We have had a copy of Troubleshooting Mac® OS X in our labs for a couple of years now and recently got the Leopard Edition.
We follow it religiously. Our primary source for troubleshooting, along with Apple's Support, Tutorials and the Help menu.
Our first venture with Troubleshooting Mac® OS X was because of beachballs. Can't say enough for how it got us, our clients and colleagues set up properly. Can't remember when it occurred last.
Are you kidding me? I'm sure HandBrake, Limewire and Audio Hijack will be completely SL compatible on release day but it will probably be a year or more for Adobe, Quark, and Microsoft to get around to it.
It's not that they finally "get around to it." Their programs are vastly larger and more complex. Do you think it takes the same time to revise their software as much smaller, simpler programs and suites?
Macrumors is reporting that GTX285 users will have to install a separate graphics driver before updating to 10.5.8 otherwise the system will hang. For such a major problem, why wouldn't Apple mention it as an outstanding issue in 10.5.8 betas and fix it before release?
It would be interesting to know what the 'testing' process was really like at Apple. I would imagine if they made a 100 internal employees make the Beta's their primary OS, the bugs would surface quite rapidly, add the external Developers and you've got your basis covered however ... especially since the hardware is limited to Intel Macintoshes with millions? of less configurations than windows.
Has this been detailed anywhere before?
I can't imagine the amount of useless public feedback that COULD happen and not be that useful.
i.e. It crashed. What were you doing at the time? I clicked on the thingy...
Of course, it would uncover higher level trends like problems with printing, etc.
I think the problem would be everyone would think it is a relas candidate and expect everything to work perfectly. The support lines would be overwhelmed. Plus with more people having software in a constant state of revision would give the perception of poorly written software. Microsoft wa able to do a preview of Windows 7 because the code was finished a long time ago with Vista.
I don't attempt to bootleg any OS X version because I like to just install it and see all the features first hand. The wait is hard but in the end it's worth it. I think before I upgrade to SL I'm doing a new CPU and HDD upgrade.
I agree with this point of view. I have prepared by upgrading my memory from 2GB to 4GB; that is all I can do hardware wise to upgrade my current iMac. But I expect to benefit from better utilization of the 64-bit Intel CPU, and from quicker back-ups via Time Machine and Time Capsule because of SL. The ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphic card will not be supported for OpenCL, but I am not pining about it. I think it is wonderful that SL is about stability, performance, and preparing for Mac OS 10.7.
I expect that some of the bundled apps like Mail and Safari will be GCD enabled in SL. A question I have in my mind is when the iLife and iWork apps will be GCD enabled, and begin taking advantage of OpenCL. Does anyone know? Would the SL Box Set just be SL plus 64-bit versions of iLife and iWork without being GCD enabled or taking any advantage of OpenCL? For now, I think I probably will have to wait on the description of the SL Box set when it is announced.
It's not that they finally "get around to it." Their programs are vastly larger and more complex. Do you think it takes the same time to revise their software as much smaller, simpler programs and suites?
No I think they don't care. If the incompatibilities aren't too severe, they'll never do anything about it. They will only spend money on updating the the 'features' so they can charge you again for it.
No I think they don't care. If the incompatibilities aren't too severe, they'll never do anything about it. They will only spend money on updating the the 'features' so they can charge you again for it.
Now compatible with Snow Leopard!
Is not exactly a bullet point worth mentioning.
I don't agree. It's easy to ignore the work that has to be done if you don't like these companies, but big companies are just not as nimble as small ones are.
Also, Apple is responsible for much of this. They lead developers around in circles at times. They certainly did that with Carbon 32/64 vs Cocoa. How would you like to have millions in development costs go up in smoke?
We have had a copy of Troubleshooting Mac® OS X in our labs for a couple of years now and recently got the Leopard Edition. We follow it religiously. Our primary source for troubleshooting, along with Apple's Support, Tutorials and the Help menu. Our first venture with Troubleshooting Mac® OS X was because of beachballs. Can't say enough for how it got us, our clients and colleagues set up properly. Can't remember when it occurred last.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
I don't agree. It's easy to ignore the work that has to be done if you don't like these companies, but big companies are just not as nimble as small ones are.
Also, Apple is responsible for much of this. They lead developers around in circles at times. They certainly did that with Carbon 32/64 vs Cocoa. How would you like to have millions in development costs go up in smoke?
