or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X 10.6 to show at Apple developer event, drop PowerPC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac OS X 10.6 to show at Apple developer event, drop PowerPC - Page 3

post #81 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

I know someone who still runs Mac OS 8.5 on a PPC 603 (I don't remember the exact model). And I still keep my OS 9.2 Wallstreet. Time to see if it can boot again.

Still running a Quadra840av with Avid Videoshop... OS 7.6.1! 68040 chip at 40mhz. Who here still has a working Macintosh SE II? I'd like to see you try to run 10.6 on that!
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #82 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.

Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.
post #83 of 123
Totally agree, have never been through a year where Apple were going to do something like this and no notice. This rumor appears to be a test for feeding frenzy, see if we take the bait. I could buy the demo of an early alpha in 5 days, but if it were more than that we would have heard about it prior to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

I think the real situation is that Apple will demo an alpha of 10.6 at WWDC.
By January 2009 they will ship a beta to Apple Select Developers.
By WWDC 2009 they will demo a polished beta of 10.6.

10.6 will ship in late 2009/early 2010.

And Apple bought the chip maker to support the iPhone and to help extend battery life in portables. They could help Apple design all in one low power communication chips that the iPhone and 'books could use, just a guess. But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #84 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendon View Post

But the iPhone business, like the iPod business, is going to be huge, maybe larger than what Apple is now, counting everything except the iPhone. Apple can splurge on custom communication or iPhone chips that will help them address a market that is this large.

Most definitely larger. The number of cell phones being sold outnumber PMPs by several factor.
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 #85 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.

Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.

The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.

I'm sorry. This makes no sense to me. As long as the hardware can run a 32-bit app, why on earth would Apple go out of their way to break that? What I see with 10.6 is that the kernel will be 64-bit only with the consequence that it will not run on the oldest Intel Macs.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #86 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by kungpostyle View Post

Just paid 1800.00 dollars for the CS3 design premium package about 3 weeks ago. There can't be a situation where it would simply stop working with OS 10.6 could there? Wouldn't there be some patch? Adobe upgrades aren't cheap and CS4 is supposed to be 32-bit.

Anyone twisting your arm to upgrade the OS?

Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.
post #87 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Just because it would only support 64 bit hardware doesn't mean that it wouldn't support 32 bit software. 64 bit hardware supports 32 bit software just fine. I don't think it needs anything like rosetta because the code should run natively in a hardware virtual machine.

Exactly,

You CAN run 32-bit applications on Windows-64 and Vista-64 now.
post #88 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

Everyone here seems to be assuming an awful lot, and assuming the worst. There will be a transition period, there always has been.

These boards tend to follow an all-or-nothing mantra. It seems the most likely situation for 10.6 would be to exclude support for 32-bit PPC, while keeping 64-bit PPC and full Intel support. Then the next version excluding PPC completely. Already, the limitations of 32-bit PPC make running Leopard less than ideal for many who have not maximized their RAM and I can't see how it would be better in the next version.
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 #89 of 123
As someone with a iBook 1.42 G4 (bought it right before the announcement that Apple is switching to Intel) I don't see the big problem.

Its almost 3 years old, still runs fine with an extra 512 MB of ram, and i use 10.4.

Now, if i'm someone who needs 10.6 for the latest support, I'm probably someone who wants something faster than this old iBook G4.

I never bothered with Leopard because I didn't want to spend the 70 bucks (Edu discount at the Uni here in Canada) because the features didn't really appeal to me.

Same kettle of fish. Leopard will run fine for those who don't want (or can't use) 10.6, and a year or two later all of a sudden PPC macs are 5+ years old and so buy a new machine for 10.7.

Its perhaps not completely ideal, but perfectly understandable. You might say I fall under the category "have a PPC, but would pay for new hardware to run 10.6" - but mostly because by then my computer (one of the latest PPCs) will be almost FOUR years old, which I find reasonable.
post #90 of 123
This rumor seems totally bogus to me. 'No new features and enhanced security and stability' sound like a 'point' update to me. I wonder if TUAW isn't describing 10.5.4?

Its really a non-starter IMO. Who would upgrade to 10.6 with no new features, significant major apps broken (office, FCS, CS3) and many machines unsupported?

Who would pay for that?
post #91 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

give me my damned ZFS!

That was my thought when I saw this. It seems a bit soon for a major overhaul but totally expected for things we were hoping would have been in 10.4.

64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.

I guess they could discontinue 32-bit support as it would only affect the Core Duo models but that's still a lot of machines so I don't see it.

