Am I really that old? Or are the kids today totally devoid of any technical understanding of operating system technology?
1. No PPC support is at best an extrapolation from conspiracy minded bloggers and their sources. The press release has no indication of dropping PPC support whatsoever. Hell, it doesn't even mention Intel other the SquirrelFish footnote. It won't be a surprise (since there could be good marketing reasons to do so), but I don't see it in this PR.
2. Are some of you guys insane, part 1? Making the operating system massively multi-core capable is a massive undertaking. Making the whole OS entirely threadsafe and re-architected for massive SMP to take advantage of all of the cores is essentially rewriting the operating system. And they better start doing it with Nehalem knocking on the door. By this time next year, Apple could be shipping a MacBook Pro (that's a laptop) consisting of 1 CPU with 4 cores and 8 logical processors. That's 8 concurrent threads. The Mac Pro could have as much as 16 logical processors. I don't think the current OS really handles that many processors that well outside of specialized applications.
3. Are some of you guys insane, part 2? Apple is writing an API for developers to access the GPU for general purpose computing. Another thing to allow developers to make thing faster. And for free for those with MBP, MB and iMacs. On top this future GPUs will have even more massive computational power in the future. Intel Larrabee is coming too which is essentially a bunch of simplified x86 cores acting as a GPU.
4. The media API (Quicktime X) is being replaced with a next-gen architecture. Who in their right mind doesn't think that isn't a small undertaking. Quicktime touches virtually every app Apple produces.
5. Improving addressable memory to 16 TB.
6. They are trying to "dramatically" reduce footprint.
If they just do number 2 and 3, do it well, and make it easily accessible to applications, Snow Leopard will be worthy of an OS-X version 11, not 10.6, version number.
That's right. I can't imaging them not stating that PPC and 32 bit support would be dropped.
They would HAVE to tell developers that. Can you imagine them still writing their 32 bit code today, only to find?surprise?when they take their beta back with them, that it won't run their work?
You've schooled me on the 32-bit portion, but we can still deduce that PPC is beign removed from the following paragraph...
Snow Leopard dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos.
Anybody but me think it's possible that when SL is released, it will reduce its footprint by offloading all the Core functions onto proprietary coprocessors designed by PA Semi, that will be built into the new Macs coming out in that time frame? And that Leopard and Snow Leopard (and maybe Lion and Mountain Lion) will run in parallel for some years, the first in each pair still supporting legacy hardware that the second doesn't have to? And that that was the significance of the bifurcating Golden Gate Bridges?
That is an interesting idea. That may be able to function as HW authentication too. (speculation) Perhaps I'm to tired because 'm sounding like it's my first day to AI.
Excellent points. But PPC is definitely out from the Snow Leopard splash page info, and ZFS will be the default filesystem for Snow Leopard Server.
So, adjusting my 2nd scenario* for allowing all Intel and no PPC, do they makes sense or do you foresee another option for Mac?
* the 2st scenario would most likely take development past the typical support cycle, making it pointless.
There's been speculation in the computer press, ok, in the rumors computer press, that dropping PPC in 10.6 (have they actually named it that yet?) is going to happen.
While I see it as possible, I can't see Apple doing it without saying so. Why would they do that? Don't you think developers writing Universal apps would like to know it as soon as possible? It would relegate their apps to a second tier OS. I would think they would want to depreciate their PPC code now.
I can't see 32 bit being dropped at all. Maybe in five years, maybe never. There's little reason for them to do so. OS X was written in clean code, where 32 bit is just a subset of 64 bit. It's not a lot of separate spaghetti code.
I assume that ZFS will be in, assuming the legal wangling about it will be over, and resolution independence as well. Possibly some multitouch, and other enhancements they've been working on. None of that would be "new" features.