I don't disagree, but my original comments were in response that the purpose of beta releases is for developers to make sure their code doesn't break. It is just not very important to those big software publishers. It's not like they are going to get a head start on it using the betas.
But I don't like paying thousands of dollars every other year for CS# just for a few bug fixes and a new icon.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
Upgrade your iMac to 2GB RAM and 90% of those beach balls will disappear. It's relatively cheap and there are tons of guides online on how to do it.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
Without contravening "Troubleshooting Mac® OS X's copyrights, I would your main problem stems from trying to accomplish too much with too little. Much like trying to start your car with a 6-volt battery.
Your Mac is underpowered and certainly lacks RAM. Then you are attempting to access an extensively large database externally. Troubleshooting Mac® OS X is a great resource and it much explains much of your concerns. However, your issue is basic and more reading will not necessarily fix your problem entirely. It can help but not alleviate it.
I don't disagree, but my original comments were in response that the purpose of beta releases is for developers to make sure their code doesn't break. It is just not very important to those big software publishers. It's not like they are going to get a head start on it using the betas.
But I don't like paying thousands of dollars every other year for CS# just for a few bug fixes and a new icon.
It's important to them. But there's just so much they can do until the OS is near release. Smaller programs don't have to grab as much of the Os as large ones do. It's easier to correct something if Apple makes changes in later stages of development. That's why we see a rush of small programs coming out so quickly.
You aren't required to buy any program upgrade if you don't need to. Adobe does add compelling features for those of us who use them. If you don't need the sophistication the suite offers, then you can upgrade every other time, or use something simpler and cheaper.
Upgrade your iMac to 2GB RAM and 90% of those beach balls will disappear. It's relatively cheap and there are tons of guides online on how to do it.
I figured as much. I'm trying to not spend anything on hardware until I can do the whole shebang next year. Depending on how cheap the upgrade is, I may just bite the bullet. \
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Without contravening "Troubleshooting Mac® OS X's copyrights, I would your main problem stems from trying to accomplish too much with too little. Much like trying to start your car with a 6-volt battery.
Great analogy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
Your Mac is underpowered and certainly lack RAM. Then you are attempting to access an extensively large database externally. Troubleshooting Mac® OS X is a great resource and it much explains much of your concerns. However, your issue is basic and more reading will not fix your problem. It can help but not alleviate it.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'd curbed my usage a bit already (and I've never been a power user), but I still suspected I was pushing my poor little Macs too hard.
I'm planning on upgrading next year to (hopefully) a Nehalem Mac. I'm still on the fence as to whether to get a nice, large capacity iMac and maybe a MBA for travel or a high-end MBP with an Apple Cinema Display. I'm leaning toward the MBP/Cinema Display option, but at this point I'm not even sure what Apple's product line will look like a year from now. Maybe instead of a MBA, Apple will have some sort of tablet Mac on the market I could get instead.
I figured as much. I'm trying to not spend anything on hardware until I can do the whole shebang next year. Depending on how cheap the upgrade is, I may just bite the bullet. \
Memory is real cheap right now, so it may pay, even for a few months.
I wish Apple offered a public beta like Microsoft, it would cut down the bugs on release date, I love leopard but it took a couple of updates before it ran stable for me.
Ummm, as far as I know, Micro$oft still have huge issues even with public testing. It's not that you have to test it enough, you need to have people who really know how to code and work with Operating System.
Are you kidding me? I'm sure HandBrake, Limewire and Audio Hijack will be completely SL compatible on release day but it will probably be a year or more for Adobe, Quark, and Microsoft to get around to it.
Limewire is written in Java. The only way it will leverage SL natively is to move to Cocoa. If they haven't done it by now they never will as they do want to be cross-platform neutral.
It's important to them. But there's just so much they can do until the OS is near release. Smaller programs don't have to grab as much of the Os as large ones do. It's easier to correct something if Apple makes changes in later stages of development. That's why we see a rush of small programs coming out so quickly.
