backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 219 comment(s) - last by Pirks.. on Jun 16 at 2:33 PM
Today at Apple's WWDC presentation the face of its latest OS has been revealed in depth

Today at Apple, fast on the heels of the announcement of a vastly improved 3G iPhone came a preview of the new Apple operating system Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6).  Apple hopes that Snow Leopard "builds on the incredible success" of its Leopard predecessor. 

Apple touts that improvements coming in Snow Leopard will include better support for multiple processors, better GPU support, better use of large amounts of RAM, and support for Apple's new QuickTime® X platform.  The OS will ship in about a year and will come packaged with support for Microsoft Exchange 2007.

Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering describes the new OS stating, "We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more.  In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”

Apple says that integral to its plans is the new technology “Grand Central", which will help developers design more efficient multi-core programs for Macs.  The new OS will also allow use of Open Computing Language (OpenCL) to use GPUs for non-graphics applications.  And the sky's the limit for memory with 16TB of RAM, theoretically, at the new operating system's disposal (of course such levels are impossible with current chipsets and DIMM densities).

Quick Time X is also a major new feature.  It will draw from lessons learned with the iPhone and will feature support for advanced video and audio formats.  Apple is also throwing in a new version of Safari, which it states will include the "fastest implementation of JavaScript ever, increasing performance by 53 percent, making Web 2.0 applications feel more responsive."

With the addition of Microsoft Exchange, Apple should be able to better interface with Windows computers in a business setting.

The new OS marks a continued push on Apple's part towards a longer more Windows-like development cycle for Apple.  Apple has often been criticized for having too short a development cycle.  The OS X family has seen the production times slowly increase from an initial release-a-year pace.

DailyTech will follow Apple's progress in coming months as the OS approaches its release and prepares to compete with the upcoming Windows OS, codenamed Windows 7, due out in about a year as well.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Quicktime X?
By Fenixgoon on 6/9/2008 7:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
I still can't fathom how quicktime has become any sort of standard. It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.




RE: Quicktime X?
By borismkv on 6/9/2008 7:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
unless you buy the "pro" version.


DING DING DING! We have a winner!


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By chick0n on 6/10/2008 12:28:10 AM , Rating: 4
Wow, You actually feel *proud* of that ?

We have a loser, yes. That would be you.


RE: Quicktime X?
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 3:50:43 AM , Rating: 1
Not sure if the language was seen as the issue, but the answer is correct - QuickTime Player does enable you to view movies in full-screen without an upgrade to the Pro version. The Pro version is only necessary if you want to edit a movie file, or create one. While it sounds a bit superfluous given that a Mac ships with iMovie of some version or another, QuickTime Pro is surprisingly useful and, honestly, well worth the money.


RE: Quicktime X?
By gramboh on 6/10/2008 5:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
Except it sucks at encoding h264 versus free x264 encoder in terms of quality and options. For playback on the PC, Media Player Classic with FFDshow is superior (and will even play .mov if you have to use that awful container).


RE: Quicktime X?
By kelmon on 6/11/2008 2:26:09 AM , Rating: 2
I can't really comment on the merits of the PC version, nor the quality of the encoding. What I can say is that QuickTime Pro is damned useful for hacking video, such as cutting bits out or exporting tracks to a new file. I understand that the QTP isn't very fast at encoding video, which seems odd, but its a handy application on the Mac for video that is already encoded.


RE: Quicktime X?
By sporr on 6/14/2008 6:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
I second that. MPC+ffdshow and maybe ac3filter if you needs demand it.

Some of the best things in life are free :)


RE: Quicktime X?
By jpeyton on 6/10/2008 3:00:59 AM , Rating: 3
Apple can't "ice" Windows until they get the hardware numbers to challenge Microsoft's dominance.

They're on track to do it sometime in the early 22nd century.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quicktime X?
By DASQ on 6/10/2008 11:06:47 PM , Rating: 1
erm... last I checked, doing alright actually.


RE: Quicktime X?
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 11:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/PostComment.aspx?newsid=1...

Granted it's in third place but has had a greater RATE of sales than the 360 since the beginning of '08. According to this graph by the end of 2008 the PS3 will have caught up with the 360 in worldwide sales.