Anybody but me think it's possible that when SL is released, it will reduce its footprint by offloading all the Core functions onto proprietary coprocessors designed by PA Semi, that will be built into the new Macs coming out in that time frame? And that Leopard and Snow Leopard (and maybe Lion and Mountain Lion) will run in parallel for some years, the first in each pair still supporting legacy hardware that the second doesn't have to? And that that was the significance of the bifurcating Golden Gate Bridges?
You've schooled me on the 32-bit portion, but we can still deduce that PPC is beign removed from the following paragraph...
Snow Leopard dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos.
That's right. I can't imaging them not stating that PPC and 32 bit support would be dropped.
They would HAVE to tell developers that. Can you imagine them still writing their 32 bit code today, only to find?surprise?when they take their beta back with them, that it won't run their work?
I'm not seeing why they would have to tell developers they are dropping PPC. If the SDK compiles for these apps automatically, could they not just recompile the binaries to exclude PPC?
And even if a Universal Binary app was run on an x86 only version of OS X, would it matter as it's going to ignore the PPC code anyway?
Plus, I think we'll have an event a month or two after the iPhone is released that goes over the finer points of Snow Leopard.
I'm not seeing why they would have to tell developers they are dropping PPC. If the SDK compiles for these apps automatically, could they not just recompile the binaries to exclude PPC?
And even if a Universal Binary app was run on an x86 only version of OS X, would it matter as it's going to ignore the PPC code anyway?
Plus, I think we'll have an event a month or two after the iPhone is released that goes over the finer points of Snow Leopard.
Except for the smallest programs, and likely even for them, optimization must be performed. Intel machines are different in a number of ways from PPC machines. Auto optimizations are not the best, even though they get better.
They could do what you're saying, but they would still have to compile for the 30+% of Macs out there that are still PPC. They would have to work on Intel code in 10.6 and 10.5, and then work the same code for PPC 10.5 only. But, perhaps they won't be happy about that.
What if Apple does give rez indep. in 10.6? Then they will be re-writing their GUI and other interface elements for that for Intel, but their PPC versions won't be able to use it.
Then if ZFS is around, they will be writing for two file systems.
If you were a developer, would you want to do all that? And how do you explain it to your customers?
I've always felt that 10.7 could be the cut-off. By then, there would likely be no more than about 10% on PPC, and developers could ignore it.
I assume that ZFS will be in, assuming the legal wangling about it will be over.
I can't imagine misinterpreting this ...
ZFS
For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server adds read and write support for the high-performance, 128-bit ZFS file system, which includes advanced features such as storage pooling, data redundancy, automatic error correction, dynamic volume expansion, and snapshots.
As you can see, every single executable on an Intel has both PowerPC and Intel executable code. The installer does not strip any architectures from the binary because some developers store extraneous information as extra architectures in their Mach-O binaries. You have to tell the installer, in the .plist for your installer, to strip binaries; it's not on by default. My guess is that line from the Apple Web site simply means that the installer will only install the architectures relevant for your computer (x86 and i386, or 32-bit and 64-bit), plus any developer-defined architectures.
I don't know what I was thinking or where my head is. I haven't even been drinking. Honest!
Any speculation as to how they are reducing the code significantly?
They're re-writing the code. modernizing it. Re-doing frameworks.
Quote:
a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X,
This says nothing other than they will be using new technologies to replace old, tired,versions. Code to offload to the GPU, etc.
Apple's been doing this for years already with Core technolgies. They are spreading it to more areas. Far better multicore and multithreaded technologies as well. While multithreading will be for Intel, multicore advances will work for any 2+ core system.
Again, I'm not saying that PPC absolutely won't be dropped, but they have to SAY something.
Maybe we'll find out one way or the other later this week. After all the con.f isn't just Jobs' speech.
For business-critical server deployments, Snow Leopard Server adds read and write support for the high-performance, 128-bit ZFS file system, which includes advanced features such as storage pooling, data redundancy, automatic error correction, dynamic volume expansion, and snapshots.
