Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
I guess I should have included leopard in my statement. I believe the $29 price point is there for the reasons I stated. If the $29 upgrade is not an option to you, then my statement doesn't apply to you. The $29 price point is definitely there to encourage adoption, even if the update is viewed by some as a minor one.
Edit: Going back and reading my previous post, I can see your point and it does look like a casual assumption. My intent was to address two points. The reletive size of the upgrade and why they priced the update at $29. It looks a little odd jumbled into one post.
I don't actually think for the majority of home users they will see all that much benefit from Snow Leopard to start with. I'm sure running Apple applications such as Finder and Safari which will have been tweaked at the same time as Snow Leopard was developed will be quicker, but to be honest, it's not often I'm sat waiting for my iMac to catch up with me.
The benefit will come a little further down the line when people optimize to use Grand Central correctly. There is huge latent power sat with multi-core chips that nobody has ever worked out how to use properly - if Apple have worked that out, the benefits will be massive.
The people who will benefit immediately from Snow Leopard will be corporate users. Exchange being built in is huge for most corporate IT structures and could see a big uptake in corporate users.
Personally, whilst I don't think there will be much benefit to the home user immediately, I'll do it anyway since it's only $29!
But, on behalf of us lay folks, can someone explain what is so hot about 10.6 (other than setting up for future HW/SW developments, smaller footprint, and a few eye-candy enhancements)? I am not saying improvements are not welcome, but I am just failing to see the great leap forward.......
Safari should be snappier.
The last Safari update has slowed on my iMac to a crawl- I have no choice but to buy SL.
If the testers already using it are right in their assessments of SL's speed improvements - and I have no reason not to believe them - this should be well worth it.
I have a Core Duo MacBook, which is NOT 64 bit, and I will buy it, as many of the improvements, especially the multi-thread enhancements, will still work with my two cores and should speed things up. Many of the other improvements are not dependent upon the 64 bit-ness of the OS, and should make things sail along nicely.
Hell, just the smaller size and tighter code should make it run faster, as there will be less code for the machine to process.
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
It's not that simple. You need a 64-bit CPU *and* a 64-bit EFI bootloader. Don't ask me, this came up in a thread a couple weeks ago. My original Mac Pro does not have a 64 bit bootloader and will not have a 64 bit kernel. I think it needs something else, I forget what it is.
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
The kernel? I thought that was dependent on other hardware drivers being 64 bit compatible. So you could have a processor capable of running the kernel in 64 bit mode but the drivers wouldn't be so you couldn't run it in that mode. Please explain what you mean, if I'm wrong.
i don't think you've been paying attention. corporate america is going to do the same thing it always does when it comes to windows upgrades. wait and see...
they are certainly not excited about it. yes, it will become pervasive. i'm guessing it will take 5 years until it is, due to hardware upgrades that come with win7. the corporate world is not going to line up for upgrade packs on launch day.
os upgrades from xp will disrupt productivity, staff will have to be retrained, it departments are going to fight it for a while, and people generally resist change in the workplace.
there is really nothing in win7 that the corporate world is clamouring for. why would they all jump on it? they have their workflow in place and after 10 years, they have xp figured out.
there are some nice features, but you have to run WIndows Server 2008 to take advantage of them. The really good ones you have to upgrade all of your domain controllers to Windows 2008. where i work we're still running Windows 2000 on most domain controllers
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
Well, my Core Duo MacBook doesn't have a big sign on it that says "I'm not 64 bit!", but I have read in other forums that it isn't. That has been my understanding for some time. If that is wrong, I'll be the first to be delighted...
Obviously, just a 64 bit kernel isn't the end all and be all. The OS has to be (as mentioned by another poster) optimized to USE all those bits, and to feed them to the many cores our CPUs are equipped with. In addition, all the apps, drivers and such also need to be written to take advantage of that technology too.
Which is why Apple has made SL backwards compatible with 32 bit apps.
Quoted from Apple's web page:
Quote:
32-bit compatible.
