backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by gstrickler.. on Sep 16 at 6:41 PM


Snow Leopard in action looks a lot like OS X Leopard, but its significantly faster, according to Apple.  (Source: Apple)

The new OS also improves accessibility, adding support for braille wireless accessories for the visually impaired.  (Source: Apple)
Apple is ready to spread OS X 10.6 to the masses

Apple's new operating system, OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard", will beat the company's own launch target of September – an official launch date of August 28 was just announced.  The new OS is priced at $29 per license for OS X Leopard users (with additional discounts for bulk license users).  Apple notes, "Snow Leopard builds on a decade of OS X innovation and success with hundreds of refinements, new core technologies and out of the box support for Microsoft Exchange."

Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering, describes, "Snow Leopard builds on our most successful operating system ever and we’re happy to get it to users earlier than expected.  For just $29, Leopard users get a smooth upgrade to the world’s most advanced operating system and the only system with built in Exchange support."

The new OS is set to go head-to-head with Microsoft's Windows 7 and delivers many major improvements for Mac users.

Over 90 percent of the 1,000 core programs in OS X had their performance tuned and improved, according to Apple.  Many -- namely, Finder, Mail, iCal, iChat, and Safari -- were moved from 32-bit into a 64-bit world, which boosts memory performance, among other things.  Apple says that its Finder is "more responsive", its Mail client is twice as fast, and Time Machine is 80 percent faster at its initial backup.

Apple includes the new QuickTime X and Safari 4 with the OS.  Apple says that the new version of Safari is more resistant to plug-in crashes and 50 percent faster at general web browsing (Safari recently received the accolade of being listed by Futuremark as tied with Google's Chrome as the fastest browser).

The size of the installation has also been cut in half freeing 7 GB. 

Apple is pushing a couple of new technologies with Snow Leopard.  The first is its Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) a technology designed to optimize multi-core usage.  Another new tech is OpenCL, a C-based open standard, which looks to provide heterogenous processing on both GPUs and CPUs.

Ironically, one of Apple's biggest selling point with the new OS comes from competitor Microsoft.  Apple explains, "Snow Leopard is the only desktop operating system with built in support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007, and it allows you to use Mac OS X Mail, Address Book and iCal to send and receive email, create and respond to meeting invitations, and search and manage contacts with global address lists. Exchange information works seamlessly within Snow Leopard so users can also take advantage of OS X only features such as fast Spotlight searches and Quick Look previews."

Unlimited licenses of Snow Leopard are available for $499, half the price of an unlimited pack for Leopard.  The new OS will start shipping this Friday to customers that pre-order.  Amazon.com has already been holding an unofficial pre-order for the last couple weeks and saw Snow Leopard jump to the top of its software sales charts.

Snow Leopard Server will launch on August 28, as well, alongside the new consumer OS.  The Server edition comes with Podcast Producer 2 and Mobile Access Server and costs $499 for an unlimited license.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Ordered
By mmntech on 8/24/2009 1:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I ordered my copy today. Largely a giant service pack, I'll give it that but I'm excited to see what some of the new features under the hood will bring, especially OpenCL.




RE: Ordered
By StevoLincolnite on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ordered
By Willardjuice on 8/24/2009 1:54:33 PM , Rating: 5
lol @ OpenCL replacing DirectX/OpenGL.


RE: Ordered
By DEredita on 8/24/2009 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 5
I'm looking forward to Snow Leopard taking the already awful GMA950 graphics, and making it run worse.


RE: Ordered
By StevoLincolnite on 8/24/2009 2:58:19 PM , Rating: 5
I thought Intel Decelerators did that automatically regardless of the platform?


RE: Ordered
By waffle911 on 8/24/2009 10:49:05 PM , Rating: 3
Thank god Apple doesn't use those any more.


RE: Ordered
By sapiens74 on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ordered
By StevoLincolnite on 8/24/2009 2:56:18 PM , Rating: 4
What a load of rubbish, there are decades worth of games available for the PC, stemming way back to the time of the Dinosaurs. (Or the DOS era).

Then you have the little ability to Emulate other platforms which also opens up a massive amount of available games to play.

Then you have the massive money making MMORPG games like WoW, Eve Online etc'.

What about Browser games like Travian? or Flash games?

Hows about Casual games from Popcap/Reflexive Arcade/Game house?

Just because the creator isn't called "Crytek" doesn't mean there aren't games, PC gaming isn't going anywhere, it's merely shifting focus to the casual games/console ports, or in a dry spell again. (We were in this same situation about a decade ago.)


RE: Ordered
By rudy on 8/24/2009 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
He may have actually been talking about the online move. Many people feel that in 10 or so years we will all only be playing games that are streamed to us as an image and we just send back the input. Should take cheating off the table one of the big issues and will decrease the cost of computers. Consoles are very well poised to do this as well. For the last several years it seems consoles have really picked up steam and PC gaming has slowed down.

Although despite that the PC games are still far ahead of consoles but the fact is consoles are catching up.


RE: Ordered
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/24/2009 8:13:46 PM , Rating: 4
latency issues will ensure that this off-site game processing model will NEVER happen for any game which requires user speed/precision in controls.