As you can see, every single executable on an Intel has both PowerPC and Intel executable code. The installer does not strip any architectures from the binary because some developers store extraneous information as extra architectures in their Mach-O binaries. You have to tell the installer, in the .plist for your installer, to strip binaries; it's not on by default. My guess is that line from the Apple Web site simply means that the installer will only install the architectures relevant for your computer (x86 and i386, or 32-bit and 64-bit), plus any developer-defined architectures.
Well, some code is present because of laziness, and that would likely be cleaned up as well, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
This is good move - Leopard is a mess. I actually refused to upgrade to Leopard and I'm staying with Tiger. Now, if Leopard is fixed, I may take another look at it. So far so good. The only fly in the ointment is this: ZFS. It's ultra lame that it's just for servers. It should be the default file system for OS X across the board. Staying with HFS is seriously hobbling OS X - it's a joke to call OS X the "most advanced OS" when it has such total garbage for a file system. I'm shocked that folks here, who are supposed to be tech savvy don't recognize it. Even Linus Torvalds who is a well-known champion of OS X and the mac platform, admitted that HFS was total sh|t ("complete and utter crap," and even "scary."):
"Linus Torvalds may have dabbled in Apple territory in the past, but he's definitely not mincing any words about competing operating systems now. In a recent interview, Linus says that OS X is a "much better system" than Windows Vista overall, but that "in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for." Apparently these problems are rooted firmly in OS X's file system (HFS and HFS+), which he describes as "complete and utter crap," and even "scary." Of course, Torvalds also took the opportunity to tout the many virtues of Linux, which he says is an "obvious choice for anything from full-blown PCs to phones or video players." Damn straight it is."
So if Apple wants to OS X to become truly a leading OS, they MUST do something about the weakest aspect: the HFS file system.
That's why I find it so disappointing that ZFS is not the default for OS X across the boards. I think I'll stick to Tiger until Apple allows enough engineers to briefly break away from the total iPhone obsession to actually give OS X a non-sh|t file system... ZFS. Until then, forget it, it's a joke.
"To accommodate the enormous amounts of memory being added to today’s servers, Snow Leopard Server uses 64-bit kernel technology to support breakthrough amounts of RAM — up to a theoretical 16TB, or 500 times what is possible today."
64 bit Kernel is only mentioned in Snow Leopard Server page but the theorical limit of up to 16TB is the same on both Snow Leopard pages.
As far as I know the reason that makes Leopard compatible with both 64bit and 32bit processors in the same package is its 32bit kernel. When it becomes 64bit it may not be possible to make a universal release anymore, so apple may release different versions of Snow Leopard or just drop 32bit support. If they drop CoreDuo support it will be much easier for them to drop PPC G5 support too.
So, why not mention it clearly on June 2008? I think more people will accept such decisions on 2009 rather than 2008!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Well, some code is present because of laziness, and that would likely be cleaned up as well, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
It is not some code present because of laziness, the whole package is universal and you can take your Leopard installed on a PowerPC mac to any intel mac and boot just fine and start using it!(I have personally tested this with iMac G5 and iMac Core2Duo)
You cant take your intel installed Leopard to PowerPC macs because they cant boot from GPT/GUID disks.
Am I really that old? Or are the kids today totally devoid of any technical understanding of operating system technology?
1. No PPC support is at best an extrapolation from conspiracy minded bloggers and their sources. The press release has no indication of dropping PPC support whatsoever. Hell, it doesn't even mention Intel other the SquirrelFish footnote. It won't be a surprise (since there could be good marketing reasons to do so), but I don't see it in this PR.
2. Are some of you guys insane, part 1? Making the operating system massively multi-core capable is a massive undertaking. Making the whole OS entirely threadsafe and re-architected for massive SMP to take advantage of all of the cores is essentially rewriting the operating system. And they better start doing it with Nehalem knocking on the door. By this time next year, Apple could be shipping a MacBook Pro (that's a laptop) consisting of 1 CPU with 4 cores and 8 logical processors. That's 8 concurrent threads. The Mac Pro could have as much as 16 logical processors. I don't think the current OS really handles that many processors that well outside of specialized applications.
