I'm curious, why do you think they'll ditch Core2 support?
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
Yes and no. The default 10.6 kernel still boots into 32 bit mode, but you can easily bypass that temporarily or permanently to get the 64 bit kernel.
Apples defaulting to a 32 bit is a smart move in my opinion as it minimizes potential for compatiblility issue. However once the user knows his system is suitable for 64 bit the smart move is to set up for 64 bit. It is a good deal.
However this doesn't mean that the need to support 32 bit apps will go away. I would expect Apple to have 32 bit libraries for the foreseeable future. You really can dismiss 10.6 or 10.7 as being less than 64 bit because they include legacy support for 32 bit apps.
Apples defaulting to a 32 bit is a smart move in my opinion as it minimizes potential for compatiblility issue. However once the user knows his system is suitable for 64 bit the smart move is to set up for 64 bit. It is a good deal.
However this doesn't mean that the need to support 32 bit apps will go away. I would expect Apple to have 32 bit libraries for the foreseeable future. You really can dismiss 10.6 or 10.7 as being less than 64 bit because they include legacy support for 32 bit apps.
Dave
Agreed. I moved mine to 64 bit without issue. If you don't have any driver support issues, then there's no reason to not use the 64 bit kernel.
I don't think anyone was suggesting they wouldn't support 32 bit apps. Some simple apps would simply never benefit from it. I still have tons that are 32 bit. I think he was referring only to dropping support for the old Core Duo processor line. They were just a blip on the way to 64 bit processors anyway...
What are wrong with them? I especially love the new Exposé.
all you need to do to witness the atrocity that is 10.6's Exposé is open a three new "stickies" (shrink them down to the collapse view for fun) and a single Safari window. Now activate Exposé and tell me why a tiny stickie note deserves as much horizontal space as an entire web browser window ... or, more precisely, why each single stickie has to take up essentially the same room as a browser window. pre 10.6, Exposé arranged things in a sensible manner, but now sensible has been taken over by "putting everything in a straight row."
Exposé used to be the feature i showed PC users with pride and pity; now it's almost completely unusable.
all you need to do to witness the atrocity that is 10.6's Exposé is open a three new "stickies" (shrink them down to the collapse view for fun) and a single Safari window. Now activate Exposé and tell me why a tiny stickie note deserves as much horizontal space as an entire web browser window ... or, more precisely, why each single stickie has to take up essentially the same room as a browser window. pre 10.6, Exposé arranged things in a sensible manner, but now sensible has been taken over by "putting everything in a straight row."
Exposé used to be the feature i showed PC users with pride and pity; now it's almost completely unusable.
A cosmetic change but personally one I could care less about. I don't read documents in Expose. I just glance at the one I want and click it.
You still seem to know which is the stickie and which is the browser without any issue. If you don't like it, put a suggestion on the Apple site and move on.
Dropping support for 32-bit processors would allow Apple to ship their own user apps 64-bit only which would allow 10.7 to have a smaller footprint than 10.6. 32-bit kernels will still be needed if 10.7 is to run on early Macs with 64-bit Intel processors and 32-bit EFI. I expect Apple will drop support for 32-bit EFI machines with 10.8.
You bring up a good point. I wonder if ZFS will make it's debut?
ZFS for Mac OS X is officially dead.
Reportedly, Apple had licensing problems with Oracle (sun), so they killed the project. Apple had ads posted searching for file system engineers to create their own advanced file system.
Mac OS X users, especially given the vast numbers of portable machines, have far different requirements than the typical server-based needs that ZFS served.
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
I'm with you here. The introduction for the Core Solo/Duo was the first iteration in 2006, by 10.7 there may be some light groans, but no serious bitching. PPC went away without much shock, no reason to keep 32 bit around much longer either.
You bring up a good point. I wonder if ZFS will make it's debut?
I think ZFS is out unless we hear about further support for it. There are also some cons to going to ZFS, like no auto-defrag the last time I heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
Dropping support for 32-bit processors would allow Apple to ship their own user apps 64-bit only which would allow 10.7 to have a smaller footprint than 10.6. 32-bit kernels will still be needed if 10.7 is to run on early Macs with 64-bit Intel processors and 32-bit EFI. I expect Apple will drop support for 32-bit EFI machines with 10.8.