You aren't required to buy any program upgrade if you don't need to. Adobe does add compelling features for those of us who use them. If you don't need the sophistication the suite offers, then you can upgrade every other time, or use something simpler and cheaper.
ha ha very funny. I end up buying several copies of the master collection for mac and pc because nothing is backwardsly compatible and they make indiviual applications very unattractive to upgrade. As soon as another vendor sends us a file in the new format we end up having to upgrade every machine in the studio
Macrumors is reporting that GTX285 users will have to install a separate graphics driver before updating to 10.5.8 otherwise the system will hang. For such a major problem, why wouldn't Apple mention it as an outstanding issue in 10.5.8 betas and fix it before release?
Because it's not an outstanding issue in 10.5.8. It's obviously in the drivers, and NVIDIA has fixed it by releasing new drivers.
I agree with this point of view. I have prepared by upgrading my memory from 2GB to 4GB; that is all I can do hardware wise to upgrade my current iMac. But I expect to benefit from better utilization of the 64-bit Intel CPU, and from quicker back-ups via Time Machine and Time Capsule because of SL. The ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphic card will not be supported for OpenCL, but I am not pining about it. I think it is wonderful that SL is about stability, performance, and preparing for Mac OS 10.7.
I expect that some of the bundled apps like Mail and Safari will be GCD enabled in SL. A question I have in my mind is when the iLife and iWork apps will be GCD enabled, and begin taking advantage of OpenCL. Does anyone know? Would the SL Box Set just be SL plus 64-bit versions of iLife and iWork without being GCD enabled or taking any advantage of OpenCL? For now, I think I probably will have to wait on the description of the SL Box set when it is announced.
Do you have a link to support your claims about the 2600? I have read that the 2400 and 2600 will be supported
Comments
That certainly takes care of .0001% of them.
And you base that on what?
We have had a copy of Troubleshooting Mac® OS X in our labs for a couple of years now and recently got the Leopard Edition.
We follow it religiously. Our primary source for troubleshooting, along with Apple's Support, Tutorials and the Help menu.
Our first venture with Troubleshooting Mac® OS X was because of beachballs. Can't say enough for how it got us, our clients and colleagues set up properly. Can't remember when it occurred last.
Are you kidding me? I'm sure HandBrake, Limewire and Audio Hijack will be completely SL compatible on release day but it will probably be a year or more for Adobe, Quark, and Microsoft to get around to it.
It's not that they finally "get around to it." Their programs are vastly larger and more complex. Do you think it takes the same time to revise their software as much smaller, simpler programs and suites?
Macrumors is reporting that GTX285 users will have to install a separate graphics driver before updating to 10.5.8 otherwise the system will hang. For such a major problem, why wouldn't Apple mention it as an outstanding issue in 10.5.8 betas and fix it before release?
It would be interesting to know what the 'testing' process was really like at Apple. I would imagine if they made a 100 internal employees make the Beta's their primary OS, the bugs would surface quite rapidly, add the external Developers and you've got your basis covered however ... especially since the hardware is limited to Intel Macintoshes with millions? of less configurations than windows.
Has this been detailed anywhere before?
I can't imagine the amount of useless public feedback that COULD happen and not be that useful.
i.e. It crashed. What were you doing at the time? I clicked on the thingy...
Of course, it would uncover higher level trends like problems with printing, etc.
I think the problem would be everyone would think it is a relas candidate and expect everything to work perfectly. The support lines would be overwhelmed. Plus with more people having software in a constant state of revision would give the perception of poorly written software. Microsoft wa able to do a preview of Windows 7 because the code was finished a long time ago with Vista.
+1
I don't attempt to bootleg any OS X version because I like to just install it and see all the features first hand. The wait is hard but in the end it's worth it. I think before I upgrade to SL I'm doing a new CPU and HDD upgrade.
I agree with this point of view. I have prepared by upgrading my memory from 2GB to 4GB; that is all I can do hardware wise to upgrade my current iMac. But I expect to benefit from better utilization of the 64-bit Intel CPU, and from quicker back-ups via Time Machine and Time Capsule because of SL. The ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphic card will not be supported for OpenCL, but I am not pining about it. I think it is wonderful that SL is about stability, performance, and preparing for Mac OS 10.7.
I expect that some of the bundled apps like Mail and Safari will be GCD enabled in SL. A question I have in my mind is when the iLife and iWork apps will be GCD enabled, and begin taking advantage of OpenCL. Does anyone know? Would the SL Box Set just be SL plus 64-bit versions of iLife and iWork without being GCD enabled or taking any advantage of OpenCL? For now, I think I probably will have to wait on the description of the SL Box set when it is announced.