3. Are some of you guys insane, part 2? Apple is writing an API for developers to access the GPU for general purpose computing. Another thing to allow developers to make thing faster. And for free for those with MBP, MB and iMacs. On top this future GPUs will have even more massive computational power in the future. Intel Larrabee is coming too which is essentially a bunch of simplified x86 cores acting as a GPU.
4. The media API (Quicktime X) is being replaced with a next-gen architecture. Who in their right mind doesn't think that isn't a small undertaking. Quicktime touches virtually every app Apple produces.
5. Improving addressable memory to 16 TB.
6. They are trying to "dramatically" reduce footprint.
If they just do number 2 and 3, do it well, and make it easily accessible to applications, Snow Leopard will be worthy of an OS-X version 11, not 10.6, version number.
It is not some code present because of laziness, the whole package is universal and you can take your Leopard installed on a PowerPC mac to any intel mac and boot just fine and start using it!(I have personally tested this with iMac G5 and iMac Core2Duo)
You cant take your intel installed Leopard to PowerPC macs because they cant boot from GPT/GUID disks.
Now that's interesting. Never tried it before. Are you sure?
That strikes me as a subtle way of saying that our current OS is more buggy and crappy than we'd like and we're going to take a year and fix it all.
Sheldon
Good for them if that's the case. You'll never see Bill Gates saying that even subtly, will you? And his product is plainly in greater need of "fixing." I doubt a year would be long enough.
Comments
Am I really that old? Or are the kids today totally devoid of any technical understanding of operating system technology?
1. No PPC support is at best an extrapolation from conspiracy minded bloggers and their sources. The press release has no indication of dropping PPC support whatsoever. Hell, it doesn't even mention Intel other the SquirrelFish footnote. It won't be a surprise (since there could be good marketing reasons to do so), but I don't see it in this PR.
2. Are some of you guys insane, part 1? Making the operating system massively multi-core capable is a massive undertaking. Making the whole OS entirely threadsafe and re-architected for massive SMP to take advantage of all of the cores is essentially rewriting the operating system. And they better start doing it with Nehalem knocking on the door. By this time next year, Apple could be shipping a MacBook Pro (that's a laptop) consisting of 1 CPU with 4 cores and 8 logical processors. That's 8 concurrent threads. The Mac Pro could have as much as 16 logical processors. I don't think the current OS really handles that many processors that well outside of specialized applications.
3. Are some of you guys insane, part 2? Apple is writing an API for developers to access the GPU for general purpose computing. Another thing to allow developers to make thing faster. And for free for those with MBP, MB and iMacs. On top this future GPUs will have even more massive computational power in the future. Intel Larrabee is coming too which is essentially a bunch of simplified x86 cores acting as a GPU.
4. The media API (Quicktime X) is being replaced with a next-gen architecture. Who in their right mind doesn't think that isn't a small undertaking. Quicktime touches virtually every app Apple produces.
5. Improving addressable memory to 16 TB.
6. They are trying to "dramatically" reduce footprint.
If they just do number 2 and 3, do it well, and make it easily accessible to applications, Snow Leopard will be worthy of an OS-X version 11, not 10.6, version number.
That's right. I can't imaging them not stating that PPC and 32 bit support would be dropped.
They would HAVE to tell developers that. Can you imagine them still writing their 32 bit code today, only to find?surprise?when they take their beta back with them, that it won't run their work?
Where does it actually SAY that?
You've schooled me on the 32-bit portion, but we can still deduce that PPC is beign removed from the following paragraph...There are other ways to reduce code but removing PPC support is the simplest answer.
Anybody but me think it's possible that when SL is released, it will reduce its footprint by offloading all the Core functions onto proprietary coprocessors designed by PA Semi, that will be built into the new Macs coming out in that time frame? And that Leopard and Snow Leopard (and maybe Lion and Mountain Lion) will run in parallel for some years, the first in each pair still supporting legacy hardware that the second doesn't have to? And that that was the significance of the bifurcating Golden Gate Bridges?