RE: Ordered
By omnicronx on 8/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/24/2009 4:30:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
most of us don't have the money to buy a Mac Pro
Stop lying omni, you don't need to get Mac Pro to get OpenCL in GeForce 9400M which you can get in $599 Mac Mini :P


RE: Ordered
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 4:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
lying? a 9400M is not a high end GPU, sure it is a high end mobile GPU, but nothing compared to some of the other desktop based GPUS on that list.(which can only be used on a Mac pro as far as I know, feel free to correct me)

On a nicely powered Cd2, you may get 15FPS with no AA/AF in crysis. Heck I tried playing TF2 on my friends Mac last week and only achieved 35-40 ish FPS in Team Fortress 2.

These are not the kind of GPUs that will be able to take advantage of all that is Open CL...


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/24/2009 5:53:33 PM , Rating: 3
You do know that OpenCL is not a gaming API, don't you? Then why your irrelevant stupid references to Crysis and such?


RE: Ordered
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 6:36:54 PM , Rating: 1
Obviously Pirks, Floating Point performance, you know, half point of having a GPU in the first place is totally irrelevent.

Sad part is you actually have people in here believe what you are saying. Gaming performance is a direct gauge of floating point performance, thus my 'stupid irrelevant' reference to Crysis turns out to be very much so relevant.

The 9400m is a 16 core GPU, and while that maybe fine in the mobile world, it is dwarfed by the performance of desktop cards.

Here is just an example of the difference: (go find any benchmark all will be pretty much the same)

Sad part is you actually have people in here believe what you are saying. Gaming performance is a direct gauge of floating point performance, thus my 'stupid irrelevant' reference to Crysis turns out to be very much so relevant.

The 9400m is a 16 core GPU, and while that maybe fine in the mobile world, it is dwarfed by the performance of desktop cards.

Here is just an example of the difference: (go find any benchmark all will be pretty much the same)

9400m OpenCL preview
OpenCL float performance- 18074 / 15892 kPixel/s

9600GT (64 cores, not a new top of the line GPU)
OpenCL float performance- 86.14 / 10.82 MPixel/s

Notice how the 9400 is measured in kila-pixels and the 9600gt is measured in Mega Pixels , the difference is night and day. (somewhere in the magnitude of 6x)

I thought you had outgrown your shenanigans, I guess I was wrong..


RE: Ordered
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 6:45:05 PM , Rating: 1
P.S The only reason I used crysis as an example is because I assumed not that many people here realize what Open CL actually does. Calculations that run on the GPU will be taking advantage of its floating point performance (FLOPS), and the simplest way to show this kind of performance is simple gaming benchmarks. You can know right off the bat how useful a GPU will be for OpenCL just by looking at something as simple as this. The fact remains a 9400m will see little to no benefit, this is even evident on your beloved Apple forums where there are multiple threads dedicated to the topic.


RE: Ordered
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 6:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
Taking this even further, OSX 10.5 already performs load balancing between the CPU and GPU for certain calculations with Open GL. As such the benefit of OpenCL is even less, as a similar system is already implemented.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 7:48:37 PM , Rating: 1
I think he was just talking about price wise. And I think having to spend $1800 Just to get up to the GT120 is much of an improvement. You really do almost have to get a Mac Pro to get something better than the 9400M. Only ones available on non-Mac Pros are the 9400M, 9600M, the $1800 iMac with a GT120 and the $2200 iMac with a GT130. That's it. I'm not sure how much a better GPU will help, but having to spend $1800 just so you get something better than a mobile GPU is quite sad.


RE: Ordered
By themaster08 on 8/25/2009 1:45:00 AM , Rating: 1
Just when I thought that liver donation got the best of you, you come back from the dead.

I even had your funeral song prepared....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdrYgUNugko


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 3:51:33 AM , Rating: 1
Not even an insult from you? I'm quite shocked that you have absolutely nothing to say against my facts.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/25/2009 4:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
What facts? About iMacs that have pretty powerful GPUs like Radeon 4850? Sure thing buddy, this is exactly why I called the omni's lies about Mac Pro. Any more questions on that?


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 1:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
For $2000+ and for a $200 upgrade on a card that costs about half that brand new and at full price? I'm sorry, but it may seriously just as well be a Mac Pro. I've been saying the whole time that it's more about the price you can get them at and not just about what computers you can actually get it on.


RE: Ordered
By Amiga500 on 8/25/2009 3:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
All nice.

But quite irrelevant with regards running games on OpenCL... 'cos no-one is going to do that.

Realistically, right now the bottleneck is the GPU, so moving more non-graphical work to the GPU is not the way to optimum frame rates.


RE: Ordered
By Smilin on 8/25/2009 5:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 9400m is a 16 core GPU, and while that maybe fine in the mobile world, it is dwarfed by the performance of desktop cards.


While I agree with your overall statement about desktop vs mobile cards the example you used doesn't really show it..

quote:

9400m OpenCL preview
OpenCL float performance- 18074 / 15892 kPixel/s

9600GT (64 cores, not a new top of the line GPU)
OpenCL float performance- 86.14 / 10.82 MPixel/s

Notice how the 9400 is measured in kila-pixels and the 9600gt is measured in Mega Pixels , the difference is night and day. (somewhere in the magnitude of 6x)


Just FYI ...

15896k > 10.82M

The other number is a different story but you might want to highlight what's actually being measured.


