OS X 10.8.4 release looms as Apple closes seed project

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Apple on Friday sent notice to developers that it will be closing the OS X Software Update 10.8.4 seed project, suggesting a final version of the maintenance update is close to release.

Seed


People who have seen the emailed notice believe OS X 10.8.4 could see public release in the near future, possibly at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference coming up on June 10.

Along with thanking participants who contributed to the testing, Apple noted the discussion board and Project Area dedicated to the seeding initiative will be shut down following scheduled infrastructure maintenance this weekend. No information was given regarding a public release date.

Though Apple has yet to dole out a Gold Master of 10.8.4, signaling an imminent release of the software update, the company most recently seeded the eighth beta version of the software last week.

While the maintenance update is not expected to have many new features, a beta issued in April revealed code pointing to support for the 802.11ac wireless protocol, hinting that future Macs could soon employ the speedy Wi-Fi tech. Last week, pictures of a reported Broadcom BCM94360CD PCI-E mini custom combo WLAN+Bluetooth card made the rounds, with some speculating that the part could be used in an as-yet-unannounced Mac.

Apple has announced that it will show off next-generation versions of OS X and iOS at WWDC 2013, but many are anticipating new hardware like a refreshed MacBook lineup featuring Intel's latest Haswell processors.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    I'm still wishing for full multi-monitor support. It's not there in 10.8

    The fact that when you take an application to full screen it renders your other two monitors as useless as paperweights has behooved me. I never thought APPL would do something like that, but I'm reminded every time I want to use something in full-screen mode. It's been elven more frustrating that its still an issue after multiple request and several lengthy threads discussing the issue for almost two years (approximating).

    Crossing my fingers for 10.9!
  • Reply 2 of 39
    y2any2an Posts: 68member
    Shutting down communication channels and rumour sources in the lead up to WWDC?
  • Reply 3 of 39
    Here's hoping it will finally support using over 64GB of RAM. Needs to catch up with Windows (and Linux) in that regard.
  • Reply 4 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post

    Here's hoping it will finally support using over 64GB of RAM. Needs to catch up with Windows (and Linux) in that regard.


     


    OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 

  • Reply 5 of 39
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 



    I thought they were compatible up to 128?

  • Reply 6 of 39
    ecsecs Posts: 307member
    I hope they add 30bit color support soon. It's a shame all the hardware is there but the OS won't allow it yet. If there was no iPhone and no iPad, we would have features like this already implemented. Too sad.
  • Reply 7 of 39
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ecs View Post



    I hope they add 30bit color support soon. It's a shame all the hardware is there but the OS won't allow it yet. If there was no iPhone and no iPad, we would have features like this already implemented. Too sad.


     


    Uh, that's quite an assumption. There's not a shred of evidence that OSX would have 30bit support if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist, yet you state this as a fact. They're mutually exclusive. It's not like Apple has stopped development of OSX or Macs. They're still the best computers on the planet. Also, it's not "too sad" that Apple developed these products that hundreds of millions of people use and love and that changed entire industries- even if it was at the expense of a niche feature like 30bit color which a handful of people might benefit from- which it wasn't. 

  • Reply 8 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Best on the planet? Really?...

    Depends on what criteria you're measuring them against. If you're using that statement as an emotional standpoint then that's fine, but you're also doing so while calling someone out on a fact. You can't really mix the two. Well, you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

    I like them too, but let us be at least a bit realistic here.

    Tallest, are you no longer a moderator? No reason for asking other than I'm unfamiliar withy the new layout and it's not obviously stated under your name any longer.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 

    If we're talking about a true 64-bit OS then it's 16.7TB. This is what Apple stated back when they announced Leopard or Snow Leopard or something. What the Mac Pro HW can actually support I guess its depends on some factors. i doubt the HW would limit it to the 64GiB that can currently be built but I also doubt the Mac Pro HW would have an upper limit of 96GB or 128GB. I'd think it would all depend on what the appropriate RAM modules that are available that would place a limit on the maximum RAM.
  • Reply 9 of 39
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    edit: As [B]Vadania[/B] states (below) It looks like the upper limit is 96GiB because of the bus. 48GiB per riser for the dual-CPU Mac Pros. But why 48 and not 64? It's still triple-channel RAM, right? So that's 16GiB per channel. So based on reasonable expectations for the next Mac Pro what do people expect? 32GB per channel on each riser for a total of 192GiB?
  • Reply 11 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    It actually comes down to the Address Bus, which is limited to 96GB at the moment. I have 128GB and can only utilize 96GB. The computer actually shows the full 128GB, but it can not actually use it all. That's based on third party software system monitors though.

    I'm pretty sure I have all of the firmware updates...

    This isn't a limitation in APPL's software. It's a limitation in the Intel board currently utilized in the Mac Pro. This is one reason why we're all waiting for a Pro update. There's many other reasons.

    The Mac Pro is falling extensively behind, and I must say that if it doesn't get updated soon I will have IT provide an alternative. I'll still use my iMac at home though...
  • Reply 12 of 39
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    vadania wrote: »
    It actually comes down to the Address Bus, which is limited to 96GB at the moment. I have 128GB and can only utilize 96GB. The computer actually shows the full 128GB, but it can not actually use it all. That's based on third party software system monitors though.

