Apple previews Mac OS X Snow Leopard with QuickTime X

1456810

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 182
    gavzagavza Posts: 18member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post


    Clang doesn't sound like it is something you would bet an operating system on. It hasn't been out there long enough. I don't think Apple is using gcc for the kernel.



    From the clang page.



    I agree clang is not ready for prime time (and said I didn't expect it to be in Snow Leopard), but I do think in the 2-3 year time frame that LLVM+clang will be what XCode uses to compile everything. AFAIK, Apple uses gcc for everything currently, except for the Open GL stack, which in 10.5 started being optimized with llvm (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/l...st/006492.html). Also see http://arstechnica.com/staff/fatbits.ars/2006/8/17/5024
  • Reply 142 of 182
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post


    What people seem to be missing here is that dropping PPC now would send a terrible message to the CIOs of the world. Dropping support for a 3 year old computer sets a horrible precedent that essentially tells the corporate world that unless they replace all their computers every 3 years, they risk having Apple pull the rug out from under them.



    I used to be a CIO and I disagree. The Intel Macs that won't run a 64bit kernel will be four years old by the time Snow Leopard will be released. Apple typically continue to provide security fixes through two major releases i.e. 10.5 will get security support until the release of 10.7.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I see no reason why they would cut 32 bit support.



    If fact, they CAN'T cut 32 bit support.



    First of all, 32 bit costs OS X no loss in performance, so there is nothing to gain there. The code is also clean, so no problem there either.



    Then there are the problems in doing it.



    The first generation Intel machines would also be left out, as Yonah is 32 bit. Not good!



    Secondly, and most importantly, Apple will be cutting out Office and Adobe's programs. Really not good!



    How many other programs are 32 bit? I bet most of them are, and will continue to be.



    These developers would be rightfully pissed if they had to redo their programs again. They also won't be happy being told that they must work with an old OS.



    This is some time in the future.



    The point here is to transition from a 32bit kernel to a 64bit kernel. In theory, Apple could ship both but it would be a development and support hassle as well as Apple's desire to use 64bit kernel features in user space. The consequence of a 64bit kernel is that it will not run on anything older than C2D. Both 32bit and 64bit userspace apps will continue to run.
  • Reply 143 of 182
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post


    Clang doesn't sound like it is something you would bet an operating system on. It hasn't been out there long enough. I don't think Apple is using gcc for the kernel.



    From the clang page.



    Apple uses GCC for the Kernel. They use their GCC and ObjC/C runtime augmentations for their kernel.
  • Reply 144 of 182
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    PDF Slide presentation on what LLVM does:



    http://llvm.org/pubs/2006-04-25-GelatoLLVMIntro.pdf



    Page to Lattner's MS Thesis:

    http://www.llvm.org/pubs/2002-12-LattnerMSThesis.html



    Quote:

    This thesis presents LLVM, a design and implementation of a compiler infrastructure which supports a unique multi-stage optimization system. This system is designed to support extensive interprocedural and profile-driven optimizations, while being efficient enough for use in commercial compiler systems.



    The LLVM virtual instruction set is the glue that holds the system together. It is a low-level representation, but with high-level type information. This provides the benefits of a low-level representation (compact representation, wide variety of available transformations, etc.) as well as providing high-level information to support aggressive interprocedural optimizations at link- and post-link time. In particular, this system is designed to support optimization in the field, both at run-time and during otherwise unused idle time on the machine.



    Clang Overview



    Quote:

    Why?



    The development of a new front-end was started out of a need -- a need for a compiler that allows better diagnostics, better integration with IDEs, a license that is compatible with commercial products, and a nimble compiler that is easy to develop and maintain. All of these were motivations for starting work on a new front-end that could meet these needs.



    Note the reference to Commercial. The GNU Compiler Collection has been a struggle for Apple regarding licensing issues and getting changes uploaded to trunk for several years.



    KEY FEATURES:



    End-User Features:



    * Fast compiles and low memory use

    * Expressive diagnostics

    * GCC compatibility
  • Reply 145 of 182
    sam damonsam damon Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    PPC and Intel 32-bit are gone.
    "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."



    I'm glad someone else besides me noticed that blurb on the Apple website.



    While I agree with solipsism that PPC and Intel 32-bit are toasted with this release, might there exist any other way Apple could cut the Mac OS X footprint while leaving PPC support?
  • Reply 146 of 182
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Sam Damon View Post


    I'm glad someone else besides me noticed that blurb on the Apple website.



    While I agree with solipsism that PPC and Intel 32-bit are toasted with this release, might there exist any other way Apple could cut the Mac OS X footprint while leaving PPC support?



    I'm not sure how they're doing it, but based on screenshots it looks like apps are much smaller AND they are still universal.



    http://orchardspy.com/
  • Reply 147 of 182
    pg4gpg4g Posts: 383member
    ... and it is running on a Core Duo which means 32bit support
  • Reply 148 of 182
    owlboyowlboy Posts: 37member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I'm not sure how they're doing it, but based on screenshots it looks like apps are much smaller AND they are still universal.



    http://orchardspy.com/



    Someone is paying attention?
  • Reply 149 of 182
    taurontauron Posts: 911member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    I've never seen a bigger collection of Mac Morons. MacRumors seems to breed this ignoramus.