RE: Quicktime X?
By akugami on 6/10/2008 11:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
The PS3 is doing terrible. Numbers wise, it's not that bad, dollars wise, it's a huge anchor on the SOE branch of Sony. This is similar to the original Xbox which had the distinction of being in second place in the last console wars but lost over two billion in the process while Nintendo's last place Gamecube made a tidy profit. I've posted it before but from a Japanese Sony executive, the PS3 was suppose to have taken them roughly five years to recoup their costs. I will make a huge assumption that it is with the PS3 in the lead for those PS3 projections. The PS3 is at best in second place and while it's not doing bad numbers wise, I have to wonder when and if it ever recoups its development costs. The ten year console projection is bologna.

Nintendo and Microsoft (if it chooses to remain in the console race) will most definitely have new consoles out in 4-5 years time that will more than equal what the PS3 has and likely one up it in many respects. Not only will the new consoles equal or surpass the PS3 but it'll have the shiny "NEW" tag whereas the PS3 will be considered old and worn, even if it more than holds its own against the new consoles.

The PSP which came off the gates fast, then slowed dramatically as the slow to start DS shot through the roof is doing very well lately. While the PS3 is doing better, the PSP is probably the sole bright spot for SOE right now.


RE: Quicktime X?
By talozin on 6/9/2008 7:27:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.


Er, what? I've been watching videos fullscreen with QuickTime Player ever since I discovered HandBrake, so this particular complaint was a surprise to me.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Fenixgoon on 6/9/2008 7:49:43 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, since version 7.2 That's 6.2 versions too late for me and the rest of the world.

VLC/QTA FTW.


RE: Quicktime X?
By xti on 6/10/2008 2:45:19 PM , Rating: 3
this reply wins the internet.


RE: Quicktime X?
By anotherdude on 6/9/2008 8:34:24 PM , Rating: 3
OK, I'll bite. How do I turn on fullscreen?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 8:44:52 PM , Rating: 5
Quicktime is crap. Its the new RealPlayer.

Back in the 90's everyone used RealPlayer. Then RealNetworks got greedy and tried to get RealPlayer to take over your entire PC. And people stopped using it.

Same thing with Quicktime. You can't even install it anymore unless you also download bullcrap Itunes.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 9:07:19 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Reclaimer, are you really that FCKING DUMB??


Nah I guess it just goes to show how often I download Quicktime anymore. Which is never.

Relax kid, your foaming at the mouth. So indignant that people don't like your religion.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/2008 11:01:29 AM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately, there are quick time movies out on the net and then you are screwed at downloading quick time.

A normal user just clicks next and gets over with the installation.

Doing this with quick time installs a bunch of crap. That is something to bark about. This has always been the case with quick time and in general apple software.

Now keep barking.


RE: Quicktime X?
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
*cough* Quicktime Alternative *cough*


RE: Quicktime X?
By FITCamaro on 6/13/2008 12:56:17 PM , Rating: 1
I have used OSX and still hate it.

Although I more hate the superior attitude of Mac fans than the OS itself. And their commercials have gotten downright annoying. Not to mention they lie through their teeth.

And I forsee you having a heart attack at an early age.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/13/2008 3:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention they lie through their teeth

Like that guy who recently lied about Leopard not working on PowerPC? ;-) You know that guy, dontcha? :))) [wink wink nudge nudge] :))

And I foresee you and your fanatical buddies Reclaimer & Co having a LOT more lies spread about Apple in future. Can't wait to see more of this BS in your posts. You know what is the best food for my critical posts, so please lie some more, it's going to be fun to continue teaching you how to check for facts before posting obvious BS here :P


RE: Quicktime X?
By gochichi on 6/9/08, Rating: 0
RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 10:08:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I say let Apple open up direct competition with Microsoft and see what happens... see if we can't get some actual competition going in the OS market.


Thats already happened. Why do you think Mac's can run Windows now ?

Windows didn't sue and force them to do it. Their customers obviously wanted Windows.

I think the fact that Macs can boot Windows throws any sort of notion of Mac OS superiority out of bounds. Face it, they lost. They run Windows and Intel CPU's now. Theres no innovation or individuality in the Mac brand anymore. Its a closed source dinosaur thats been forced to submit to the needs of the free market because their way wasn't hacking it. Plain and simple.