I would agree with a decision to drop PPC support. It does seem a bit early to do that but it's for the best. It cuts down code bloat and it lets developers focus on x86 specific optimization.
post #92 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by roehlstation View Post

When did Mac users become a bunch of Chicken Littles?

When we got a massive influx of switchers who still haven't shaken off the PTSD inflicted by MS.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #93 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

When we got a massive influx of switchers who still haven't shaken off the PTSD inflicted by MS.

Yeah...that is what I was pretty much hinting at.
post #94 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

I think it is too early to drop Power PC support. What exactly does the Intel CPU provide that the Power PC doesn't? (leave performance aside). The universal binaries have been working very well for several years now. Is there is a compelling reason to ditch universal binaries?

You seem to think that the performance advantage offered up by Intel is only marginal, frankly it is not marginal but rather substantial even when the first Intel machine arrived. There is a reason Apple use to focus on Alt-Vec performance all those years ago, that is simply due to PPC's crappy integer performance. It is integer performance that makes for snappy workstation performance for the main stream.

As to universal binaries sure they have been around for a while but frankly so what. You don't see Apple supporting 68000 any more do you?

The fact is Apple needs to make a break form the past. Of course they need to do that in a way that doesn't offend the customer so I suspect that we will see 10.5.x go into some sort of long term support. Maybe they will commit to supporting 10.5 till the end of 2010

In any event I suspect that Apple is in a position where they simply don't have much of a choice form the standpoint of what is feasible for a 64 bit OS. There is a lot of technology built into current generation CPU's that simply isn't in the older generation. Apple needs to leverage some of that technology to improve Mac OS/X and the user experience. I could actually see them dropping support for some classes of Intel hardware also. In any event this is nothing to get worked up about as it will be two years out before users are impacted.


Dave
post #95 of 123
If this is true it may be for ONLY new systems that also support hardware authentication since they don't need PPC or 32-bit code. That would probably mean 10.7 would come out at the same time as 10.8 but 10.7 would be for older systems without the HW authentication chip and 10.8 for the machines that have it, with 10.7 being the last version of OS X that supports Macs without the chip. (just a theory)

New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-be-pure-cocoa
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 #96 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

Apple lack of a good desktop and the weak screens in the imacs is keeping people on PPC. The high price of the mini for it's hardware is a trun off as well.

$799.00 for 1gb of ram, 120GB 5400 rpm hd, 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, no Keyboard & Mouse, and pos old intel gma x950 What a joke.

Yup, troll sighting confirmed...
post #97 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

64-bit won't necessarily mean discontinue 32-bit support, it could simply be that they will make the system fully 64-bit i.e. the Carbon API, which currently isn't.

They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

New ArsTechnica article. They say it will be called Snow Leopard and all drop Carbon support:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-be-pure-cocoa

If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.

I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.

The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?

I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.
post #98 of 123
100% Pure Cocoa for 32/64 before they move to 64 bit only. Still PPC supported but for last one.
post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

They already announced they were dropping 64bit Carbon support LAST WWDC which caught Adobe out somewhat. Now the rumour is Carbon goes entirely because they're dropping 32bit support for any technology. That'll please Adobe, who's CS4 apps are still 32bit.



If true, dropping Carbon is because they've dropped 32bit. Carbon is 32bit only. That makes sense.

I think it's highly unlikely given all the 32bit apps still around and major apps that are still going to be 32bit.

The suggestion that 32bit apps run in some kind of WOW 32bit virtual machine like Windows 64bit does is just silly. OSX doesn't do that now so why would they adopt that crappy system?

I still think this isn't 10.6. Someone has got their wires crossed and 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's OS for their consumer devices like the AppleTV/iPod/iPhone where they don't need carbon or 'legacy' 32bit compatibility.

They dropped Carbon 64 to force the developers to move to Cocoa. Cocoa as 32 bit has always been. It's not a Cocoa is 64 only issue.
post #100 of 123
Last one for the notebooks was a G4 - we never did get that G5 PB, did we?
Ken
Reply
Ken
Reply
post #101 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

I think Apple would drop Native 32-bit support. I'm not saying that 10.6 won't run 32-bit apps but it would likely have to use a 64-bit version of Rosetta that runs 32-bit apps in a compatibility mode.

Apple needs to provide the developer tools to easily create optimized 64-bit apps but they would indeed be foolish by not offering a "bridge" from the 32-bit world.