RE: Ordered
By mmntech on 8/24/2009 6:53:51 PM , Rating: 4
OpenCL is designed to accelerate CPU intensive tasks by using the GPU's higher processing capacity. Namely simulations, video & photo editing, and media encoding. Basically anything that involves complex matrix calculations, which is what graphics processors excel at. It's the same thing as nVidia's CUDA, ATI's Stream, and Microsoft's DirectX 11. However, unlike those three which are limited to a specific platform, OpenCL is intended to be cross compatible allowing it to function on any GPU on any OS. It has absolutely nothing to do with gaming. Besides, gaming is only a relatively small segment of the entire PC market as a whole. High end graphics cards tend to be far cheaper than professional grade CPUs. Using the untapped GPU power in most computers to accelerate profession apps beyond only CAD would pay huge dividends both for users and hardware manufacturers. Even a small boost on low end hardware would add up to save a lot of time and money.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 7:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you consider a GT130 powerful... Only Mac Pros have better GPUs.

Not saying you won't gain anything on those lower GPUs though. Just not sure if it'll be all that useful. Better than not having OpenCL, that's for sure.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/24/2009 8:16:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not saying you won't gain anything on those lower GPUs
Precisely my point.


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 9:00:33 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but other than that ONE statement you made, it was not your point at all. You were just trying to make him look stupid, but all you do is bring it upon yourself by making wild "facts" like saying "everyone knows that iMacs have pretty powerful GPUs." That is the most bullshit I've ever heard.


RE: Ordered
By ffakr on 8/25/2009 12:16:10 AM , Rating: 5
The High End iMac ships with a Radeon 4850. That's a pretty high end video card. Even the lowly GT 120 is fast in terms of parallel Floating point performance.

I know there's really no point with arguing with the 12 year olds on Daily Tech,.. but what the hell, I've got nothing better to do right now.

Most of you have no idea what you're talking about.

* OpenCL is a high level API that abstracts technologies like FireStream and CUDA. If a new chip technology comes on the market with the appropriate instruction support, OpenCL will be able to support that as well (with little under the hood, and probably no developer changes). It's cool because it's the easiest way to write GPU accellerated code.
* OpenCL is called OpenCL in part because the functions map to OpenGL instructions. Rendering 3d and doing generic matrix math have a lot in common. It's no concidence that CUDA, FireStream and OpenCL use GPUs that are capable of running OpenGL code.. They all specialize in the same math.
* I know some of you hate Apple but I'll have to break it to you. OpenCL is an open standard. Apple was just a major contributor and a steerer of the project. OpenCL is open to Microsoft and the Linux community if they choose to adopt it.
* Yes, even a lowly GT120 or 9400M will do certain calculations faster than a Xeon or Operton. The point of OpenCL isn't to run Crysis. If that's all you can see, you're a moron [or a 12 year old]. Apple's providing a powerful tool to leverage a GPU with very minimial coding effort. If I need to do FFTs or Matrix Multiplication and I can move the data back and forth to the GPU without taking a big hit from the context switch, there's a good chance even the lowly GPU will be quite a bit faster than the CPU. A 9400 is a 16 "core" chip and a GT120 is a 32 "core" chip. These are simple cores that don't have nearly as many instructions available to them as a GPCPU but they can do an awful lot of work in parallel if it happens to be the 'right kind of work'. A Mac Mini has a dual core CPU. Do you see why it might be nice to leverage that lowly 16 core co-processor to help with heavy lifting.. like transcoding video in iMovie?

This isn't about how much faster Crysis will run, it's about tapping under-utilized computation resources in a computer system.
What you, as end users, will see is significant performance increases in some consumer apps. There are already CUDA aware apps for Windows which perform some functions, like transcoding video, at several times the unaccellerated rates. You can find examples at Nvidia's CUDA site. They've got more example apps with the speed increases posted every week.

Perhaps the best example of OpenCL's utility is how we might use OpenCL. Right now we're working with CUDA (an analog) because it can do some things two orders of magnitude faster than a CPU [with a powerful GPU]. Some Mathematica parallel routines are up to 100x faster with version 7's CUDA support.
The Accellereyes Jacket libraries for Matlab are 5-10-20x faster for supported calculations.
Go to the Portland Group's site to watch a demo of their next Fortan Compiler's CUDA support. It can be an order of magnitude faster with a GPU than with a CPU.

I really hate to shatter the world view of everyone here, but every new technology isn't designed for Gamers. OpenCL is extremely cool. It's extremely powerful. I've seen 3rd party app acceleration with OpenCL already. It's extremely impressive. If you're doing 'the right kind of' math, it's easy to realize a 10X performance increase with a decent video card.
The really cool thing about OpenCL though, is that the developers don't have to write to the Chip. Accelereyes Jacket is a CUDA acceleration library for Mathematica. If it were written with OpenCL rather than CUDA.. it would work on ATI and Nvidia systems. That's the real power of OpenCL.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/25/2009 1:26:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The High End iMac ships with a Radeon 4850. That's a pretty high end video card
Well, looks like telling these obvious things to Alex and Omni is a waste of time. The boys just like to bash Apple, that's all. Let'em play :)


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 3:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhh, I'm quite sorry for getting that information wrong. I went and looked on the Apple website before posting but missed it. I checked several computers to see if I could configure it with a better video card, but I couldn't. I therefore assumed, which I suppose I shouldn't have, that none of them could be configured with a better video card. Still, the cheapest computer with that card would cost you $2000 from what I'm looking at, the 24-inch 2.93 Ghz iMac. I find it atrocious that it's a $200 upgrade to get a card that can be had for half that price for a PC. And mind you that's full price, not just for an upgrade.