RE: Quicktime X?
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 6:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
I think it just gave people that safety net of being able to think "I can just fall back to Windows if I don't like Mac OS X" when buying Macs, apart from the business need for Windows.

I mean, who would buy a Mac to run Windows on its own, the idea is ridiculous because they cost more.

The fact that Mac sales have rocketed in the past couple of years proves the exact opposite of your post - people want Macs, and what makes the Mac desirable is both the design AND the software - Mac OS X, etc. Maybe there is some iPod Halo effect going on as well, but I'm sure a lot of people have just had it up to here with frustrating experiences with Windows or cheap PC hardware.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean, who would buy a Mac to run Windows on its own, the idea is ridiculous because they cost more.


For the carpal tunnel keyboard and the one button mouse ? I don't know honestly.

quote:
The fact that Mac sales have rocketed in the past couple of years proves the exact opposite of your post - people want Macs,


Inflated percentage based arguments. Their bulk sales figures compared to the top 4 OEM PC distributors is pitiful. Their overall market share of the PC market is equally laughable. First quarter of 2008 ? They are SIXTH in computer sales market share. Sixth !

Yes, their sales HAVE gone up. But guess what ? So has everyone else's. Percentages make Apple look like they are a roaring lion, when in fact they are the same paper tiger. Or should I say paper Leopard ?

My source
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

Really no room for argument here.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By Chaser on 6/9/2008 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 3
Like this lie?

Mac hacked first in security expo contest:

Apple's track record on security was tarnished on Thursday when Mac OS X was the first operating system to be compromised in a hacking contest at the CanSecWest security conference in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

The mystery crack by Charlie Miller was dependent on visiting a website containing malicious code. The exploit took just two minutes to surface at the start of the day, which also invited guests to hack Linux and Windows systems.

The exploit was presented on the second day of the three-day conference and appeared only once the competition eased rules, permitting hacks to require user actions rather than the strictly automatic hacks that were allowed the day before.

Miller wasn't allowed to publicize how he accomplished the feat, which organizing firm TippingPoint said would be passed on to Apple so it can develop a fix. However, the coding expert received the more immediate rewards of a $10,000 prize as well as the system he had infiltrated -- a new MacBook Air.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By RjBass on 6/9/2008 10:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
And as Apple and OSX gain more and more market share, they to will feel the wrath of greedy developers who have nothing better to do on a Sat night.

I really hate that argument from Apple lovers. So many of them think they are so safe from the evils of the internet just because they own an Apple computer. Well their day is coming and coming fast. Soon they will be crying about botnets and Win32 (or more OSX32) along with the rest of us.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Chaser on 6/10/2008 8:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is important is the total lack of viruses or infections for OS X, compared to gazillions of Windows virii and other malware.


It only took a simple webpage and all of a few minutes to counter the MAC's "legendary" security. No virii or malware was needed to render it completely compromised. Sorry but apathy isn't very effective against just one virus or other malware, or in this case a website. Happy surfing.


RE: Quicktime X?
By xti on 6/10/2008 2:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but if someone writes a virus with the intention of malicious harm or on top of that, wanting access to a computer...do you think they would aim for 10 million users or a 100 million?


RE: Quicktime X?
By ali 09 on 6/10/2008 2:34:02 AM , Rating: 1
Yes I agree - there are many dumb people - and you are adding to that number. Also, what do you mean by "low income"? I would like to see your income to judge whether you can make that comment.


RE: Quicktime X?
By 1078feba on 6/10/2008 9:02:05 AM , Rating: 2
Either too many teens here or too many low-income and low-education kind of people.

Wow.

I don't know where to start.

And Apple devotees can't fathom why Windows users think Apple users are tone-deaf snobs.

Say it with me now: "Cognitive dissonance is not my friend."

Repeat until simply talking about an OS doesn't produce in you a total mental mastubatory frenzy.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Arribajuan on 6/10/2008 11:09:46 AM , Rating: 2
The problem of installing crap is not disk space... that is dirt cheap.

Memory is the issue, you are left with a "handy" itunes service, ipod connecting service, blah blah helper services, quick launch quick time service, etc.