The better question is "what's the advantage of keeping PPC and 32-bit support?" Apple is in the business of selling computer hardware and software. Why should they extend so many developer resources towards hardware they sold 4 years ago? Leopard will be fine for most PPC machines and those that need power will be looking to refresh to 64-bit soon enough. May as well give'em something stable to move to.

you don't need Rosetta to run 32bit x86 apps on 64bit x86 cpus.

And what is the point some of there systems only ship 1gb base ram at the most the base systems have 2gb.

The laptop ram and only 2 ram slots in the imac, mini, and there laptop makes ram use over 4gb not likely any time soon. You can get 2x2gb ddr2 desktop ram for around $100 and for around $200 you can get 4x2gb ddr2 desktop ram. But 2x4gb laptop ram will cost A LOT MORE.
post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

They dropped Carbon 64 to force the developers to move to Cocoa. Cocoa as 32 bit has always been. It's not a Cocoa is 64 only issue.

That's entirely academic if the system is 64bit only. 32bit Cocoa is as irrelevant as 32bit Carbon.
post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gmac View Post

64-bit doesn't help performance. It helps run apps that need >4Gigs memory. I doubt you need >4gigs for a web browser.

I'm sorry, you are wrong. While Apple might like you to believe 64-bit apps are slower, because that takes pressure off them to provide 64-bit apps, the fact is: Most (not all!) Intel architecture apps benefit from migrating to 64-bits, because the X64 instruction set supports twice the processor registers as the 32-bit X86 instruction set. On other architectures, like PowerPC and UltraSPARC, there's no increase in registers; consequently, going to 64-bit mode tends to yield slower apps, because data items are often twice as big (for example, 4 byte pointers become 8 byte). Bigger datums increase the consumption of processor-memory bandwidth and they create increased contention for processor caches. 64-bit apps can sooner push an application into slow, virtual memory swap space, as well. For X64, though, in most cases, the performance gain from having twice the registers more than offsets the performance loss from having larger datums.
post #104 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

That's entirely academic if the system is 64bit only. 32bit Cocoa is as irrelevant as 32bit Carbon.

I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.

Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.

Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.
post #105 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

The rumour stated they were going 64bit ONLY - ie. dropping 32bit support. So no, that seamlessness does not remain. As I said, that would be nuts. OSX wouldn't be able to run major apps. Therefore I think this rumour is total garbage.

Oh so THAT'S why people are thinking this. Thank you.

But the rumour doesn't say that. That's your interpretation of the rumour.

It says
"it will leave the PowerPC behind: a fully 64-bit clean, Intel-only Mac OS X."

Note that it doesn't say it will leave powerpc applications behind, just the powerpc. I suspect the same for 32bit.
ie: They just want one 64bit Intel code base. What that base runs is a different issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

What I suspect they might do is only support 10.6 on 64bit X86 machines and it will be a top to bottom 64bit OS so Core Duo Macs and PPC Macs are out of luck for upgrades, BUT it will support the running of 32bit X86 apps and probably 32/64bit PPC apps too via Rosetta. They've got that technology nailed in a way that makes Windows' 32/64bit support look pathetic so it seems quite silly to dump it after one OS release.

Absolutely. But this IS the rumour (IMO).
post #106 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

* user mobility windows has that you need a Server for that.

No - while the current way of keeping your desktop while moving machines is to use a local server, .Mac could allow your desktop to follow you anywhere. It'd be an online copy - so the biggest challenge would be how to send the minimal data such that (for example) you feel like you can move around your stuff seamlessly, but it doesn't hold you up by downloading a whole picture (or movie) when it only needs a thumbnail image etc. (multiply that by iTunes, iPhoto, data directories, email, calendar etc and it gets complicated!)

.Mac already lets you synchronise a lot of your desktop - it'd be an expansion on that and integration with iDisk. Or I guess it could use data synchronised to your iPod.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

system self-reinstall alot of people don't have the bandwidth for that.

Yeah, a system capable of self-reinstalling itself over the net, including applications, and configuring it back to your standard setup (from your online backup) would use lots of bandwidth. But
1) bandwidth is increasing significantly.
2) no reason you cant use local data where it's available (install disks, local backups, other local Mac's OS or apps, other local Mac's copies of your data, and iPod syncs of your data.

I have no idea if Apple is working on this but it's got the pieces.
post #107 of 123
Question: I have a Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro... I think it was the second update of the line... anyway, if it's a 32bit system, will I be able to run 10.6 if it's 64bit native? Or will I have an oversized paperweight?
post #108 of 123
" The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. "


Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"
post #109 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by codymr View Post

Question: I have a Intel Core Duo MacBook Pro... I think it was the second update of the line... anyway, if it's a 32bit system, will I be able to run 10.6 if it's 64bit native? Or will I have an oversized paperweight?

Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.

But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?

The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.
post #110 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celco View Post

I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment.

As of over six months ago, there were more Intel Macs on the Internet than PPC Macs:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...in-february-08

And we need to keep in mind a few things:

PPC machines are older, and are probably less likely to get software upgrades applied because of their age. A G4 iMac may be used for basic web stuff, it's perfectly serviceable for that, and for most people, I imagine it is not worth paying to upgrade to 10.6. However, an Intel iMac would get a lot more benefit from a new update.

Another is that this is a rumor. Rumors aren't worth getting this excited about, negatively or positively.

Just because there's a new OS version doesn't mean that you have to have it, and it doesn't mean that the old machine is suddenly worthless. As long as the hardware works, it should be able to do everything that it always has done. How much a person benefits from an update depends on how they use their computer.
post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

On PPC it doesn't, but on x86 it does. 64 bit x86 has twice as many processor registers as 32 bit x86 and this can really help speed up some software.



Is there any particular reason why you're using an acute accent character instead of an apostrophe? (not a flame, I'm genuinely curious)

i´m in España using the Mac of a friend and i don´t want to go tinkering around with his language preferences.

ah...here´s the proper ' button!
post #112 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celco View Post

" The sad reality is that people clinging to legacy systems are albatross. "


Dude was that just to get flamed...or just for attention. Cmon, my take is that you don't understand that there are many users on PPC that have installations of macs not just one. I'm not advocating PPC support forever but intel doesn't represent a huge portion of the os just 19%. at the moment. But as you drink koolaid so I guess we should all buy any crap that apple produces no matter what just to stay "relevant"

Well...I certainly sounded more obtuse than I wanted to. I guess my point really is that Apple has an advantage right now by "not" being Microsoft. Mac users tend to move up to the new OS rapidly and therein lies the problem. PPC owners know they want 10.6 even if the improvements are rather miniscule.

Apple's quandry is this. They are getting buried by a deluge of transitions Carbon to Cocoa, PPC to Intel , 32bit to 64bit. We are all seeing the fallout of this. Buggy OS releases that take successive patches.

I think Apple's trying to get this situation taken care of right now and delivering a 10.6 tailored for Intel systems and Cocoa sounds like a tough love strategy.

Let's say PPC owners are barred from 10.6. Leopard is hardly the type of OS that would be a bear to compute on for another year. PPC owners could plan to refresh when 10.7 hits and catch right up to the herd.

Apple benefits because the sooner they get important apps off of Carbon they can deprecate it and put resources into Cocoa same goes for PPC to Intel hardware.

This has been clear for some in the know

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Siracusa

With Leopard, Mac OS X's API future is clearer than it's ever been. The future is Objective-C, Cocoa, 64-bit. Full stop, no waffling, everyone get on board the train.

Agree or disagree with JS ....he is spot on with this.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #113 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type".

I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.

*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.
post #114 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Whether it's a 32bit system or not, you won't have an oversized paperweight. We don't really know Apple's plans, but no matter what they are, being a year behind in an upgrade doesn't affect people much.

But to answer the 32bit bit first - my mother has a 32bit MBP. It was the first one, a "Core Duo". Soon after Apple released the "Core 2 Duo" which was 64 bit. iirc. Do you know if you have a core 2 duo or core duo?

The name Snow Leopard is interesting. It almost implies "it's still leopard, just a specific type". Apple may be doing something we haven't seen (?) - and that is release a new OS with newer technologies (faster 64bit Intel, resolution independence, touch screen on some systems, ZFS etc) while continuing to have Leopard looking & feeling identical and with full equivalence at the application-level.


I have a Core Duo... I think it was the second iteration of the MBP under that configuration - the machines received a small processor bump if I recall correctly.

Interesting point about the similar name to OSX 10.5. I guess we will see... Kinda hope it runs on my system. Hope Apple just drops PPC support but keeps the support for the entire Intel line. That way I can use my G5, but still have a MBP that runs up-to-date apps.
post #115 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foo2 View Post

I believe you're on the right track here. Snow Leopard will be a clean, fully 64-bit Leopard for Intel only. This will give 64-bit Macs a significant speed boost* and reduce the size of system software updates, while not introducing major incompatibilities. The lag between 10.5 and 10.6 could rightfully be much reduced from previous point releases, because most of the work has already been done by providing the current multi-platform, 32-bit and 64-bit support found in 10.5.