To ensure simplicity and flexibility, Mac OS X still comes in one version that runs both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. So you don’t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit program. And new 64-bit applications work just fine with your existing storage devices, PCI cards, and Snow Leopard-compatible printers.
A big improvement over the Windows 64 bit version, which CANNOT run 32 bit apps...
And Apple went to 64 bit, not because of that "bit-ness", but because it allows them to use those optimizations, and address larger amounts of memory, both of which are improving the responsiveness and speed of the computers it is installed on. They are delivering a complete product, and that required them to see that it DID deliver the speed and usefulness, and not just pure 64 bit computing. The optimizations to make it work are part and parcel of the package.
Most people don't care about what is under the hood, they just care about the results; I was responding to a question, and didn't want to muddy the waters with details. The questioner wanted to know why a 64 bit version of the OS made a difference, and I gave a short answer that also linked him/her to the Apple page in question so he could go find out more.
Sorry if my simple explanation offended your sense of proper under the hood correctness, but I don't think most people would have either understood or cared for the details.
That's an awful lot of verbiage to justify lack of verbiage.
You must have taken the clarification personally even though an unattributed quote was used in an attempt to avoid that. The point was about bitness, not anyone in particular.
Some forum readers might benefit from the clarification about bitness. Hence, the reiteration that:
Snow Leopard will run 64 bit apps quicker, but not because 64 bit calculations are quicker for most things. The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
Sadly not. The Core Duo chip (which is in my Macbook Pro from three years ago) is a 32 bit processing core.
Core 2 chips are 64 bit cores.
What is a bit confusing is that the Core Duo whilst being a 32 bit processor, it has 64 bit data bus. Sometimes you'll see people say the Core Due is a 64 bit chip because of that, but it is in fact 32 bit.
Sadly not. The Core Duo chip (which is in my Macbook Pro from three years ago) is a 32 bit processing core.
Core 2 chips are 64 bit cores.
What is a bit confusing is that the Core Duo whilst being a 32 bit processor, it has 64 bit data bus. Sometimes you'll see people say the Core Due is a 64 bit chip because of that, but it is in fact 32 bit.
Yeah get over it and put it on Craigslist then buy a New MacBook Pro you got 3 choices now! 13", 15" and 17"!
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."
From MacWorld.com: "If you?re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it?s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel."
That's an awful lot of verbiage to justify lack of verbiage.
You must have taken the clarification personally even though an unattributed quote was used in an attempt to avoid that. The point was about bitness, not anyone in particular.
Some forum readers might benefit from the clarification about bitness. Hence, the reiteration that:
Snow Leopard will run 64 bit apps quicker, but not because 64 bit calculations are quicker for most things. The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
You may not have attributed the quote, but mine was the only post that included that sentence.
And I repeat that your explanation is not really applicable, since Apple's OS includes those enhancements you say are needed - BECAUSE they are needed to make it work! Why else write a 64 bit OS? That's like saying cars' ability to drive faster than a horse can run is useless unless it includes a way to steer the vehicle, when the maker obviously included a steering wheel!
Quote:
The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
What a ridiculous statement! Apple is writing these enhancements into their OS specifically to drive speed and take advantage of the ability of the CPU to push more data through per cycle. Otherwise, what would that additional pipe capacity be worth?
That's like saying that higher horsepower engines just "happened" to coincide with the ability of cars to drive faster!
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."
From MacWorld.com: "If you?re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it?s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel."
I don't think I mentioned automatic booting into 64 bit mode, but your clarification is accurate.
Comments
Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
I guess I should have included leopard in my statement. I believe the $29 price point is there for the reasons I stated. If the $29 upgrade is not an option to you, then my statement doesn't apply to you. The $29 price point is definitely there to encourage adoption, even if the update is viewed by some as a minor one.
Edit: Going back and reading my previous post, I can see your point and it does look like a casual assumption. My intent was to address two points. The reletive size of the upgrade and why they priced the update at $29. It looks a little odd jumbled into one post.