50 - 100 MB of memory just for that.

I do not care for disk space but definitely care about software taking on my memory and start up times.

As for the OS competition, is on and mac has a the lead. It is just a different competition. The 199 iphone tries to make mac ubiquitous and this will mean a platform for services.

I see the apple branding to change a little from "apple cool" to "apple everywhere".


RE: Quicktime X?
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
who needs quicktime anyway? your pc will always come bundled with WMP and if you're not happy with that then winamp is always the way forward. MACs i assume come with quicktime and therefore theyre in the same situation as with WMP, they don't need it on their macs just like I don't need quicktime on my PC


RE: Quicktime X?
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:31:26 AM , Rating: 1
What's the matter man? Why the snobby attitude?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 3:32:14 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you ask this questin to any local Apple basher spreading lies about Quicktime? Ask them please why are they lying all the time? Why can't they research the facts and THINK a little before posting here? Ask THEM first, not ME, because THEY are the reason for my postings here.

If they stop LYING - then there will be no critical posts from me here. Is that clear?


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: Quicktime X?
By oab on 6/13/2008 11:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know why this got voted down, it is correct. Hit Ctrl+F on a wind0z pc and it goes fullscreen. Hit CTRL+F again to bring it out.

Or go View->Full Screen if you don't like keyboard shortcuts.


RE: Quicktime X?
By retrospooty on 6/9/2008 9:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
" Learn your facts, idiot -> QT plays full screen in free version since version 7.2"

Here we go... another angry Mac psycho. Relax man, the guy made a statement about software... So what if he was incorrect. do you have to get all aggro about it and call him an idiot? Not to mention all the "wintel lamers".

Ya, 90% of the world is stupid for buying Windows. Its just you select few really smart people that buy Macs. The rest of us are all lame and stupid.

Get a life man. If you are going to get angry, get angry about something real.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
Quicktime is only on v 7.5. So what if they added fullscreen on the free version since 7.2 ? Pirks is making it seem like that was THAT long ago, like they are doing you a friggin service lol.

So every version before that didn't have fullscreen on the non pro version basically ? Thats just really sad.

Can't believe we're arguing so much about such a poor multimedia player anyway. Quicktime is garbage and nobody I know would ever even pay for it.


RE: Quicktime X?
By SilthDraeth on 6/9/2008 9:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
Pirks - since 7.2 ... Well people wouldn't know that if they stopped using it before 7.2.

You call us "Wintel lamers" and get angry and self righteous calling people idiotic, and fucking stupid, if they make a statement that is not 100% correct.

You MAY be more intelligent than everyone who uses Windows, but I highly doubt it. I can guarantee that you have one of the worst attitudes I have seen on DT though.


RE: Quicktime X?
By herrdoktor330 on 6/9/2008 10:45:50 PM , Rating: 5
100% Internet Annonimity + 1 Immature Individual = Troll

Wasn't that from a Penny Arcade?


RE: Quicktime X?
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:32:50 PM , Rating: 3
Personally I think he's going for lowest average post score, or first -2 post.


RE: Quicktime X?
By DASQ on 6/10/2008 11:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad ('Shitcock')


RE: Quicktime X?
By shockf1 on 6/10/2008 5:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still can't fathom how Wintel lamers like you and borismkv are even allowed to use computers


you mac fanboys are really quite entertaining.

always feeling the need to "prove" that there on the winning team by taking any small point and milking it for all its worth. LMAO.


RE: Quicktime X?
By mixpix on 6/9/2008 10:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Although it was annoying that past Quick Time versions didn't have full screen capabilities, the issue is pretty moot since the current version does... get over the past.

I watch Hi-Def trailers on Apple's site all the time in full screen.

Btw, the new version of Real Player is quite nice and it's media browser is the best for those of us who have large music collections.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Btw, the new version of Real Player is quite nice and it's media browser is the best for those of us who have large music collections.

Even if that is true, I still won't touch it.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 12:47:16 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of players have good media browser centers. Not enough incentive to go back to Real Player IMO. Screw them. They got greedy in the late 90's and tried to push a bloated invasive product and everyone stopped using them.