It's not that they finally "get around to it." Their programs are vastly larger and more complex. Do you think it takes the same time to revise their software as much smaller, simpler programs and suites?
No I think they don't care. If the incompatibilities aren't too severe, they'll never do anything about it. They will only spend money on updating the the 'features' so they can charge you again for it.
Now compatible with Snow Leopard!
Is not exactly a bullet point worth mentioning.
No I think they don't care. If the incompatibilities aren't too severe, they'll never do anything about it. They will only spend money on updating the the 'features' so they can charge you again for it.
Now compatible with Snow Leopard!
Is not exactly a bullet point worth mentioning.
I don't agree. It's easy to ignore the work that has to be done if you don't like these companies, but big companies are just not as nimble as small ones are.
Also, Apple is responsible for much of this. They lead developers around in circles at times. They certainly did that with Carbon 32/64 vs Cocoa. How would you like to have millions in development costs go up in smoke?
We have had a copy of Troubleshooting Mac® OS X in our labs for a couple of years now and recently got the Leopard Edition. We follow it religiously. Our primary source for troubleshooting, along with Apple's Support, Tutorials and the Help menu. Our first venture with Troubleshooting Mac® OS X was because of beachballs. Can't say enough for how it got us, our clients and colleagues set up properly. Can't remember when it occurred last.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
I don't agree. It's easy to ignore the work that has to be done if you don't like these companies, but big companies are just not as nimble as small ones are.
Also, Apple is responsible for much of this. They lead developers around in circles at times. They certainly did that with Carbon 32/64 vs Cocoa. How would you like to have millions in development costs go up in smoke?
I don't disagree, but my original comments were in response that the purpose of beta releases is for developers to make sure their code doesn't break. It is just not very important to those big software publishers. It's not like they are going to get a head start on it using the betas.
But I don't like paying thousands of dollars every other year for CS# just for a few bug fixes and a new icon.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
Upgrade your iMac to 2GB RAM and 90% of those beach balls will disappear. It's relatively cheap and there are tons of guides online on how to do it.
I tend to get the beach ball when using iTunes and Safari. I have a pretty large iTunes Library (nearly 300 GB) with most tunes in Apple Lossless, all housed on an external HDD. I also recently changed my setup by connecting the HDD to my Time Capsule (preemptively, as I'm planning on upgrading to a MBP and would like to have access to my Library from all over the house) instead of directly to my low-end, early model C2D iMac (with only 1 GB of RAM).
Prior to having access to this iMac, I was getting by with an ailing iBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (lots more beach balls with that machine). I suspect my usage pattern (usually 4-6 apps open while listening to iTunes) is simply pushing my low-end hardware, occasionally spiking demands on the processor and limited RAM.
The beach balls aren't usually crippling, but they are occasionally annoying. Abster, do you think Troubleshooting Mac® OS X would provide possible solutions to ease the wireless data traffic on my network? Or do you think (as I do) my occasional beach balls are indicative of my low-spec'd hardware?
Without contravening "Troubleshooting Mac® OS X's copyrights, I would your main problem stems from trying to accomplish too much with too little. Much like trying to start your car with a 6-volt battery.
Your Mac is underpowered and certainly lacks RAM. Then you are attempting to access an extensively large database externally. Troubleshooting Mac® OS X is a great resource and it much explains much of your concerns. However, your issue is basic and more reading will not necessarily fix your problem entirely. It can help but not alleviate it.
I don't disagree, but my original comments were in response that the purpose of beta releases is for developers to make sure their code doesn't break. It is just not very important to those big software publishers. It's not like they are going to get a head start on it using the betas.
But I don't like paying thousands of dollars every other year for CS# just for a few bug fixes and a new icon.
It's important to them. But there's just so much they can do until the OS is near release. Smaller programs don't have to grab as much of the Os as large ones do. It's easier to correct something if Apple makes changes in later stages of development. That's why we see a rush of small programs coming out so quickly.
You aren't required to buy any program upgrade if you don't need to. Adobe does add compelling features for those of us who use them. If you don't need the sophistication the suite offers, then you can upgrade every other time, or use something simpler and cheaper.
