kernel. In other words, a simple update to the firmware should be all that is needed to ensure the 64 bit kernel is loaded on startup.

I have been known to be an idiot. I would like to hear from the people on here more in the know as well.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #92 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, does that mean that Apple will give us all EFI updates so that we can run the 64bit kernel? I'm running a Mac Pro 2,1 with two 3GHz Quad core Xeon chips. While the chips themselves are fully capable of running 64bit, that POS EFI chip they dropped in only runs 32bit. Please tell me that there's a chance Apple will drop an EFI updater for us to upgrade our EFI chips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

I would guess that the EFI chip would play a non-essential role in ensuring your computer runs the 64 bit kernel. In other words, a simple update to the firmware should be all that is needed to ensure the 64 bit kernel is loaded on startup.

I have been known to be an idiot. I would like to hear from the people on here more in the know as well.

I think that having a 64-bit CPU is all that is trchnically required for running a 64-bit kernel. From what I understand the EFI can be 32-bit but Apple Is drawing the line as to which Macs will get the "option" for 64-bit kernel goodness. Apple's position here be well intentioned if there are drivers for your system that aren't 64-bit or if it skmy runs like crap with the 64-bit kernel.

There was a way to force it but was 1) complex to set up and 2) I can't find the page.

Unless you just want to compare them or get the better security from 64btut I really see no need right now as you still to use more than 4GB RAM and run 64-bit apps.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #93 of 98
Solipsism, all I know is that I'm unable to boot into 64 bit mode because of the EFI chip being 32 bit. If Apple is going to make 10.7 a 64 bit cat, I'm going to be having to recycle my Mac Pro for a new one. I'm hoping Apple issues an update that corrects this. Otherwise, there are a lot of people out here with 64 bit CPU's that won't boot the 64 bit kernel simply because of the EFI limitation and will be forced to recycle perfectly good and powerful Mac's or never update beyond Snow Leopard.

It is annoying that Apple refuses to get us this update in Snow Leopard, so hopefully they will in 10.7. I guess this is an excellent example of "planned obsolescence".
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #94 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, all I know is that I'm unable to boot into 64 bit mode because of the EFI chip being 32 bit. If Apple is going to make 10.7 a 64 bit cat, I'm going to be having to recycle my Mac Pro for a new one. I'm hoping Apple issues an update that corrects this. Otherwise, there are a lot of people out here with 64 bit CPU's that won't boot the 64 bit kernel simply because of the EFI limitation and will be forced to recycle perfectly good and powerful Mac's or never update beyond Snow Leopard.

It is annoying that Apple refuses to get us this update in Snow Leopard, so hopefully they will in 10.7. I guess this is an excellent example of "planned obsolescence".

How old is your Mac Pro? If we assume a 10.7 Preview at WWDC in May with a release in th fall of year after that, mirroring this last release that is nearly 2 years added to the age of your machine. I think anything over 4 years old is unlikely for an upgrade from Apple.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #95 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

How old is your Mac Pro? If we assume a 10.7 Preview at WWDC in May with a release in th fall of year after that, mirroring this last release that is nearly 2 years added to the age of your machine. I think anything over 4 years old is unlikely for an upgrade from Apple.

I believe I bought this in early 2007. I'm expecting some form of upgrade of the EFI chip. I've seen Apple issue EFI updates before for my MBP, so I know they can do it. It's just a matter of IF they will do it, and why they haven't done it thus far. I have a feeling I'll be putting this Mac Pro into the crusher. That's kinda sad being that I've got two 3GHz Quad Core Xeons in this thing. It's not what I'd call old or even aging. If it's not going to be supported in 10.7 with 64 bit kernel, I'm going to return it for recycling as a nice little cube.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #96 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, all I know is that I'm unable to boot into 64 bit mode because of the EFI chip being 32 bit. If Apple is going to make 10.7 a 64 bit cat, I'm going to be having to recycle my Mac Pro for a new one. I'm hoping Apple issues an update that corrects this. Otherwise, there are a lot of people out here with 64 bit CPU's that won't boot the 64 bit kernel simply because of the EFI limitation and will be forced to recycle perfectly good and powerful Mac's or never update beyond Snow Leopard.