RE: Quicktime X?
By StevoLincolnite on 6/10/2008 2:08:44 AM , Rating: 3
Yet the Format itself was still great, it allowed people on 56k Connections to download movies and what not, sure it wasn't the best Quality in the world, but on Dial-Up you will take any improvement you can, but in this day and age of broadband connections, people are in love with DivX and Xvid.

Personally I hate Quicktime, and Real Player, BUT I do Like Quick Time Alternative, and Real Player Lite, nothing against Apple, but if I ca free up bloat, I will do so, thats where VLC comes into play, plus with VLC I can set movies as a Back Ground, it's a fairly useless feature, but it is cool in some ways.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/10/2008 5:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Cool man.

VLC is neat, but I always keep going back to BS Player Pro. However recently I have discovered Crystal Player Pro and I may never look back.

Reclaimer 77,
'proudly refusing to use Windows Media Player since 1999 '


RE: Quicktime X?
By Pirks on 6/10/2008 9:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
proudly refusing to use Windows Media Player
Why?


RE: Quicktime X?
By aebiv on 6/15/2008 5:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
WMP11 Is actually quite worthwhile. Better than anything else I've found.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Sandok on 6/10/2008 12:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
Quicktime is great for .mov and .mp4, that's it. The software is really bloated and slow on Windows (just to show that on Mac, it can run well).

A pity because it's easy to use!


RE: Quicktime X?
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
not to mention the handy feature for downloading videos off the web :)


RE: Quicktime X?
By psonice on 6/10/2008 4:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
You all need to visit the clue shop. Quicktime is NOT the same thing as Quicktime Player!

Quicktime is actually a framework for working with media files, and it's actually damn good (which is probably why quicktime player ended up being popular). It's this that will be updated with quicktime X, although I'm sure they'll update the player to utilise it.

The quicktime player is just that - a media player built on the quicktime framework. It's possible to build your own replacement that doesn't suck (not that it does.. but then I only use it on mac) with very little effort, if you can code. There's even an example app in apple's sdk that includes file export and encoding, pretty much giving you the 'pro' features for free.


RE: Quicktime X?
By Hare on 6/15/2008 3:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I still can't fathom how quicktime has become any sort of standard. It is slow, bloated, and won't let you play a video full screen unless you buy the "pro" version.

You are talking about the player which is only a small application capable of viewing quicktime videos among other things.

The QuickTime technology consists of the following:
1. The QuickTime Player application created by Apple, which is a media player.
2. The QuickTime framework, which provides a common set of APIs for encoding and decoding audio and video.
3. The QuickTime Movie (.mov) file format, an openly-documented media container.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickTime

The reason why it's a standard? Read the link above. There are plenty of good reasons.

Ps. Dailytech's underline tag is broken. It keeps underlining the space following the tagged word (see "player" above).


I'm Excited !!!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 7:10:14 PM , Rating: 5
Not.

quote:
Apple touts that improvements coming in Snow Leopard will include better support for multiple processors, better GPU support, better use of large amounts of RAM, and support for Apple's new QuickTime® X platform. The OS will ship in about a year and will come packaged with support for Microsoft Exchange 2007.


Yes, welcome to the PC world of three years ago where things like this were standard. Grats.




RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 7:16:59 PM , Rating: 1
You must have missed the multiple uses of "better". Apple has had support for multiple processors for over 10 years, GPU support for six years, though it only gained 64 bit support two years ago.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/9/2008 7:29:09 PM , Rating: 5
I must have missed where these patches justify a purchase of a new OS to obtain them.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/9/2008 8:43:59 PM , Rating: 5
Ever since Mac OSX, every yearly or bi-yearly refresh was stamped with a $129 price tag. Were the three Service Packs that XP released cost anything? No. It was fixing the issues of the past for free because it was expected from them. This is the same with Office 2003, Vista, anything. A hellova lot of work went into the XP Service Packs and all you had to do was download it for free. And what did Leopard bring to the table? What it should have done FOR FREE. What was EXPECTED FROM THEM. Language support, easier coding for programmers. Core Animation. Upgrades to the programs like iChat and DVD. Easier to back up files. Given the premium Mac users spend on their hardware, the least Apple can do is offer the upgrade for free.

