Hopefully, 10.7 will be two years from now, and 32 bit will be old hardware.
That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.
That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.
Right.
I just don't get the people who have machines that are four or five years old and expect all the newest features to work.
Also, when companies are undergoing cpu and gpu transitions, lifetimes are going to be shorter.
If one has a 32 bit machine, and Apple has spent all that money to allow the new 64 bit OS to work well on it, though in 32 bit, people should be thrilled.
If a newer version drops 32 bit support, and we don't know that 10.7 will yet, it's just speculation right now, that's a good thing.
The more Apple can slim the OS down, and the more code they can drop, the shorter later development cycles will be.
And just as importantly, dropping all that code results in fewer bugs.
That is only CPU support. I think the issue might be that Apple doesn't want to bother writing and supporting so many 64-bit drivers. Since all the drivers for built-in hardware are written by Apple, if they don't write them then you are stuck. Even if the kernel would technically run on any 64-bit compatible CPU and chipset.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.
I'd be curious to know if Vista 64 bit (or even 64 bit Linux), which have 64 bit kernels can be installed on the Macs that supposedly are unable to install a fully 64 bit SL.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.
If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'
Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?
Doesn't the two different kernels require separate drivers for both? That could get confusing with third parties. I thought the main difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard (as far as the OS architecture) was Leopard's 32 bit kernel since everything else is already 64 bit. I have a Penryn / Santa Rosa Macbook (4,1). Will it be fully 64 bit?
I have to ask why do you care? The applications you use will work under snow leopard and the size of the kernel is basically irrelevant except for really high performance apps. Apple is moving everything to 64 bit but will it be done at Snow Leopard answer is no, because lots of applications are not 64 bit so depending on what you do on your system your performance will vary. What are worried about. Is it an issue with address space or some other constraint that your trying to address?
if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.
If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.
Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.
Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?
edit: let's not be so open about copyright infringement here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
Hopefully you are just making a joke about getting it ASAP. If not, it is only $29.00 and we should be rewarding Apple for selling it so cheaply by buying it legally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wooster
What kind of mentality is this? Do you like to work for free? Why should you not pay for something a lot of people have spent a lot of money and resources to create?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
They can, but that doesn't mean ripping off software is justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
What a dick...
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
No! Pay for the the update!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
So, when I go into the store and find my favorite ice cream on sale I will just steal it because hey the store can make it's money elsewhere. Yeah, right.
Here's a twist, kids. I've already pre-ordered my OSX Snow Leopard 5 User Family Pack (read paid for it) AND I'm gonna download (read bootleg) the Gold Master Build 10A432 when I find it. Did the same thing with my iPhone 3.0 software too! I was so pumped with 3.0 (3 weeks early) that I turned around and pre-ordered 2 new iPhone 3GSs!
I just downloaded my copy, installed, booted it up, and it said Ubuntu. Guess that's the code name for Snow Leopard. Looks good, either way. Will let you know when I'm done playing around how everything works.
if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.
So, that fits with going GM about now. Sweet.
Well, no, since that person would have the 90 days to order it in advance. You don't have to order the upgrade once the OS is out, in fact, they'd rather you pre-ordered your Up-to-date disc.
But it sure would be nice for it to have an early September release rather than a late September one
There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'
Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?
Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.
All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.
I'd be curious to know if Vista 64 bit (or even 64 bit Linux), which have 64 bit kernels can be installed on the Macs that supposedly are unable to install a fully 64 bit SL.
I have Ubuntu 9.04 x86-64 (aka "64-bit") installed and running happily on my late 2007 MacBook. (Natively, not under VirtualBox, VMWare, Parallels, etc.)
Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?
I would not be surprised. It is well known fact in technical circles that entry level $50 ATI HD2600 card is beating $3000 nVidia Quadro 4800 in core animation benchmarks. And why? Because Apple doesn't know how to write the damn drivers and won't let nVidia do it.
Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.
All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.
There was a series here on AppleInsider a while back that talked about the changes in architecture. I was quite happy to see the route they were taking, and I didn't see anything that would necessarily preclude the Core 2 Duos like the one in my late 2007 MacBook from running with that sort of strategy. It runs a pure 64-bit (no 32-bit libs) Debian Linux just fine, as well as the latest Ubuntu 64-bit.
Comments
Hopefully, 10.7 will be two years from now, and 32 bit will be old hardware.
That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.
That sounds about right. Most Core Duo machines are early 2006, that's over three years old already. It was about mid 2006 when most of the Macs were switched to Core 2 Duo, the mini excepted until mid 2007. At five years old is probably well past the point where most users aren't likely to spend money on upgrading software.
Right.
I just don't get the people who have machines that are four or five years old and expect all the newest features to work.
Also, when companies are undergoing cpu and gpu transitions, lifetimes are going to be shorter.
If one has a 32 bit machine, and Apple has spent all that money to allow the new 64 bit OS to work well on it, though in 32 bit, people should be thrilled.
If a newer version drops 32 bit support, and we don't know that 10.7 will yet, it's just speculation right now, that's a good thing.
The more Apple can slim the OS down, and the more code they can drop, the shorter later development cycles will be.
And just as importantly, dropping all that code results in fewer bugs.
We all want fewer bugs.
That is only CPU support. I think the issue might be that Apple doesn't want to bother writing and supporting so many 64-bit drivers. Since all the drivers for built-in hardware are written by Apple, if they don't write them then you are stuck. Even if the kernel would technically run on any 64-bit compatible CPU and chipset.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
Also, on the same page, it says "QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor." It seems weird to me that they would take the time to make hardware acceleration work with the 9400M, but then only write full 64-bit support for some machines that have a 9400M instead of all of them.