That is an interesting idea. That may be able to function as HW authentication too. (speculation) Perhaps I'm to tired because 'm sounding like it's my first day to AI.
Excellent points. But PPC is definitely out from the Snow Leopard splash page info, and ZFS will be the default filesystem for Snow Leopard Server.
So, adjusting my 2nd scenario* for allowing all Intel and no PPC, do they makes sense or do you foresee another option for Mac?
* the 2st scenario would most likely take development past the typical support cycle, making it pointless.
There's been speculation in the computer press, ok, in the rumors computer press, that dropping PPC in 10.6 (have they actually named it that yet?) is going to happen.
While I see it as possible, I can't see Apple doing it without saying so. Why would they do that? Don't you think developers writing Universal apps would like to know it as soon as possible? It would relegate their apps to a second tier OS. I would think they would want to depreciate their PPC code now.
I can't see 32 bit being dropped at all. Maybe in five years, maybe never. There's little reason for them to do so. OS X was written in clean code, where 32 bit is just a subset of 64 bit. It's not a lot of separate spaghetti code.
I assume that ZFS will be in, assuming the legal wangling about it will be over, and resolution independence as well. Possibly some multitouch, and other enhancements they've been working on. None of that would be "new" features.
Anybody but me think it's possible that when SL is released, it will reduce its footprint by offloading all the Core functions onto proprietary coprocessors designed by PA Semi, that will be built into the new Macs coming out in that time frame? And that Leopard and Snow Leopard (and maybe Lion and Mountain Lion) will run in parallel for some years, the first in each pair still supporting legacy hardware that the second doesn't have to? And that that was the significance of the bifurcating Golden Gate Bridges?
Just you.
You've schooled me on the 32-bit portion, but we can still deduce that PPC is beign removed from the following paragraph...There are other ways to reduce code but removing PPC support is the simplest answer.
That's stretching it.
Why would Intel machines have PPC code in the first place? The installer installs PPC code into PPC machines, and Intel code into Intel machines.
Are you thinking that it installs both into both?
It certainly doesn't!
That's right. I can't imaging them not stating that PPC and 32 bit support would be dropped.
They would HAVE to tell developers that. Can you imagine them still writing their 32 bit code today, only to find?surprise?when they take their beta back with them, that it won't run their work?
I'm not seeing why they would have to tell developers they are dropping PPC. If the SDK compiles for these apps automatically, could they not just recompile the binaries to exclude PPC?
And even if a Universal Binary app was run on an x86 only version of OS X, would it matter as it's going to ignore the PPC code anyway?
Plus, I think we'll have an event a month or two after the iPhone is released that goes over the finer points of Snow Leopard.
That's stretching it.
Why would Intel machines have PPC code in the first place? The installer installs PPC code into PPC machines, and Intel code into Intel machines.
Are you thinking that it installs both into both?
It certainly doesn't!
You are absolutely correct.
I don't know what I was thinking or where my head is. I haven't even been drinking. Honest!
Any speculation as to how they are reducing the code significantly?
I'm not seeing why they would have to tell developers they are dropping PPC. If the SDK compiles for these apps automatically, could they not just recompile the binaries to exclude PPC?
And even if a Universal Binary app was run on an x86 only version of OS X, would it matter as it's going to ignore the PPC code anyway?
Plus, I think we'll have an event a month or two after the iPhone is released that goes over the finer points of Snow Leopard.
Except for the smallest programs, and likely even for them, optimization must be performed. Intel machines are different in a number of ways from PPC machines. Auto optimizations are not the best, even though they get better.
They could do what you're saying, but they would still have to compile for the 30+% of Macs out there that are still PPC. They would have to work on Intel code in 10.6 and 10.5, and then work the same code for PPC 10.5 only. But, perhaps they won't be happy about that.