Now Leopard was meant to be the "foundation for future OS's" but looked what happened: instability, incompatibility, crashing, etc. etc. etc. Leopard was the Vista for Mac; it had alot of problems and now they are releasing this Snow Leopard to cool things down (hopefully not freezing or turning screens blue). But this OS better be free otherwise it is just another slap in the face for Mac users.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/9/2008 10:07:27 PM , Rating: 3
Basic: $99
Premium: $129
Business: $199
Ultimate: $219

Source: http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/content.aspx?ctI...

Where are you getting your info from?


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Pirks on 6/9/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'm Excited !!!
By mixpix on 6/9/2008 10:24:31 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but I have to point out that that is a direct download price.

For example if you went to a retail store like Best Buy to get Vista Home Premium you'd pay $129.99 the UPGRADE version and $239.99 for the full.

I personally buy OEM versions. That's the cheapest way.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 2:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
Indeed. In fact there was a loop hole (which has yet to be solved) where you can buy the OEM versions and hack it for a full legal install of the OS. I'd rather just stick with XP until Windows 7 because the only reason I would ever get Vista is for Directx 10 gaming and I don't plan to make a gaming rig until a few years from now.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By rdeegvainl on 6/10/2008 8:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
That hack if for the upgrade version, the OEM version is a full legal install. It is intended for new machines with nothing on them.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By daftrok on 6/10/2008 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake I meant to say upgrade version. But I prefer the Windows Marketplace over OEM because its more reliable and pretty much the same price.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By bupkus on 6/9/2008 10:42:15 PM , Rating: 2
Membership of Cool has it price.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Gul Westfale on 6/10/2008 12:00:02 AM , Rating: 5
macs are not cool, unless overpriced yet underpowered hardware that only runs a small portion of all software and is wrapped in cheap ass plastic ("designed by apple in california", but made without smugness in some labor camp anyway) is cool these days.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By plinkplonk on 6/10/2008 3:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
oh yeah definitely very cool


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Doormat on 6/9/2008 11:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Thats because, for all intents and purposes, XP was broken from a security standpoint. If MS had charged for SP2, people would have screamed bloody murder and we would probably have seen anti-trust issues brought. They ship something thats vulnerable to tons of malware and viruses in its default configuration (like Apple shipped 10.5.0, and then patched in 10.5.1). And MS, being a convicted monopolist, has to play by a different set of rules than everyone else.

I also find your position that Apple should give stuff way as completely unreasonable. Stuff like Time Machine is a huge innovation in getting average people to back stuff up. Why shouldn't Apple charge for it. Leopard had plenty of new features. A new "pretty" UI doesn't constitute a worth OS upgrade. I like the UI, and am happy they don't feel the need to waste resources on performing a huge overhaul.

And finally, I haven't had a single problem with 10.5 and I bought it day one. Most folks I know don't have problems either. So I don't really see how you can say Vista = Leopard.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By theapparition on 6/10/2008 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And finally, I haven't had a single problem with 10.5 and I bought it day one. Most folks I know don't have problems either. So I don't really see how you can say Vista = Leopard.

And I've had Vista from day 1 without any issues either? What's your point?

Many have had issues with both Vista and Leopard, too.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/9/2008 8:32:48 PM , Rating: 2
Huh?

Multicore CPU was supported with the first release of OS X 10.0, while GPU acceleration was added in 10.2 the first real applications that used it was in 10.3: Expose and Fast User Switching, with additional applications in 10.4 (Dashboard and iChat AV), and 10.5 (Spaces and Time Machine)

You get to decide which 3D accelerated apps were worth upgrading for.

So my point: OS X has supported these features for years, now, longer than Windows since Vista has only been out for a little over a year, now, and at least as long as XP since they were both released in 2001


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By Polynikes on 6/10/2008 12:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
Windows has been enjoying GPU support since the late 90s, maybe earlier.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By psychobriggsy on 6/10/2008 6:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, Vista is what brought in features that used the GPU like the pointless Flip3D (why? it's 3D alt-tab, it misses the point of something like Expose which is simply extremely useful, not just 3D glitz) and blurry window titlebars. Apple brought in hardware accelerated desktop compositing with 10.2 5 years ago and has since built on that with every release.