    Indeed. The level of crap and stupidity being thrown around in this thread exceeds normal levels of shit-flinging.
  • Reply 150 of 182
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    I'm not sure how they're doing it, but based on screenshots it looks like apps are much smaller AND they are still universal.



    http://orchardspy.com/



    Everyone's doing the same mistake. The apps aren't smaller. If you remove the localization from each app, you get very similar sizes to that seen in Snow Leopard screenshots. Try it yourself...remove all localizations except your preferred localization. In some cases you'll end up with an app that is exactly the same size as seen on the screenshot, in other cases you'll end up with something much smaller.



    Some apps probably don't have the localizations yet. Simple as that. It makes a huge difference in some cases...as much as 400%. Remove Safari localizations and you'll see it go down from 50+ MBs to 9.2 MB.



    I'd be extremely surprised if those apps had all their localizations.
  • Reply 151 of 182
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    I just think it is nice that Apple polishes off the OS. I am not going to complain about paying for it either. If $130 polishes off Leopard before 10.7 or X, so be it. It never hurts to slow down.



    I have a G5, CD MBP, and several C2D machines. It would suck to see my MBP not have support on Snow Leopard (bad name). I could deal with the G5 and understand it but in reality, it seems that Apple would want smaller programs, more efficient code, and universal apps in order to keep their options open for future technology turns that may happen that we can't see but it would be nice for both hardware and software to take a major leap forward and leave the past in the past at some point.
  • Reply 152 of 182
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    Everyone's doing the same mistake. The apps aren't smaller. If you remove the localization from each app, you get very similar sizes to that seen in Snow Leopard screenshots. Try it yourself...remove all localizations except your preferred localization. In some cases you'll end up with an app that is exactly the same size as seen on the screenshot, in other cases you'll end up with something much smaller.



    Some apps probably don't have the localizations yet. Simple as that. It makes a huge difference in some cases...as much as 400%. Remove Safari localizations and you'll see it go down from 50+ MBs to 9.2 MB.



    I'd be extremely surprised if those apps had all their localizations.



    You're not accounting for one obvious oversight: Those applications are in debug mode.
  • Reply 153 of 182
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheSnarkmeister View Post


    Thank goodness radical change doesn't piss everyone off or we'd still be living in the Dark Ages, or caves.



    or....visions of PCjr running through my mind
  • Reply 154 of 182
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    You're not accounting for one obvious oversight: Those applications are in debug mode.



    True...10.6 will finally be the release where Apple remove all debug code from their apps (that's what they mean when they say they're going to maximize performance for existing apps ).
  • Reply 155 of 182
    joedrcjoedrc Posts: 86member
    This has probably already been said...



    I think Apple will push developers to write for cocoa only, but 10.6 won't drop carbon support.



    As for PPC? I think 10.6 will run on Intel Macs only. I'd like some minor changes, like all scroll bars being the same (look at iTunes and then Safari)



    Some new wallpapers wouldn't go amiss either
  • Reply 156 of 182
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Leopard is an excellent reason to release Snow Leopard. Its incomplete state at release and its subsequent wobbliness reflect the fact that its code base had become too unwieldy to extend.



    Conveniently, the iPhone team had to consolidate a lot of OS X to fit it on the iPhone. So Snow Leopard is essentially the lessons of the iPhone port rolled back into the main OS (note: lessons, not literal code), plus some further work developing Core.



    Thank God they are finally, finally, finally going to retire the old QuickTime. (Non-trivial) QuickTime support was always where the most elegant Cocoa code would suddenly bog down into hundreds of lines of suspiciously Pascal-looking code. If Apple's multimedia layer is as pleasant to code for as it is to use developers everywhere will be happy. Also, that huge pile of transliterated legacy code cannot be easy to adapt to modern architectures.



    Snow Leopard will be a great foundation for subsequent releases, and it will also lead the way forward for devices which are neither desktops nor laptops (but which are definitely Apple hardware—why on Earth would Apple break their seamless integration strategy when it is consistently kicking everyone's asses?).
  • Reply 157 of 182
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Amorph View Post


    [...] Conveniently, the iPhone team had to consolidate a lot of OS X to fit it on the iPhone. So Snow Leopard is essentially the lessons of the iPhone port rolled back into the main OS (note: lessons, not literal code), plus some further work developing Core. [...]



    Excellent points.
  • Reply 158 of 182
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    I haven't seen any confirmation yet that QuickTime X is a total rewrite.



    It absolutely must be a total rewrite for several reasons:



    ? Amorph mentions one...it has to be a pleasant and modern architecture to develop for

    ? Almost a quarter of the security problems on Mac stem from QuickTime, a rewrite would allow Apple to take a step back and see where the security problems are.

    ? It needs to be fast/efficient (I'm assuming this is what Apple means by lessons learned from QuickTime on the iPhone)

    ? I suppose it needs to be 64-bit (hmurchison makes a point that 32-bit QuickTime is mostly deprecated)



    If Apple doesn't rewrite QuickTime and only patches the old QuickTime, they've missed the boat and have led people into believing this is a brand new architecture with the name change.



    We need more NDA breakers.
  • Reply 159 of 182
    mimicmimic Posts: 72member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    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?



    VERY VERY interesting. Much like Intel and PPC are parallel, so shall Leopard and Snow Leopard. I like this path. Although i'm happy to let my PPC die as to focus development on one roadmap. My PPC on Leopard runs rather poorly with Safari crashing daily, iPhoto running really slow and having issues, and many other little things.



    I'm glad to see someone take the responsibility to harden their platform. Now this all could mean that Apple needs to re-write lots of code in order to allow touch in Lion, or other features as they have suggested, but either way, or both ways, i'm glad and will be happy to spend the $$ on SL.
  • Reply 160 of 182
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Anand chimes in on OS X Snow Leopard.
Sign In or Register to comment.