I love these digs at Microsoft.
" antiquated technology in our opinion"
how is this guy qualified to state that ?
Windows 7 has TRIM , OpenGL 3.0 , full on 64 bit kernel on any 64 bit machine , something mac does not have nor will have for couple years.
2/10 - weak troll.
Trim is nice, but only if you have an SSD.
Windows 7 does NOT come with OpenGL 3.0. You will have to install it separately.
Snow Leopard has a full 64-bit kernel on any 64-bit Mac.
That being said, Snow Leopard runs VERY nicely on my 32-bit MacBook Pro (Core Duo) and my 64-bit iMac (Core2Duo).
Snow Leopard has a full 64-bit kernel on any 64-bit Mac.
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
The benefit will come a little further down the line when people optimize to use Grand Central correctly. There is huge latent power sat with multi-core chips that nobody has ever worked out how to use properly - if Apple have worked that out, the benefits will be massive.
The people who will benefit immediately from Snow Leopard will be corporate users. Exchange being built in is huge for most corporate IT structures and could see a big uptake in corporate users.
Personally, whilst I don't think there will be much benefit to the home user immediately, I'll do it anyway since it's only $29!
OK..... this will ruffle a few feathers.
But, on behalf of us lay folks, can someone explain what is so hot about 10.6 (other than setting up for future HW/SW developments, smaller footprint, and a few eye-candy enhancements)? I am not saying improvements are not welcome, but I am just failing to see the great leap forward.......
Safari should be snappier.
The last Safari update has slowed on my iMac to a crawl- I have no choice but to buy SL.
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
It's currently bundled with iLife 09.
If the testers already using it are right in their assessments of SL's speed improvements - and I have no reason not to believe them - this should be well worth it.
I have a Core Duo MacBook, which is NOT 64 bit, and I will buy it, as many of the improvements, especially the multi-thread enhancements, will still work with my two cores and should speed things up. Many of the other improvements are not dependent upon the 64 bit-ness of the OS, and should make things sail along nicely.
Hell, just the smaller size and tighter code should make it run faster, as there will be less code for the machine to process.
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
It's not that simple. You need a 64-bit CPU *and* a 64-bit EFI bootloader. Don't ask me, this came up in a thread a couple weeks ago. My original Mac Pro does not have a 64 bit bootloader and will not have a 64 bit kernel. I think it needs something else, I forget what it is.
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
The kernel? I thought that was dependent on other hardware drivers being 64 bit compatible. So you could have a processor capable of running the kernel in 64 bit mode but the drivers wouldn't be so you couldn't run it in that mode. Please explain what you mean, if I'm wrong.
i don't think you've been paying attention. corporate america is going to do the same thing it always does when it comes to windows upgrades. wait and see...
they are certainly not excited about it. yes, it will become pervasive. i'm guessing it will take 5 years until it is, due to hardware upgrades that come with win7. the corporate world is not going to line up for upgrade packs on launch day.
os upgrades from xp will disrupt productivity, staff will have to be retrained, it departments are going to fight it for a while, and people generally resist change in the workplace.
there is really nothing in win7 that the corporate world is clamouring for. why would they all jump on it? they have their workflow in place and after 10 years, they have xp figured out.
there are some nice features, but you have to run WIndows Server 2008 to take advantage of them. The really good ones you have to upgrade all of your domain controllers to Windows 2008. where i work we're still running Windows 2000 on most domain controllers
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
Well, my Core Duo MacBook doesn't have a big sign on it that says "I'm not 64 bit!", but I have read in other forums that it isn't. That has been my understanding for some time. If that is wrong, I'll be the first to be delighted...
Obviously, just a 64 bit kernel isn't the end all and be all. The OS has to be (as mentioned by another poster) optimized to USE all those bits, and to feed them to the many cores our CPUs are equipped with. In addition, all the apps, drivers and such also need to be written to take advantage of that technology too.
Which is why Apple has made SL backwards compatible with 32 bit apps.