It is annoying that Apple refuses to get us this update in Snow Leopard, so hopefully they will in 10.7. I guess this is an excellent example of "planned obsolescence".

There are some benefits to moving to a 64 bit kernel above and beyond the most basic (>3 - 4 GB) question. I've seen first hand when working with large files in Photoshop on 4GB Macbook Pro, it benefited greatly from booting into 64 bit mode. Files that large must still be mapped into memory when editing, just as any large file manipulations could potentially bump you into that space. Here's a good list from Wikipedia:

Quote:
* Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and other user mode OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3 GB (depending on the settings) address space available. This limit is currently much higher on 64-bit operating systems and does not realistically restrict memory usage.

* Memory-mapped files are becoming more difficult to implement in 32-bit architectures, especially due to the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is a problem, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.

* Some programs such as data encryption software can benefit greatly from 64-bit registers (if the software is 64-bit compiled) and effectively execute 3 to 5 times faster on 64-bit than on 32-bit.

* Some complex numerical analysis algorithms are limited in their precision by the errors that can creep in because not all floating point numbers can be accurately represented with a small number of bits. Creeping inaccuracies can lead to incorrect results, often leading to attempts to divide by zero, or to not identify two quantities as being identical for practical purposes. International Computers Limited added 128-bit support to the ICL 2900 Series in 1974 largely as a result of requests from the scientific community.

It is odd that Apple hasn't enabled a 64 bit EFI for 64 bit capable systems. As long as the drivers existed for the basic system hardware, the 'option' to do so should at least be there. I can't imagine that 64 bit drivers don't exist for typical hardware, even if it's a few years old.

The transition from 32 to 64 bit has taken about 20 years before people got serious about making the full switch on a desktop. 32 Bit 8088's hit the market around 1980. Considering 64 bit processors for the desktop didn't really hit until, about 1995-1997 or so. It's taken another 10 years before the OS's have started catching on. About 25 years total between architectures from first production to general adoption on the desktop.

You should still have plenty of use out of your old Mac if the industry takes about the same amount of time. I'd guess about 2020 before 32 bit OS support is just about gone. Apple tends to hit the curve early, so maybe a bit earlier for them, but you should have many years left before you have to make that decision. The industry moves kinda slow and people move even slower when it comes to general adoption
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #97 of 98
DJRumpy, I appreciate the information you've provided. I think it ultimately comes down to two things. Either Apple will provide an EFI update for those computers that have CPU's that can run in 64 bit mode, or the hacker community will find way to make it happen. There are a lot of brilliant people out there who love challenges like this, so I'm hoping this is a particular cause they feel like taking on. That said, it's preferable that Apple be serious about it's move to 64 bit and make certain that their computers that can actually do it, are allowed to.

I shoot a lot of 1080p HD footage and think that Final Cut Pro, or even iMovie would benefit greatly from being upgraded into 64 bit, running on a 64 bit kernel.

I am also an early adopter of technology in general as it seems my extended family has chosen me to be their tech support. When it comes to running Snow Leopard, or the next cat, in 64 bit, I'm simply unable to do so without the support from Apple.

I'm not off-base by thinking that Apple ought to be aware of this issue and they ought to be working on providing this functionality in future point releases, am I?

Another thing Apple must be working on and they simply don't tell us is getting all of the old functionality of Quicktime 7 into Quicktime X. Why on earth would they release Quicktime X knowing that it's a huge step down from Quicktime 7 in terms of functionality? Sure, it's a 64 bit app, but we lose so much going to it. There's not a day when I have to revert to Quicktime 7 just to handle things the "new" Quicktime can't handle. Talk about a very serious and blatant step backward.

This seems to me like something they'd want to implement in as many Macs as humanly possible in order to make future changes in the OS easier. I'm just guessing though. We're only at 10.6.2 right now, with 10.6.3 coming out in the following months. Here's to hoping for some serious work on this issue, and it's resolution, prior to 10.7.0.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #98 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by krreagan View Post

What feline is Apple using for 10.7? Anyone have any ideas? Is there any talk of the new features in 10.7 yet??

KRR

I would just enjoy the current build 10.6.2, until the next one is released. Apple doesn't discuss unreleased products or announcements.
Apple!

Think Different
Reply
Apple!

Think Different
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple preparing first betas of Mac OS X 10.6.3