Does that add to much bulk to the apps. From what I’ve seen it’s pretty minimal, but you’re right that it wouldn’t need to be there if they move to only 64-bit HW support.
They tend to cover their Macs for 3 to 4 years. Yonah (32-bit) was retired in Nov 2006 (37 months prior).
Note that the Merom (64-bit) with the 32-bit memory addressing was finally dropped a year later in November 2007 (25 month prior) with Merom being retired for Penryn in Feb 2008 (21 months prior). If we consider another 21 months until the release of 10.7 then it’s possible that even with 4 years of previous support for Mac notebooks will start support with Penryn.
Edit: I forgot about the languished Mac Mini which kept Merom (64-bit) with the 32-bit memory addressing until Mar 2009 (9 months prior).
Maybe they'll fix Exposé and screenshots and Quicktime and Dashboard and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bueller_007
I'm not aware of any problems with screenshots or Dashboard, but Quicktime X and the new Expose are inexcusable.
And I'm STILL waiting for them to fix the damn calculator. Seriously, it's a CALCULATOR. It's been in Mac OS X since its earliest days and they couldn't even get that right in Snow Leopard.
What are wrong with them? I especially love the new Exposé.
Exposé is broken because it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to switch between windows without eyestrain. Whether eyestrain is something you notice or care about doesn't change the fact that it's an objective negative; causing it is therefore a design flaw; Exposé causes it; therefore Exposé is flawed.
Screenshots are clipped to screen width. This is incorrect behavior.
Quicktime X randomly pauses playback after scrubbing a certain distance. Unacceptable.
Dashboard moves widgets up and down about 10 px. The built-in weather widget sometimes gets stuck.
I like the labels in the new Expose, but unfortunately they're necessary.
The whole shrinking large windows and expanding small ones was a really dumb move. Now I have to waste time reading the label on every Finder window instead of looking quickly for the one with the right size and shape.
But some neat freak at Apple who's more interested in how pretty his/her computer looks than how efficiently one can use it, decided that Expose wasn't tidy enough.
We shouldn't be surprised though. After all this is the company that thinks huge aluminum towers weighing close to 60 lb should take up gobs of space on people's desks so they can be admired instead of sitting solidly on the floor where they belong. For better or worse form always wins out over function at Apple.
I like the labels in the new Expose, but unfortunately they're necessary.
The whole shrinking large windows and expanding small ones was a really dumb move. Now I have to waste time reading the label on every Finder window instead of looking quickly for the one with the right size and shape.
But some neat freak at Apple who's more interested in how pretty his/her computer looks than how efficiently one can use it, decided that Expose wasn't tidy enough.
We shouldn't be surprised though. After all this is the company that thinks huge aluminum towers weighing close to 60 lb should take up gobs of space on people's desks so they can be admired instead of sitting solidly on the floor where they belong. For better or worse form always wins out over function at Apple.
Yes, the grid format makes it nearly unusable (at least on a 13" screen... maybe it works well on larger ones, I don't know). Yes Expose activates too quickly to be able to track where all of the windows on the screen are coming from and going to. My other main complaint is that it doesn't hide minimized windows of hidden applications. If I have two TextEdit windows open, and I minimize one of them and then hide the app, why on earth does that one minimized window still show up in Expose? It makes no sense at all.
With only a single minimized window it's not so annoying. But if I've got a huge number of image files or PDFs open and I have some of them minimized to get them out of the way temporarily, I *don't* want to see them in Expose when I hide the app. Expose windows are already hard enough to make out when there are no minimized windows taking up the bottom row. When there are minimized windows taking up the bottom row, it's even more unusable.
Comments
I'm curious, why do you think they'll ditch Core2 support?
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
Ah. I didn't catch that. The 32 bit versions were kind of short lived. I actually have a work Thinkpad with an old Core Duo processor.
I agree. Makes sense to drop 32 bit processor support altogether at this point.
Yes and no. The default 10.6 kernel still boots into 32 bit mode, but you can easily bypass that temporarily or permanently to get the 64 bit kernel.
Apples defaulting to a 32 bit is a smart move in my opinion as it minimizes potential for compatiblility issue. However once the user knows his system is suitable for 64 bit the smart move is to set up for 64 bit. It is a good deal.
However this doesn't mean that the need to support 32 bit apps will go away. I would expect Apple to have 32 bit libraries for the foreseeable future. You really can dismiss 10.6 or 10.7 as being less than 64 bit because they include legacy support for 32 bit apps.