What if Apple does give rez indep. in 10.6? Then they will be re-writing their GUI and other interface elements for that for Intel, but their PPC versions won't be able to use it.
Then if ZFS is around, they will be writing for two file systems.
If you were a developer, would you want to do all that? And how do you explain it to your customers?
I've always felt that 10.7 could be the cut-off. By then, there would likely be no more than about 10% on PPC, and developers could ignore it.
I assume that ZFS will be in, assuming the legal wangling about it will be over.
I can't imagine misinterpreting this
That's stretching it.
Why would Intel machines have PPC code in the first place? The installer installs PPC code into PPC machines, and Intel code into Intel machines.
Are you thinking that it installs both into both?
It certainly doesn't!
Um yes, it does. From my MacBook Pro with a fresh Leopard installation:
(Open Terminal application)
MacBook-Pro:~ file /mach_kernel
/mach_kernel: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/mach_kernel (for architecture i386)
/mach_kernel (for architecture ppc)
MacBook-Pro:~ file /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture ppc)
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386)
As you can see, every single executable on an Intel has both PowerPC and Intel executable code. The installer does not strip any architectures from the binary because some developers store extraneous information as extra architectures in their Mach-O binaries. You have to tell the installer, in the .plist for your installer, to strip binaries; it's not on by default. My guess is that line from the Apple Web site simply means that the installer will only install the architectures relevant for your computer (x86 and i386, or 32-bit and 64-bit), plus any developer-defined architectures.
You are absolutely correct.
I don't know what I was thinking or where my head is. I haven't even been drinking. Honest!
Any speculation as to how they are reducing the code significantly?
They're re-writing the code. modernizing it. Re-doing frameworks.
a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X,
This says nothing other than they will be using new technologies to replace old, tired,versions. Code to offload to the GPU, etc.
Apple's been doing this for years already with Core technolgies. They are spreading it to more areas. Far better multicore and multithreaded technologies as well. While multithreading will be for Intel, multicore advances will work for any 2+ core system.
Again, I'm not saying that PPC absolutely won't be dropped, but they have to SAY something.
Maybe we'll find out one way or the other later this week. After all the con.f isn't just Jobs' speech.
I can't imagine misinterpreting this
I agree. I'm not misinterpreting it it.
But, you have to read this first:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...80529163415471
Um yes, it does. From my MacBook Pro with a fresh Leopard installation:
(Open Terminal application)
MacBook-Pro:~ file /mach_kernel
/mach_kernel: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/mach_kernel (for architecture i386)
/mach_kernel (for architecture ppc)
MacBook-Pro:~ file /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture ppc)
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386)
As you can see, every single executable on an Intel has both PowerPC and Intel executable code. The installer does not strip any architectures from the binary because some developers store extraneous information as extra architectures in their Mach-O binaries. You have to tell the installer, in the .plist for your installer, to strip binaries; it's not on by default. My guess is that line from the Apple Web site simply means that the installer will only install the architectures relevant for your computer (x86 and i386, or 32-bit and 64-bit), plus any developer-defined architectures.
Well, some code is present because of laziness, and that would likely be cleaned up as well, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/05/l...em-utter-crap/
"Linus Torvalds may have dabbled in Apple territory in the past, but he's definitely not mincing any words about competing operating systems now. In a recent interview, Linus says that OS X is a "much better system" than Windows Vista overall, but that "in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for." Apparently these problems are rooted firmly in OS X's file system (HFS and HFS+), which he describes as "complete and utter crap," and even "scary." Of course, Torvalds also took the opportunity to tout the many virtues of Linux, which he says is an "obvious choice for anything from full-blown PCs to phones or video players." Damn straight it is."
So if Apple wants to OS X to become truly a leading OS, they MUST do something about the weakest aspect: the HFS file system.