Unlike Pirks, I can admit when I've made a mistake. With this new information I can say that what Omni said is false, but for all intents is quite true. You have to pay and arm and a leg to get a decent video card for a Mac. Though, I'd be interested to know just what kind of performance boost you'd get out of these video cards with OpenCL.


RE: Ordered
By MrBlastman on 8/25/2009 11:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget to mention the fact that the 24-inch iMac's response time for the screen is ~14 ms.

Far too slow to do any serious hardcore gaming. With a screen that slow you'll be seriously hindered in your playing ability.

A 5 ms screen for me is even way too slow, 2 ms is acceptable but nothing beats the sub 1 ms CRT's. So really, what is the point of having a fancy graphics adapter on a MAC if their displays are slow as heck?


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares about games on a Mac? We all know that Mac OS is horrible for games and that no person in their right mind buys a Mac for gaming.


RE: Ordered
By MrBlastman on 8/25/2009 2:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you're right. :) But, to me, I only see a point in fancy high-speed graphics hardware for gaming. That is really the only point my desktop computer serves for at home. My laptop and office computers are for work.

The thing is--do Mac users know the Mac OS is horrible for gaming? Probably not. Apple's website says the 24 incher is good for gaming. We all know i-Fans follow the word of Jobs.


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 4:03:42 AM , Rating: 1
I probably never made my stance clear, but I was never referring to games in my posts. I was referring to whatever tasks would be sent to the GPU.

Ohh, and the amount of actual cores isn't comparable to a CPU since they aren't designed the same. Much like saying a P4 and a P1 are equal just because they both have only 1 core.


RE: Ordered
By Pirks on 8/25/2009 5:01:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is the most bullshit I've ever heard.
And now after looking at Radeon 4850 in the iMac you realized that your BS is on YOU now, didn'tcha? ;)


RE: Ordered
By Alexstarfire on 8/25/2009 1:59:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sorta, but still not really. I can give you that that ONE card is very decent, but it's on a $2000 minimum computer.... that seems to have a crappy screen according to MrBlastman. Not useful for gaming, but then again I was never referring to games on a Mac because..... well that's just silly. And the price for that video card is the biggest joke of them all. A $200 upgrade for a $100 or so video card?

So yes, slightly less BS. I'll give you that.


RE: Ordered
By sinful on 8/24/2009 2:59:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And maybe, just maybe, 10 years down the track the Mac Platform might be a decent gaming platform, especially if they made there hardware more "Open" to upgrades.

That's what they said about Quickdraw 3d (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickDraw_3D)... and then OpenGL... and now OpenCL...

Oh well, I'm this THIS time it'll be different!
Good luck with that, Apple!

(Don't hold your breath though)


RE: Ordered
By theapparition on 8/24/2009 3:52:21 PM , Rating: 3
OpenCL is not meant to be a replacement of OpenGL or DirectX. It is not meant to be a graphics language, rather it is used for harnessing GPU power in math intensive applications.

Nvidia already has something similar called CUDA, and ATI has thier implementation. OpenCL is designed to interface directly to CUDA enabled GPU's.

OpenCL is not for games.


RE: Ordered
By ffakr on 8/25/2009 12:22:55 AM , Rating: 3
specifically, CUDA and ATI's firestream are APIs that leverage the GPU's supported instructions.

OpenCL is cooler because it abstracts the underlying API with a OpenGL-like API.
OpenCL code will run accellerated on any supported GPU family while CUDA only runs on Nvidia and FireStream only runs on ATI hardware.

What it boils down to is, they all support the same machine instructions because they're designed to handle the math required by version x.x of DirectX and version x.x of OpenGL. At their heart, CUDA and FireStream leverage the same instructions.. they do the same math.., but the API is different.
OpenCL standardizes this for developers, and in turn for consumers.


RE: Ordered
By MonkeyPaw on 8/24/2009 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hasn't history shown that you don't want any 10.x.0 version of OSX? From what I gather, it isn't until about 10.x.4 that most of the bugs get ironed out (or at least that's when the complaining starts to slow down). There are always complaints from a new OS release, even the "gradual improvement" that is the Apple point release system.


Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By DEredita on 8/24/2009 1:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone tell me why I should be excited? Will this speed up my older 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo white Macbook, or will it be even slower than Leopard was, when I upgraded from Tiger? Also, should I expect the same amount of bugs and issues that I had in the beginning with Leopard, which I felt took a good 5 revisions for Apple to work out?




By pcfxer on 8/24/2009 1:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have seen performance improvements akin to:

Last gen Macbook 2.4GHz (snow leopard) as fast as Macbook Pro 2.53GHz (leopard).


By dark matter on 8/24/2009 1:54:48 PM , Rating: 5
Because, just like the washing powder adverts that claim this washing powder is far superior to their old washing powder despite them previously telling that it washed whites whiter than white.

This release will "just work" more than the current OSX. That alone surely is worth the upgrade.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By rs1 on 8/24/2009 9:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
And you're being given the opportunity to pay $29 for an OS service-pack. Who could pass up a deal like that?