*As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, 32-bit X86 apps usually benefit significantly by going to 64-bit EM64T, because EM64T supports twice the number of processor registers as X86. This is not the case for 32-bit vs. 64-bit PPC apps.

What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #116 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.

I'm probably completely off base here but I'd think that Apple would create a 64-Bit Intel only build that is for new machines only. This would be built alongside UB build but would offer a smaller, faster and more efficient OS.

They could advertise these new Macs as having a more streamlined OS than the UB builds, thus generating more sales as many Apple customers want "the latest and the greatest" even if it is only a marginal gain. But I don't see why they'd call this 10.6; that sounds confusing to me. If they called it 10.5.A and use a trailing letter instead of a number it would differentiate the two but also indicate that they are the same essential OS under the hood. Though, marketing-wise it would probably sell better to call it 10.6 but people will think that it means they are canceling all 32-bit and PPC support, which surely isn't the case.
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 #117 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

What does Apple do about Leopard's 32-bit Kernel and Device Drivers? The 64-bit Intel only approach doesn't seem to have much merit when you look at what's involved.

Actually it has a lot of merit. "X64" apps tend to run significantly faster than 32-bit X86 apps. 25% faster is not unheard of. For applications that spend most of their time computing, as opposed to doing I/O in kernel drivers, going 64-bit on Intel will be a big win.

In one respect, Leopard 10.5 was a major let down as I saw it, because the Darwin commands and apps distributed by Apple still contain only 32-bit PPC and X86 code. That's in spite of Leopard supporting 64-bit GUI apps, compared to Tiger supporting only 64-bit command line apps.

"Snow Leopard" will hopefully rectify this situation, by providing fast 64-bit code wherever possible. To ease the transition, kernel drivers might remain 32-bit, but everything else will go 64-bit and be Intel only. People have been surprised at the size of the combined PPC and Intel updates from Apple, yet these updates consist almost entirely of just 32-bit code. Imagine their size if 64-bit Intel (and 64-bit PPC) code was included! By going all 64-bit and exclusively Intel for Snow Leopard, those updates should be about half the size of normal Leopard updates. PPC users should not complain, because typcially the 64-bit version of a PPC app runs significantly slower than the 32-bit PPC version, and most apps don't need the large address space afforded by 64-bits.

Hopefully we'll all know for sure in just a few days.
post #118 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

I worked there. You don't grasp the politics behind the scene. Adobe was given the message that they no longer control the course of Apple's development process.

Making a pure Cocoa 32/64 bit system equivalently locks out their Carbon whims as much as dropping 64 Bit Carbon for future development--get on board with Cocoa or be left with legacy systems only.

Apple's largest growing market segments have nothing to do with Adobe Suite.

My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.

If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.

I agree with you that it would be particularly ballsy of Apple to send that message to Adobe and Microsoft and they really deserve it, but I can't help think that users in the middle wanting to run CS3 or Office won't quite agree on the advantages of Apple going 64bit cocoa only in 10.6, never mind many devs.

So for that reason, I think Cory and Ars have the wrong end of the stick somehow or have been fed misinformation. I'd guess 'Snow Leopard' is Apple's Cocoa only OS platform for their own devices where they don't need carbon.
post #119 of 123
If they added EFI graphic card support so that you could buy any modern AMD or ATI card to run 10.6 I would go for it

A faster finder that does not slow down to a crawl by folders many items (thousands)


I would be happy with a OS that work more under the hood ( ZDF file system etc) than just adding gleaming features

It is OK to leave PPC behind, My Sawtooth acvtually runs 10.5, I do not think that Vista would work as well on a 8 year old upgraded PC.

In the next Mac Pro with ditched FSB I will get a mac Pro
post #120 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

My point was that Cory's rumour at TUAW was that it was a 'fully 64bit clean' OS and so dropping 32bit and PPC. Ars then weighed in with it being Cocoa only.

If Cory is right - no 32bit - then Carbon is dead and Ars' 'Cocoa Only' would be true.

The cocoa only rumour is a bit odd. And MacRumors updated their info to say "John Gruber clarifies that "pure Cocoa" does not have anything to do with dropping Carbon from the OS"

They said that some parts of the OS are only accessible via carbon at present, and they will now be accessible via cocoa.

I was actually wondering about the opposite. By that I mean - Carbon is currently an API available in parallel to Cocoa. Is it possible to rebuild Carbon such that Carbon works via Cocoa? I assume that it's possible but would have a high overhead and be needlessly complicated to implement?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X 10.6 to show at Apple developer event, drop PowerPC