That's why I find it so disappointing that ZFS is not the default for OS X across the boards. I think I'll stick to Tiger until Apple allows enough engineers to briefly break away from the total iPhone obsession to actually give OS X a non-sh|t file system... ZFS. Until then, forget it, it's a joke.
"To accommodate the enormous amounts of memory being added to today’s servers, Snow Leopard Server uses 64-bit kernel technology to support breakthrough amounts of RAM — up to a theoretical 16TB, or 500 times what is possible today."
64 bit Kernel is only mentioned in Snow Leopard Server page but the theorical limit of up to 16TB is the same on both Snow Leopard pages.
As far as I know the reason that makes Leopard compatible with both 64bit and 32bit processors in the same package is its 32bit kernel. When it becomes 64bit it may not be possible to make a universal release anymore, so apple may release different versions of Snow Leopard or just drop 32bit support. If they drop CoreDuo support it will be much easier for them to drop PPC G5 support too.
So, why not mention it clearly on June 2008? I think more people will accept such decisions on 2009 rather than 2008!
Well, some code is present because of laziness, and that would likely be cleaned up as well, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
It is not some code present because of laziness, the whole package is universal and you can take your Leopard installed on a PowerPC mac to any intel mac and boot just fine and start using it!(I have personally tested this with iMac G5 and iMac Core2Duo)
You cant take your intel installed Leopard to PowerPC macs because they cant boot from GPT/GUID disks.
Sorry for my bad English!
Am I really that old? Or are the kids today totally devoid of any technical understanding of operating system technology?
1. No PPC support is at best an extrapolation from conspiracy minded bloggers and their sources. The press release has no indication of dropping PPC support whatsoever. Hell, it doesn't even mention Intel other the SquirrelFish footnote. It won't be a surprise (since there could be good marketing reasons to do so), but I don't see it in this PR.
2. Are some of you guys insane, part 1? Making the operating system massively multi-core capable is a massive undertaking. Making the whole OS entirely threadsafe and re-architected for massive SMP to take advantage of all of the cores is essentially rewriting the operating system. And they better start doing it with Nehalem knocking on the door. By this time next year, Apple could be shipping a MacBook Pro (that's a laptop) consisting of 1 CPU with 4 cores and 8 logical processors. That's 8 concurrent threads. The Mac Pro could have as much as 16 logical processors. I don't think the current OS really handles that many processors that well outside of specialized applications.
3. Are some of you guys insane, part 2? Apple is writing an API for developers to access the GPU for general purpose computing. Another thing to allow developers to make thing faster. And for free for those with MBP, MB and iMacs. On top this future GPUs will have even more massive computational power in the future. Intel Larrabee is coming too which is essentially a bunch of simplified x86 cores acting as a GPU.
4. The media API (Quicktime X) is being replaced with a next-gen architecture. Who in their right mind doesn't think that isn't a small undertaking. Quicktime touches virtually every app Apple produces.
5. Improving addressable memory to 16 TB.
6. They are trying to "dramatically" reduce footprint.
If they just do number 2 and 3, do it well, and make it easily accessible to applications, Snow Leopard will be worthy of an OS-X version 11, not 10.6, version number.
Ah, at last, the voice of reason.
It is not some code present because of laziness, the whole package is universal and you can take your Leopard installed on a PowerPC mac to any intel mac and boot just fine and start using it!(I have personally tested this with iMac G5 and iMac Core2Duo)
You cant take your intel installed Leopard to PowerPC macs because they cant boot from GPT/GUID disks.
Now that's interesting. Never tried it before. Are you sure?
That strikes me as a subtle way of saying that our current OS is more buggy and crappy than we'd like and we're going to take a year and fix it all.
Sheldon
Good for them if that's the case. You'll never see Bill Gates saying that even subtly, will you? And his product is plainly in greater need of "fixing." I doubt a year would be long enough.
Well, some code is present because of laziness, and that would likely be cleaned up as well, but it doesn't change the argument at all.
What if it's there on purpose?
R O S E T T A