Dave
Apples defaulting to a 32 bit is a smart move in my opinion as it minimizes potential for compatiblility issue. However once the user knows his system is suitable for 64 bit the smart move is to set up for 64 bit. It is a good deal.
However this doesn't mean that the need to support 32 bit apps will go away. I would expect Apple to have 32 bit libraries for the foreseeable future. You really can dismiss 10.6 or 10.7 as being less than 64 bit because they include legacy support for 32 bit apps.
Dave
Agreed. I moved mine to 64 bit without issue. If you don't have any driver support issues, then there's no reason to not use the 64 bit kernel.
I don't think anyone was suggesting they wouldn't support 32 bit apps. Some simple apps would simply never benefit from it. I still have tons that are 32 bit. I think he was referring only to dropping support for the old Core Duo processor line. They were just a blip on the way to 64 bit processors anyway...
What are wrong with them? I especially love the new Exposé.
all you need to do to witness the atrocity that is 10.6's Exposé is open a three new "stickies" (shrink them down to the collapse view for fun) and a single Safari window. Now activate Exposé and tell me why a tiny stickie note deserves as much horizontal space as an entire web browser window
Exposé used to be the feature i showed PC users with pride and pity; now it's almost completely unusable.
As to what will be included that is a different issue that frankly is guess work. So here I go.
1.
Support for a realtime thread or threads.
2.
Resolution independence. Snow leopard put a lot of stuff in place to support this so I'm hoping it is being planned for.
3.
Support for Light Peak
4.
A brand new file system.
5.
Mystery tech! OK this is a cop out but I'm in a rush.
Dave
all you need to do to witness the atrocity that is 10.6's Exposé is open a three new "stickies" (shrink them down to the collapse view for fun) and a single Safari window. Now activate Exposé and tell me why a tiny stickie note deserves as much horizontal space as an entire web browser window
Exposé used to be the feature i showed PC users with pride and pity; now it's almost completely unusable.
A cosmetic change but personally one I could care less about. I don't read documents in Expose. I just glance at the one I want and click it.
You still seem to know which is the stickie and which is the browser without any issue. If you don't like it, put a suggestion on the Apple site and move on.
Well the second part is easy I'm going with Sabertooth.
As to what will be included that is a different issue that frankly is guess work. So here I go.
1.
Support for a realtime thread or threads.
2.
Resolution independence. Snow leopard put a lot of stuff in place to support this so I'm hoping it is being planned for.
3.
Support for Light Peak
4.
A brand new file system.
5.
Mystery tech! OK this is a cop out but I'm in a rush.
Dave
You bring up a good point. I wonder if ZFS will make it's debut?
Maybe they'll fix Exposé and screenshots and Quicktime and Dashboard and...
I doubt they'll do anything to Dashboard until 10.7. Exposé came in 10.3 and got its first overhaul in 10.6 - going with a lag of 3 theory for now.
I also doubt they'll do anything to Quicktime X. IMO it is the one that should be an optional install with SL.
And finally, I doubt they'll fix nested sorting in stacks. Also going for a reverse psychology theory.
So is the official support for Windows 7 in boot camp coming with this update does one think? They said that was coming before year's end.
As for names, I'm going for Lynx for 10.7 and Cougar for 10.8.
No one knows yet, though there are many threads speculating. Some obvious choices being:
- Lion
- Lynx
- Ocelot
- Bobcat
And my personal favorites:
- Sabertooth
- Pussy
- Garfield
What else would it be but...
Hello Kitty!
You bring up a good point. I wonder if ZFS will make it's debut?
ZFS for Mac OS X is officially dead.
Reportedly, Apple had licensing problems with Oracle (sun), so they killed the project. Apple had ads posted searching for file system engineers to create their own advanced file system.
Mac OS X users, especially given the vast numbers of portable machines, have far different requirements than the typical server-based needs that ZFS served.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...ing-issues.ars
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/24/z...leopard-weeps/
Over at MS they probably vote for "Rat" or "Squirrel" or something like that. But that's really more Ubuntu's style.
I don?t. I think they?ll start their support somewhere in the 64-bit Core2 Duo, not the 32-bit CoreDuo (Yonah), which also includes the even more short lived Core Solo Macs.