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By waffle911 on 8/24/2009 11:10:43 PM , Rating: 1
Its a bit more than a service pack seeing as how most of the OS has been transitioned from a 32/64-bit hybrid to purely 64-bit, in addition to actual new features and not just fixes and updates. If it were as dramatic a leap as Tiger to Leopard was, Apple would be charging $120.
That said, good luck getting Windows 7 for $30 (for a machine that didn't come with a coupon for Win7), seeing as how it seems to be little more than a Vista service pack, by your logic.
Snow Leopard is everything Leopard should have been just like Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been. That's it. The difference is Leopard was already pretty decent but bloated, while Vista screws with XP users' minds while being badly bloated, lest we forget when Mac sales actually started to pick up (when Vista was released and came with most new computers).


By 67STANG on 8/25/2009 3:52:01 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That said, good luck getting Windows 7 for $30

You're right. Most of us here are going to pay $0. Hell, some of us already have it.


By Smilin on 8/25/2009 5:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
+1 for genius.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By DC2529 on 8/24/2009 1:58:36 PM , Rating: 1
Since you have a core 2 duo, it will run faster because of the switch to 64-bit for the OS and many of the built in applications. You will also see some improvement from the GCD they added to many of the applications.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By DEredita on 8/24/2009 2:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
My Macbook can only address 2GB of ram officially. Unofficially, 3GB will work, and anything over that causes significant stability issues.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 2:50:40 PM , Rating: 3
Don't be fooled, removing legacy code, PPC support and moving to native 64 bit is a great move for Apple, going forward that is. People are kidding themselves if they really think the move to 64 bit will actually increase the speed of the OS substantially, especially on older hardware with less RAM are kidding themselves. 64GB environment with 2GB RAM (or less) = no thanks, no matter what OS you run.

The upgrade is definitely worth it, especially on new hardware. That being said there is a reason it is only 30 dollars, it is essentially a service pack. Apple fans are kidding themselves if they think Apple would sell a full fledged release for that price. In fact if it were not for Windows 7, you would probably be paying substantially more.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By DEredita on 8/24/2009 3:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree it is a good move, but I feel unless you move to newer hardware, you're pretty much SOL. There is no reason why my Macbook can't address 8GB of ram with a 64-bit OS, but Apple went ahead and made sure to cripple it to only work with a maximum of 2GB of ram, which sucks. I have a laptop that cost $1700 at the time it was purchased, but it was crippled by the company.

Dells, HPs, Lenovos, etc with the same hardware from the same period could support 8GB of ram, provided you have a 64-bit OS. I am rather bitter that this machine is become more and more like an overpriced netbook, rather than a production work machine after only 2.25 years of having it.



RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By omnicronx on 8/24/2009 4:14:21 PM , Rating: 3
Really I feel for you, there is no conceivable reason to only allow 2GB RAM on hardware that is suppose to be high end. This is most likely done by Apple, as I really doubt Intel crippled their chipsets as to not support it.

I also am starting to wonder about Apples 64 bit support. The latest leaked builds as of less than a week ago had 64 bit kernel and driver support disabled by default. Here is Apples latest response.
quote:
The 32-bit kernel fully supports 64-bit applications, all system libraries that 64-bit applications use are fully 64-bit, and 64-bit applications have a full 64-bit virtual address space of 16 exabytes available to them on Mac OS X. The primary benefit of a 64-bit kernel is to improve the efficiency of accessing over 32GB of RAM.
That looks great at first, too bad the exact same thing was already supported in 10.5, just none of the apps were natively 64 bit. This to me is terrible, they have marketed as being 64bit but in implementation both the kernel and its drivers will be 32bit?

This is why I just can't imagine the speed increases Apple is claiming. Perhaps they greatly optimized their code, but let me assure you, Safari is not 50% faster because of 64 bit alone.

Apple is trying to pull a fast one over its customers, they have been claiming something to be true for months and have taken back on that promise. While I would still upgrade to SL, if I were an Apple user, I would not be very happy right now.

Now I understand why this was probably done, just imagine the third party driver support if your OS actually required 64 bit drivers. Windows users know the problems this can cause, and in terms of driver supports MS is heads and heals ahead of Apple for 64 bit drivers because they are on the 3rd iteration of a true 64bit OS. But really thats not our problem, Apple promised something and are taking back on that promise.

All this being said Xserve based machines will automatically run in 64 bit mode, and as it stands if you are a desktop/laptop user you can get into 64 bit mode by pressing a the '6' and '4' keys upon boot. Although apparently some older Macbooks using 32bit EFI firmware will be totally out of luck. The fact remains that by default users will be put into 32 bit mode, with the chance that many of its users won't even have the option to get into 64 bit mode. The only happy news is newer yet to be released machines may support it by default, but as an upgrade I am starting to realize why it only costs 30 bucks..

Welcome to 64 bit Apple users, please commence your 2 year waiting period before suitable 3rd party drivers become available for your hardware.. at that point perhaps everyone will see true 64 bit.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By sebmel on 8/24/2009 7:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft forked Windows 32bit and 64bit... they sold Vista 64bit as a pro version with lower use. Third party hardware manufacturers aimed at the main part of the market (the 6 or so 32bit versions... starter;home; home pro; pro; business; ultimate... something like that) and enthusiasts who installed the 64bit version had to wait.

That's not the same situation. There are only one version of Mac OS X. There will be no need for third party hardware manufacturers to write different drivers... no waiting for Microsoft to 'certify' them either.

Sure drivers take time to write and refine... just don't forget what actually happened with Vista 64bit drivers.


By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 8:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
And who's talking about Vista? That's way, way old news. Of course with what Omni said you basically have two different versions of the OS, one 32-bit and one 64-bit. Or so it sounds that way. If you need different drivers for each "version" then I feel that most manufacturers would ignore 64-bit for a while just as they did with Vista.