Quoted from Apple's web page:
32-bit compatible.
To ensure simplicity and flexibility, Mac OS X still comes in one version that runs both 64-bit and 32-bit applications. So you don’t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit program. And new 64-bit applications work just fine with your existing storage devices, PCI cards, and Snow Leopard-compatible printers.
A big improvement over the Windows 64 bit version, which CANNOT run 32 bit apps...
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
Not true, the mobile CPUs were not for a while. Core 2 Duo is 64 bit. The original Core Duo is not.
And Apple went to 64 bit, not because of that "bit-ness", but because it allows them to use those optimizations, and address larger amounts of memory, both of which are improving the responsiveness and speed of the computers it is installed on. They are delivering a complete product, and that required them to see that it DID deliver the speed and usefulness, and not just pure 64 bit computing. The optimizations to make it work are part and parcel of the package.
Most people don't care about what is under the hood, they just care about the results; I was responding to a question, and didn't want to muddy the waters with details. The questioner wanted to know why a 64 bit version of the OS made a difference, and I gave a short answer that also linked him/her to the Apple page in question so he could go find out more.
Sorry if my simple explanation offended your sense of proper under the hood correctness, but I don't think most people would have either understood or cared for the details.
That's an awful lot of verbiage to justify lack of verbiage.
You must have taken the clarification personally even though an unattributed quote was used in an attempt to avoid that. The point was about bitness, not anyone in particular.
Some forum readers might benefit from the clarification about bitness. Hence, the reiteration that:
Snow Leopard will run 64 bit apps quicker, but not because 64 bit calculations are quicker for most things. The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
is there really a Core Duo CPU that is not 64 bit? i thought every single intel CPU for the last 5 years has been 64 bit?
Sadly not. The Core Duo chip (which is in my Macbook Pro from three years ago) is a 32 bit processing core.
Core 2 chips are 64 bit cores.
What is a bit confusing is that the Core Duo whilst being a 32 bit processor, it has 64 bit data bus. Sometimes you'll see people say the Core Due is a 64 bit chip because of that, but it is in fact 32 bit.
Sadly not. The Core Duo chip (which is in my Macbook Pro from three years ago) is a 32 bit processing core.
Core 2 chips are 64 bit cores.
What is a bit confusing is that the Core Duo whilst being a 32 bit processor, it has 64 bit data bus. Sometimes you'll see people say the Core Due is a 64 bit chip because of that, but it is in fact 32 bit.
Yeah get over it and put it on Craigslist then buy a New MacBook Pro you got 3 choices now! 13", 15" and 17"!
Both server and desktop is 64 bit. If it is installed on a 64 bit machine, it will run 64 bit native.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."
From MacWorld.com: "If you?re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it?s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel."
That's an awful lot of verbiage to justify lack of verbiage.
You must have taken the clarification personally even though an unattributed quote was used in an attempt to avoid that. The point was about bitness, not anyone in particular.
Some forum readers might benefit from the clarification about bitness. Hence, the reiteration that:
Snow Leopard will run 64 bit apps quicker, but not because 64 bit calculations are quicker for most things. The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
You may not have attributed the quote, but mine was the only post that included that sentence.
And I repeat that your explanation is not really applicable, since Apple's OS includes those enhancements you say are needed - BECAUSE they are needed to make it work! Why else write a 64 bit OS? That's like saying cars' ability to drive faster than a horse can run is useless unless it includes a way to steer the vehicle, when the maker obviously included a steering wheel!
The speed improvements just happen to coincide with the switch to 64 bits.
What a ridiculous statement! Apple is writing these enhancements into their OS specifically to drive speed and take advantage of the ability of the CPU to push more data through per cycle. Otherwise, what would that additional pipe capacity be worth?
That's like saying that higher horsepower engines just "happened" to coincide with the ability of cars to drive faster!
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."
From MacWorld.com: "If you?re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it?s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel."
I don't think I mentioned automatic booting into 64 bit mode, but your clarification is accurate.