I'm with you here. The introduction for the Core Solo/Duo was the first iteration in 2006, by 10.7 there may be some light groans, but no serious bitching. PPC went away without much shock, no reason to keep 32 bit around much longer either.
You bring up a good point. I wonder if ZFS will make it's debut?
I think ZFS is out unless we hear about further support for it. There are also some cons to going to ZFS, like no auto-defrag the last time I heard.
Dropping support for 32-bit processors would allow Apple to ship their own user apps 64-bit only which would allow 10.7 to have a smaller footprint than 10.6. 32-bit kernels will still be needed if 10.7 is to run on early Macs with 64-bit Intel processors and 32-bit EFI. I expect Apple will drop support for 32-bit EFI machines with 10.8.
Does that add to much bulk to the apps. From what I’ve seen it’s pretty minimal, but you’re right that it wouldn’t need to be there if they move to only 64-bit HW support.
They tend to cover their Macs for 3 to 4 years. Yonah (32-bit) was retired in Nov 2006 (37 months prior).
Note that the Merom (64-bit) with the 32-bit memory addressing was finally dropped a year later in November 2007 (25 month prior) with Merom being retired for Penryn in Feb 2008 (21 months prior). If we consider another 21 months until the release of 10.7 then it’s possible that even with 4 years of previous support for Mac notebooks will start support with Penryn.
Edit: I forgot about the languished Mac Mini which kept Merom (64-bit) with the 32-bit memory addressing until Mar 2009 (9 months prior).
What feline is Apple using for 10.7?
Cougar
Maybe they'll fix Exposé and screenshots and Quicktime and Dashboard and...
I'm not aware of any problems with screenshots or Dashboard, but Quicktime X and the new Expose are inexcusable.
And I'm STILL waiting for them to fix the damn calculator. Seriously, it's a CALCULATOR. It's been in Mac OS X since its earliest days and they couldn't even get that right in Snow Leopard.
I love the new Expose.
You can still have Quicktime Player 7.
What are wrong with them? I especially love the new Exposé.
Exposé is broken because it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to switch between windows without eyestrain. Whether eyestrain is something you notice or care about doesn't change the fact that it's an objective negative; causing it is therefore a design flaw; Exposé causes it; therefore Exposé is flawed.
Screenshots are clipped to screen width. This is incorrect behavior.
Quicktime X randomly pauses playback after scrubbing a certain distance. Unacceptable.
Dashboard moves widgets up and down about 10 px. The built-in weather widget sometimes gets stuck.
The whole shrinking large windows and expanding small ones was a really dumb move. Now I have to waste time reading the label on every Finder window instead of looking quickly for the one with the right size and shape.
But some neat freak at Apple who's more interested in how pretty his/her computer looks than how efficiently one can use it, decided that Expose wasn't tidy enough.
We shouldn't be surprised though. After all this is the company that thinks huge aluminum towers weighing close to 60 lb should take up gobs of space on people's desks so they can be admired instead of sitting solidly on the floor where they belong. For better or worse form always wins out over function at Apple.
I like the labels in the new Expose, but unfortunately they're necessary.
The whole shrinking large windows and expanding small ones was a really dumb move. Now I have to waste time reading the label on every Finder window instead of looking quickly for the one with the right size and shape.
But some neat freak at Apple who's more interested in how pretty his/her computer looks than how efficiently one can use it, decided that Expose wasn't tidy enough.
We shouldn't be surprised though. After all this is the company that thinks huge aluminum towers weighing close to 60 lb should take up gobs of space on people's desks so they can be admired instead of sitting solidly on the floor where they belong. For better or worse form always wins out over function at Apple.
Yes, the grid format makes it nearly unusable (at least on a 13" screen... maybe it works well on larger ones, I don't know). Yes Expose activates too quickly to be able to track where all of the windows on the screen are coming from and going to. My other main complaint is that it doesn't hide minimized windows of hidden applications. If I have two TextEdit windows open, and I minimize one of them and then hide the app, why on earth does that one minimized window still show up in Expose? It makes no sense at all.
With only a single minimized window it's not so annoying. But if I've got a huge number of image files or PDFs open and I have some of them minimized to get them out of the way temporarily, I *don't* want to see them in Expose when I hide the app. Expose windows are already hard enough to make out when there are no minimized windows taking up the bottom row. When there are minimized windows taking up the bottom row, it's even more unusable.