That's only assuming what Omni said is true and that you'd need different drivers.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By sebmel on 8/24/2009 8:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
Omni said that Mac OSX users could expect delays in a way that Windows users are familiar with. I believe he was referring to the delay for 64bit Vista drivers... hence the 'old news'.

My comment points out that the reasons for the Vista delay do not exist with Mac OS X. There is just one version which supports both 32bit and 64bit processing. So far the process of switching over on a Mac has been seamless. I do not yet see a reason to expect anything different from Snow Leopard.


By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 9:04:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well, perhaps if you'd read my post you'd understand why I feel otherwise.


By gstrickler on 8/24/2009 7:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is no conceivable reason to only allow 2GB RAM on hardware that is suppose to be high end.
The Macbook is not and has never been "high end", it's the entry level Mac notebook.

The reason to only allow 2GB (actually, 3GB) is that the chipset only supports 4GB, and part of that is used for I/O space. The 2.16GHz White MacBook was introduced in May 2007, and replaced in Nov 2007, and it's based upon the same hardware as the original MacBook introduce in May 2006. It's a hardware limitation, just like 95% of the Windows laptops of that timeframe.
quote:
Welcome to 64 bit Apple users, please commence your 2 year waiting period before suitable 3rd party drivers become available for your hardware.. at that point perhaps everyone will see true 64 bit.
Most Mac users don't need to worry about 3rd party drivers, they have only Apple hardware for which both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers will ship with 10.6. What is a concern are 3rd party kernel extensions, some of which are already available in 64-bit versions, some of which are not. Anyone not using a 3rd party kernel extension that is 32-bit only, and that has a 64-bit capable system can start the using 64-bit kernel the day they install the upgrades, if they choose to do so.

Your experience with 64-bit versions of Windows does not apply because Apple took a completely different path from 32-bit to 64-bit. That path sacrificed performance in 32-bit mode in order to make the transition to 64-bit much simpler. The result is that running the 64-bit kernel requires only 64-bit kernel extensions and drivers, and is otherwise transparent to both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. That choice to sacrifice 32-bit performance on prior versions is also why the typical user, even on lower end machines with 2GB of RAM, will see performance improvements from moving to a 64-bit kernel. That's in addition to the benefits they'll get from the streamlined code and the new Finder.

Go read about the Mac OS X architecture and how Apple implemented 32/64 bit capabilities in 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6 and you'll understand why it's not like Windows and why most of what you know about 64-bit Windows doesn't apply.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/10/28/road...


By ffakr on 8/25/2009 1:03:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple is trying to pull a fast one over its customers, they have been claiming something to be true for months and have taken back on that promise. While I would still upgrade to SL, if I were an Apple user, I would not be very happy right now.


You get it, but you're incapable of having it register.

Earlier info from Apple indicated you could install a 64bit native kernel if you hold down command-option-6-4 on the install boot the installer will install a 64bit kernel.
If this has been removed as an option and you get both on consumer machines, I don't see what the problem is.

There's a good reason to do this.. and you yourself pointed it out.. Some Macs have 32bit EFI.
Also.. 64bit code isn't always faster than 32bit code. It can be slower than 32bit code if you only need 32bit registers.

The biggest thing the 64bit kernel is going to get high end users over consumers is the ability for a single thread to access over 4GB of memory space. People who really need that are going to boot 64bit (it's easy enough to set this as the default option by editing a file on the machine).

You can still run 64 bit applications (I've got a load running on my MacBook Pro w/ 32bit kernel).
In 10.5, the serious limitation of the 32bit kernel was the inability to run the GUI of apps in 64bit. Only headless threads could run in 64 bit. That's not true in SL.
The limitation of the 32bit kernel is kernel address space and maximum memory addressible by a single thread.

I have no f'n idea why you think Apple is "trying to pull a fast one".

Is it because, as you said, Apple promised a 64bit kernel for months [years actually] and they shipped a 64bit kernel.. they just don't always boot into it by default?

Is it because Apple, as usual, provides out-of-the-box compatability with all Mac hardware? Wern't you bitchin about the difficulty of upgrading Apple hardware someone up in the responses?

That's the best you've got? Whaaa.. Apple didn't ship a 64bit OS like they promised.. they shipped a 64bit OS that is compatible with 32 bit EFI machines.

And 3rd party drivers? What are you talking about?
I'm going to assume you are specifically refering to Kexts (kernel extensions) and not some piece of software that knows to talk to the USB port to query the scanner.

If you were old enough to go to WWDC [again, assuming your 12YO] You'd have a) seen the full court press on Apple's part to have developers write 64bit kexts and b) you'd know 32bit "drivers" [kexts] will work, though they might need some modification to run on the new Kernel. I'm not sure how you think Apple could significantly rework the kernel and not have some issues with Code running in kernel space.
The transition, like the PPC to Intel move, is remarkably clean.

BTW.. I'm typing this from my Quad-Core Phenom running Windows 7 lest you think I'm merely an Apple Fan-Boy. My work MacBook Pro is downstairs.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By sebmel on 8/24/2009 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
Sell it and buy a new one: and before you do compare the second-hand price on eBay to those PC laptops you could have bought 2 years ago. I think you'll find you've saved money because the MacBook depreciated less.