    I'm pretty sure I have all of the firmware updates...

    Yeah, I don't see any software update making that happen. I suppose it's possible that it's been artificially limited in the firmware for some reason but that seems highly unlikely to me. 48GiB per riser, which means the single-chip Mac Pros with a single riser only support 48GiB (Actual) and 32GiB (Apple).
  • Reply 13 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Sol, I love that beautiful brain of yours!

    Yea, right now were stuck with 96GB unless someone finds a way to hack hardware.

    Out for a night on the town! See you boys later!

    Now if any of you have an idea on how to get rid of dads "lackey", I'd be much obliged! :)

    I don't know how, but he's smarter than I am...

    Actually, I have the 8 core Xeon which has a 40-bit address bus (each core has bus addressing). If you use your math it should support up to 1 terabyte of memory. However using the more stringent calculations it should even support up to 144GB of ram. Unfortunately at the moment we're stuck at 96. That's why I mentioned the firmware. Please keep in mind that I "guesstimated" my math.
  • Reply 14 of 39
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by Feynman View Post

    I thought they were compatible up to 128?


     


    They are, physically, but OS X cannot use it. 64-bit Windows 7/8 and 64-bit Linux can use 128 (that's why OWC DOES sell a 128GB set), but OS X can only address 96GB of it.


     


    I seem to remember reading the XServe can handle even more than that, but I can't find it… Not that it matters; people don't have XServes anymore.

  • Reply 15 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Something tells me Tallest hid my posts... Because WOW! That was a lot of info lost.

    OSX supports more than you can install. The problem is the hardware.
  • Reply 16 of 39
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Not that it matters; people don't have XServes anymore.

    I was in a hosted data center a couple months ago with an entire rack dedicated to Xserves. I think I mentioned this and that they said they had to reset the servers about once a month. Note that they max OS is Mac OS X Server 10.5.6 for the *newest* Xserves
  • Reply 17 of 39
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post



    Best on the planet? Really?...



    Depends on what criteria you're measuring them against. If you're using that statement as an emotional standpoint then that's fine, but you're also doing so while calling someone out on a fact. You can't really mix the two. Well, you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.



    I like them too, but let us be at least a bit realistic here.

     




    Is that really such a far-fetched statement? Apple's Mac line is consistently rated best in class, in pretty much every aspect, by the vast majority of tech blogs, and more importantly, customer satisfaction for these products  is off the charts compared to other companies. If you average out reviews, overall the Macbook Air is easily the best ultrabook, the Macbook Pro the best laptop in its class, and the iMac the best all in one. They tend to always be recommended at the top of the list. This isn't my opinion, its that of countless others. So please, since you believe my statement is so ridiculous, point me out to computers from other companies that exceed Apple's metrics. Yet, you'd prefer to ignore these metrics and call me out as making an "emotional" statement. 

  • Reply 18 of 39
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    Still making an emotional statement.

    Ratings, tech blogs, customer satisfaction, reviews, recommendations, opinions. Let me know if I haven't listed a "personal" if not "emotional" metric yet.

    You didn't read my entire post.

    If you really think APPL's computers are literally the "best on the planet" beyond a social or psychological standpoint then you yourself haven't put much thought into it. I'm sorry, but I can not offer links.

    I, personally, have seen some very overpowered computers. Including those at C.E.R.N. I can guarantee that Apple's computers are not the "best on the planet".

    However from a social point of view, I agree with you. I also use many of their computers.

    You're spearing the wrong fish my friend... This fish bites back! LOL! :)

    Oh, and father dearest schools me every day on what's emotional and what's not.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    ecsecs Posts: 307member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post


     


    Uh, that's quite an assumption. There's not a shred of evidence that OSX would have 30bit support if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist, yet you state this as a fact. They're mutually exclusive. It's not like Apple has stopped development of OSX or Macs. They're still the best computers on the planet. Also, it's not "too sad" that Apple developed these products that hundreds of millions of people use and love and that changed entire industries- even if it was at the expense of a niche feature like 30bit color which a handful of people might benefit from- which it wasn't. 



     


    Linux has full support for 30 bit color. Windows also supports it (disabling aero, because of how messy Windows is, but anyway supports it). The NVIDIA document describing how 30bit color is supported on Linux and Windows dates from 2009 (2009!!!). And Apple has put most of their engineering effort on iPhone and iPad all this time. If, as you claim, the iOS engineering effort has nothing to do with the lack of 30bit color support on the Mac, then we must conclude Apple no longer has good engineers in the imaging area.


     


    But, don't worry, 30bit color is a niche feature for only medical imaging, professional photographers, and cinema producers, and we know they've moved to Windows and Linux, so you're right, don't worry because the Mac isn't targeted at professional photography.


     


    [\sarcasm] Why would you want niche professional features on the Mac? What a nonsense! [\sarcasm]

  • Reply 20 of 39
    heffequeheffeque Posts: 139member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post



    I'm still wishing for full multi-monitor support. It's not there in 10.8


    "Upgrade" to 10.6. That OS has multi-monitor support.

Sign In or Register to comment.