So what are you talking about? Surely not "2D Desktop Hardware Acceleration" aka hardware line drawing ...


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By michael2k on 6/10/2008 11:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
When we say GPU support, we mean 3D acceleration of the OS and UI.

Windows 98 (late 90s right?) only shipped with GDI, which did not support 3D hardware. At all.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By herrdoktor330 on 6/9/2008 9:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the one thing I noticed that I don't think anyone mentioned is "using GPUs for non-GPU programming tasks". I think that has some potential there. Now I'm not a Mac fan in any way. But if Microsoft could find a way to tap a GPU and use it like another core of a CPU, that could be a big leap in having more processing power on-demand. It'd be nice for all those people running Crossfire or SLI and want to use their GPU for video transcoding or some other heavy processor intensive application. The only other group I've heard do that is Sony in their Folding@Home app for PS3.

Now if only the linux developers would find a way to do that in the next kernel revision...


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By boogle on 6/10/2008 4:24:14 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't do it dynamically, you have to program specifically for it still, even in this 'new' version of OSX.

Windows has supported using the GPU as a programmable device since DX8, and fully programmable since DX10.

Make sure to check out ATI & NV's web sites, they've got quite a few cool apps for their GPUs on there. Recently (might still be going on) they've got a competition to get LAME running through CUDA. They provided a reference port that runs on CUDA already, the competition was to make it even faster.

For what you're after (a super-fast math-coprocessor), you'll probably want/need to wait for Intel's Larabee. That's a super-fast maths processor, that happens to be a graphics card too.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By herrdoktor330 on 6/10/2008 8:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
I figured some software optimizations would be required.

Ever since I read an article about one of the fastest mini-supercomputers being a bunch of nVidia GPUs bundled together, it just got me thinking about the untapped potential to do other things with a GPU.

As far as Larrabee goes, it sounds like it's going to be a tear-out year for Intel (lawsuits not included). And the one positive thing to say about that is everyone stands to benefit from it: Mac users, Windows users, and Linux users alike. Now, if they can offer a product with that potential power at a competative price point ($150 USD... I wish) that would seriously shake up the computing world. Especially if software was made to take advantage of multicore and GPGPU processing to the fullest.

But thanks for the reply. I'm going to go do some research on CUDA (CTM in my case) right now and see what my GPU can do for me.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By FITCamaro on 6/9/2008 9:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
Uh the G5 was 64-bit.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By kelmon on 6/10/2008 4:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not entirely sure you know what you are talking about here, or what 10.6 is going to deliver. What it is going to deliver is, frankly, unknown for the moment beyond what little is said in the press statement, and what is rumored. What is known, however, is that Apple's OS have supported all of the functions for years, and longer than Windows when it comes down to multi-processor support. What we are talking about here is the following:

1. Better Support for Multi-Processor/Cores: Making it easier for applications to run parallel processes/threads. Leopard introduced the NSOperation object to Cocoa API to make it easy to manage multiple threads in a process, but it sounds like they want to take this further. The question is whether the benefits will be gained automatically, only after a recompile for 10.6, or whether new code will be required?

2. Better GPU Support: This doesn't mean supporting GPUs for games, but rather allowing the GPU to be used by all applications for running general code. Visual effects already make heavy use of the GPU in Leopard (Core Video and Core Animation) but this is apparently enabling you to make better use of the computing resources in your computer - i.e. nVidia's CUDA.

3. Better Use of Large Amounts of RAM: I'm not sure the maximum amount of RAM that Leopard will support, but it is at least 32GB. I think the RAM limit of 16TB is strictly for super computers based on OS X.

At this point in time, can the PC world claim any of this today, let alone 3-years ago? I'm quite happy to bring the facts from the Mac world if you'd care to bring the facts from the Windows world.


RE: I'm Excited !!!
By overzealot on 6/10/2008 2:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
As far as memory goes;
Vista:
Basic - 8gb
Premium - 16gb
Ultimate (or any business version) - 128gb

Server 2008:
Standard - 32 GB
Enterprise, Datacenter, and Itanium-Based Systems - 2 TB

So no 16TB, but then it's not really something that's within the realm of personal computing needs (at present)