Also, you're still in the 'Back to school' offer period... so buy with the higher education discount (12%) and get a free iPod into the deal... which you can eBay if you don't want it. If you aren't at University... ask a relative or friend.

Do as I say and in a year's time you'll find you can sell it on eBay for little less than you paid... and buy a new one.

Just a thought.


By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 8:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you're brilliant logic brought you to the conclusion that you would sell a used laptop for less than you bought it new. Congrats on mastering econ 101.

Of course, if you're computer lasts longer than 2 years then it's not the same story. It's like assuming that everyone gets rid of a car in 3 years. Some don't, and shouldn't anyway, so getting a computer than lasts longer is probably cheaper. Depends on actual prices of course.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By Pirks on 8/24/2009 8:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to read. sebmel's point is a horrible deprecation of PC hardware that doesn't exist in Mac world. Buy a Gateway gamebook for $2000, you will sell it for $700 in a year, if you're lucky (that's what my Gateway P-173X eBay auction netted). Buy a MacBook Pro for $2000 and you will sell it for $1500 in a same timeframe. So you actually saving money by buying high-quality expensive goods. Ever heard saying "I'm too poor to buy cheap", Alex? ;-)


By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 9:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no I haven't heard that saying before. But if you'd actually learn to read, like many people on here need to, you'd see that I said you shouldn't assume that someone has to get a new computer every so often. Yes, if you need a new computer every year or two a Mac might, and please understand that I'm suggesting that there is ONLY A POSSIBILITY, be the way to go. My point was that if you can keep your PC around longer, like 3 years or so vs 2 years or less for a Mac, that a PC is probably cheaper even in the long run.

And as I said before, depends on actual prices. It's quite hard to generalize what's going to be cheaper in the long run when actual prices matter so much. I've got my cheapo $350 Acer laptop that I'm going to keep until it no longer functions as it does everything I want already. Couldn't even dream of that kind of price for a Mac, let alone for the functions it has. It is sad that a little over a month after I got my laptop that Walmart started selling a $300 Compaq that is better at games than what I have. Ohh well, didn't get it to play games on anyway, but it sure doesn't hurt for when I'd like to.


By DEredita on 8/25/2009 12:07:00 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know who buys computers for resale value, but I buy mine to wring out every last mhz and every last mb of ram. I run my computers hard, and until they no longer work. I don't buy computers to have the latest fashion statement, and then sell them the very second they go out of style.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By sebmel on 8/24/2009 8:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
DEredita expressed disappointment at the amount of RAM the MacBook he/she has supports. The current MacBook supports 6GB (double the level of DEredita's), and the MacBook Pros support 8GB. I simply offered a suggestion as to how DEredita could achieve the spec he/she needs economically.

Actually anyone who uses Macs should learn to use the low depreciation, the Higher Education discount, and the 'Back to School' offers to their advantage. If any of the Macs serve your needs, bought in that way they turn out to be very cheap.

"Of course, if you're computer lasts longer than 2 years then it's not the same story."

If you keep a computer for two years you will suffer two years of depreciation and have earned only one discount... yes, that's obviously correct. But why would you do that when you could upgrade your entire system and earn a second discount which paid for the upgrade?

If there's an annual discount available that more or less matches your computer's depreciation why wouldn't you use it to upgrade while keeping your costs just at the capital outlay?

I'm sure some people would have reasons, like travel, which would prevent them... but many could, and should do so. If PCs are available with discounts then do the same thing... just check if the depreciation isn't significantly greater than the discount... because, obviously, if the depreciation is great you're better off getting some mileage out of the computer and trying buy at the lowest initial cost.

In my experience it tends to be greater for PCs (which makes the method I suggested unfeasible) and just about break even for Macs (given what discounts Apple offers). Bear in mind that Apple's Higher Education discounts are more generous than the standard High School discount shown on the Education Apple store. Call and say you're in University... it's usually 12%.


By Alexstarfire on 8/24/2009 9:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but how can a discount pay for an upgrade? If you could sell your computer for the same price as the new/better one you are purchasing then that's conceivable, but that's not what you are saying. You're simply saying that you'd end up paying less for an upgrade. But if an upgrade isn't necessary then why get it at all? Which is the point I'm trying to make.

Also, getting a student discount isn't going to help if you're not a student, which is a very small portion of the population. If you can get the discount that's great, but it shouldn't be factored in if not everyone can get the discount. Most people who are going to be buying a laptop every year or two certainly aren't going to be students. They will certainly have no need for it, and probably not the funds for it either.


By gstrickler on 8/25/2009 2:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

If you can buy at a significant discount (not everyone can) and the item has high residual value when sold used, you can use that ability to buy at a discount to reduce (or in some cases eliminate) your cost of ownership.

For example, let's assume you can buy a machine at a 12% discount from retail. Further, because of it's high residual value, assume that machine will typically sell for about 75% of retail when it's used and 1 year old. That means you can buy now at 88% of retail, use it for a year, and sell at 75% of retail. Your net cost of ownership for 1 year is 13% of retail. If you're talking about a $2000 MacBook Pro, 13% of $2000 is $260. $260/year for a full featured notebook is pretty good by any measure.