Upgrade your iMac to 2GB RAM and 90% of those beach balls will disappear. It's relatively cheap and there are tons of guides online on how to do it.
I figured as much. I'm trying to not spend anything on hardware until I can do the whole shebang next year. Depending on how cheap the upgrade is, I may just bite the bullet.
Without contravening "Troubleshooting Mac® OS X's copyrights, I would your main problem stems from trying to accomplish too much with too little. Much like trying to start your car with a 6-volt battery.
Great analogy!
Your Mac is underpowered and certainly lack RAM. Then you are attempting to access an extensively large database externally. Troubleshooting Mac® OS X is a great resource and it much explains much of your concerns. However, your issue is basic and more reading will not fix your problem. It can help but not alleviate it.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I'd curbed my usage a bit already (and I've never been a power user), but I still suspected I was pushing my poor little Macs too hard.
I'm planning on upgrading next year to (hopefully) a Nehalem Mac. I'm still on the fence as to whether to get a nice, large capacity iMac and maybe a MBA for travel or a high-end MBP with an Apple Cinema Display. I'm leaning toward the MBP/Cinema Display option, but at this point I'm not even sure what Apple's product line will look like a year from now. Maybe instead of a MBA, Apple will have some sort of tablet Mac on the market I could get instead.
Anyway, thanks again!
I figured as much. I'm trying to not spend anything on hardware until I can do the whole shebang next year. Depending on how cheap the upgrade is, I may just bite the bullet.
Memory is real cheap right now, so it may pay, even for a few months.
I wish Apple offered a public beta like Microsoft, it would cut down the bugs on release date, I love leopard but it took a couple of updates before it ran stable for me.
Ummm, as far as I know, Micro$oft still have huge issues even with public testing. It's not that you have to test it enough, you need to have people who really know how to code and work with Operating System.
Are you kidding me? I'm sure HandBrake, Limewire and Audio Hijack will be completely SL compatible on release day but it will probably be a year or more for Adobe, Quark, and Microsoft to get around to it.
Limewire is written in Java. The only way it will leverage SL natively is to move to Cocoa. If they haven't done it by now they never will as they do want to be cross-platform neutral.
It's important to them. But there's just so much they can do until the OS is near release. Smaller programs don't have to grab as much of the Os as large ones do. It's easier to correct something if Apple makes changes in later stages of development. That's why we see a rush of small programs coming out so quickly.
You aren't required to buy any program upgrade if you don't need to. Adobe does add compelling features for those of us who use them. If you don't need the sophistication the suite offers, then you can upgrade every other time, or use something simpler and cheaper.
ha ha very funny. I end up buying several copies of the master collection for mac and pc because nothing is backwardsly compatible and they make indiviual applications very unattractive to upgrade. As soon as another vendor sends us a file in the new format we end up having to upgrade every machine in the studio
Memory is real cheap right now, so it may pay, even for a few months.
Can you recommend a good retailer?
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/13/...g-performance/
Macrumors is reporting that GTX285 users will have to install a separate graphics driver before updating to 10.5.8 otherwise the system will hang. For such a major problem, why wouldn't Apple mention it as an outstanding issue in 10.5.8 betas and fix it before release?
Because it's not an outstanding issue in 10.5.8. It's obviously in the drivers, and NVIDIA has fixed it by releasing new drivers.
I agree with this point of view. I have prepared by upgrading my memory from 2GB to 4GB; that is all I can do hardware wise to upgrade my current iMac. But I expect to benefit from better utilization of the 64-bit Intel CPU, and from quicker back-ups via Time Machine and Time Capsule because of SL. The ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphic card will not be supported for OpenCL, but I am not pining about it. I think it is wonderful that SL is about stability, performance, and preparing for Mac OS 10.7.
I expect that some of the bundled apps like Mail and Safari will be GCD enabled in SL. A question I have in my mind is when the iLife and iWork apps will be GCD enabled, and begin taking advantage of OpenCL. Does anyone know? Would the SL Box Set just be SL plus 64-bit versions of iLife and iWork without being GCD enabled or taking any advantage of OpenCL? For now, I think I probably will have to wait on the description of the SL Box set when it is announced.
Do you have a link to support your claims about the 2600? I have read that the 2400 and 2600 will be supported