If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
I just checked Apple's page for Snow Leopard system requirements http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html and it says only that "64-bit support requires a Mac with a 64-bit (Intel) processor." would this be considered false advertising if some Macs with 64-bit processors can't run SL in 64-bit mode? Especially since we're talking about some currently shipping machines, like the MacBook.
There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'
Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?
If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
All I want to know is ifmy brand spankin' new 13" Macbook Pro will be able to run full 64-bit.
Doesn't the two different kernels require separate drivers for both? That could get confusing with third parties. I thought the main difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard (as far as the OS architecture) was Leopard's 32 bit kernel since everything else is already 64 bit. I have a Penryn / Santa Rosa Macbook (4,1). Will it be fully 64 bit?
I have to ask why do you care? The applications you use will work under snow leopard and the size of the kernel is basically irrelevant except for really high performance apps. Apple is moving everything to 64 bit but will it be done at Snow Leopard answer is no, because lots of applications are not 64 bit so depending on what you do on your system your performance will vary. What are worried about. Is it an issue with address space or some other constraint that your trying to address?
So, that fits with going GM about now. Sweet.
If I'm not mistaken, all new Apple machines shipping now have at minimum a 9400M.
Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
QuickTime H.264 hardware acceleration
requires a Mac with a NVIDIA 9400M graphics processor.
Actually the wording implies that the 9400M is not the minimum requirement for H.264 acceleration, rather it is the only graphics chip supported. Which of course might lead to the weird circumstance where switching to the 9600M GT in the MacBook Pro means losing H.264 acceleration support. Hopefully, Apple expands H.264 acceleration since there is no reason to limit it to the 9400M only. The 8600M GT, 9600M GT, GT120, and other similar nVidia GPUs have the same PureVideo HD decoder. SImilarly, ATI chips since the HD2000 series have had full hardware H.264 acceleration support. What's more, even the ATI X1000 series and nVidia 7000 series in the original Intel Macs had partial H.264 hardware acceleration support that is enabled in Windows. It's really a matter of whether Apple will refuse to support it.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?
.....
edit: let's not be so open about copyright infringement here.
Hopefully you are just making a joke about getting it ASAP. If not, it is only $29.00 and we should be rewarding Apple for selling it so cheaply by buying it legally.
Yeah hopefully, but not really. They can make their money elsewhere.
What kind of mentality is this? Do you like to work for free? Why should you not pay for something a lot of people have spent a lot of money and resources to create?
They can, but that doesn't mean ripping off software is justified.
What a dick...
No! Pay for the the update!
So, when I go into the store and find my favorite ice cream on sale I will just steal it because hey the store can make it's money elsewhere. Yeah, right.
Here's a twist, kids. I've already pre-ordered my OSX Snow Leopard 5 User Family Pack (read paid for it) AND I'm gonna download (read bootleg) the Gold Master Build 10A432 when I find it. Did the same thing with my iPhone 3.0 software too! I was so pumped with 3.0 (3 weeks early) that I turned around and pre-ordered 2 new iPhone 3GSs!
Woohoo.....time to torrent when leaked!
What a dick...
I just downloaded my copy, installed, booted it up, and it said Ubuntu. Guess that's the code name for Snow Leopard. Looks good, either way. Will let you know when I'm done playing around how everything works.
if the Up-To-Date program is limited to being within 90 days of purchase, and started June 8th, then Snow Leopard must be released by September 6th. Otherwise someone who purchased on June 8th wouldn't be eligible.
So, that fits with going GM about now. Sweet.
Well, no, since that person would have the 90 days to order it in advance. You don't have to order the upgrade once the OS is out, in fact, they'd rather you pre-ordered your Up-to-date disc.
But it sure would be nice for it to have an early September release rather than a late September one
What a dick
That's what she said
There's a big difference between 'requires 64-bit processors' and 'is supported on all 64-bit processors.'
Does anyone know what the real world importance of having the 64-bit kernel is? Is it a big deal or not?
Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.
All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.
I'd be curious to know if Vista 64 bit (or even 64 bit Linux), which have 64 bit kernels can be installed on the Macs that supposedly are unable to install a fully 64 bit SL.
I have Ubuntu 9.04 x86-64 (aka "64-bit") installed and running happily on my late 2007 MacBook. (Natively, not under VirtualBox, VMWare, Parallels, etc.)
Your kidding right. Hard to think of a scenario where Apple's implementation would not support the high end card if they are supporting the low end. Did you test against any of the card you mention with SL?
I would not be surprised. It is well known fact in technical circles that entry level $50 ATI HD2600 card is beating $3000 nVidia Quadro 4800 in core animation benchmarks. And why? Because Apple doesn't know how to write the damn drivers and won't let nVidia do it.
Yes, it's a big deal, since system function calls are much faster on 64 bit kernel.
All I can say is if 64 bit kernel is not supported on all 64 bit CPUs then they can take the Snow Leopard and shove it. It's a completely pointless stop gap update. Basically, re-purchase all your hardware when 10.7 comes out, and Mac will finally be 64 bit, full 12 years after Windows and Linux. What a shame.
There was a series here on AppleInsider a while back that talked about the changes in architecture. I was quite happy to see the route they were taking, and I didn't see anything that would necessarily preclude the Core 2 Duos like the one in my late 2007 MacBook from running with that sort of strategy. It runs a pure 64-bit (no 32-bit libs) Debian Linux just fine, as well as the latest Ubuntu 64-bit.