In practice, it's not usually quite that cheap because to maintain the residual value, you'll probably need 3 years of AppleCare on the machine. In many cases, selling at 15-18 months old might work better. Despite that, I've actually made money on two of the Macs I've owned. I bought them at a notable discount, used them for 3-12 months and sold them for more (yes more) than I paid for them. The trick is buying a good machine in the first place and knowing when to sell it (and buy a new machine). The bottom line is that if you have access to purchasing items at a significant discount and those items have a high residual resale value, you can use those items for low cost, possibly even no cost (except for the depreciation of the currency). In a few cases, you might even make money on the deal.

It's rather like leasing a car. If you lease a car with a high residual value, your lease payments can be surprisingly low even on an "expensive" car. Lease a car with a lower residual value and your lease payments can be higher, even if the car is cheaper. Like auto leasing, this method of buying computers is not for everyone, but for some people it's very cost effective, and you always get to use the newest equipment.

I don't generally employ that method, I tend to keep computers for 3+ years, but there have been exceptions as noted above, so I know that it can work.


By on 8/24/2009 7:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I agree it is a good move, but I feel unless you move to newer hardware, you're pretty much SOL.


How would you know this for a fact without actually trying Snow Leopard?

quote:
There is no reason why my Macbook can't address 8GB of ram with a 64-bit OS, but Apple went ahead and made sure to cripple it to only work with a maximum of 2GB of ram, which sucks. I have a laptop that cost $1700 at the time it was purchased, but it was crippled by the company.

Dells, HPs, Lenovos, etc with the same hardware from the same period could support 8GB of ram, provided you have a 64-bit OS.


Sorry, this claim is simply wrong.

From your other posts, there is enough information to identify your exact Macbook model: http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/stat...

This MacBook model has GMA950 graphics. Using the list of Intel chipsets at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_chipset... we can eliminate the possibility of 8GB. All the mobile chipsets with GMA950 are codenamed "Calistoga". There is only one Calistoga variant which supports more than 2GB while also having GMA950: the 945GM, which supports 4GB.

Does that mean you can really use 4GB on the 945GM? No. If you carefully read the chip's manual:

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/309219.p...

You will find that it doesn't support 64-bit addresses for PCI, so PCI devices are always mapped below 4GB. It has a register, TOLUD, which is used to set the partition point between RAM and PCI address space. Every address below TOLUD is interpreted as a RAM address by the address decoder, and everything above is an access to PCI.

The highest possible setting for TOLUD reserves 128MB for the APIC (Advanced Programmable Interrupt Controller), probably since the APIC is the most essential memory mapped peripheral (a computer without an interrupt controller isn't terribly useful). This means that in theory -- if the OS/machine does not need any use of PCI devices other than the APIC -- a 945GM computer could use as much as 3.875GB of RAM.

In practice, of course, reserving more address space for PCI devices is required for a useful machine. You probably wouldn't be able to use things like USB, ATA/SATA, etc. if TOLUD was set to its maximum value. Apple appears to have chosen 1GB as the amount to reserve for PCI, leaving 3GB for DRAM.

Apple also chose to only advertise the machine as supporting 2GB, even though their firmware is set up to allow 3GB. Why they did this, I do not know, although I think I have a reasonable guess. The 945GM has a dual-channel memory controller. Installing SODIMMs in size-matched pairs allows it to enable "symmetric mode", which increases performance. That means if you want 3GB without disabling interleave, you are forced to buy two 2GB SODIMMs and waste half of one of them.

Apple is not a company which wants to try to explain something as complex as this to a non technical consumer. So you get a bonus over the promised 2GB, provided that you're willing to live with reduced performance (a 1GB+2GB DIMM configuration) or wasted memory (2+2).


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By gstrickler on 8/24/2009 7:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is essentially a service pack.
It's "essentially a service pack" in exactly the same way that Windows 7 is "essentially a service pack" for Vista. Service packs are to fix compatibility, stability, security, or bugs. Occasionally a vendor will add new features or make notable infrastructure changes in a service pack, but that is rare.

It's a major update/rewrite of the infrastructure with a number of new technologies that end users won't use directly, but will benefit end users in the long run.

It provides a compeletely rewritten user shell (the Finder), MS Exchange support, and faster backups, those are the major change users will see.

Behind the scenes, it includes a significantly rewritten kernel (both 32-bit and 64-bit versions) that is smaller and faster, a new multi-threading technology and scheduler, a new QuickTime architecture, new 64-bit versions of all the major included applications, and OpenCL.

Far more than a service pack by any measure, and comparable to the differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Mac OS X 10.6 upgrade from 10.5 = $29, $169 for users of Mac OS 10.4 (includes newest iLife and iWork applications). Earlier versions of Mac OS aren't relevant because all Macs that are compatible with 10.6 shipped with 10.4 or 10.5.

Windows 7 upgrade from Window XP/Vista (and possibly from any prior Windows) = $119 (Home Premium), $199 (Pro), $219 (Ultimate). Note that you must upgrade to at least a version that is comparable to your current version (Ultimate to Ultimate, Business to Pro/Ultimate, Home Premium to Home Premium/Pro/Ultimate, etc.)

Those are all MSRP, so you may be able to get lower prices. Both offer discounted upgrades for users who purchased a new machine in June or later (exact dates vary).
quote:
People are kidding themselves if they really think the move to 64 bit will actually increase the speed of the OS substantially, especially on older hardware with less RAM are kidding themselves. 64GB environment with 2GB RAM (or less) = no thanks, no matter what OS you run.
Because of the way Apple implemented their 32/64-bit system, users who move to 64-bit will see a performance boost, as long as they have a 64-bit enabled machine with 2GB RAM. Even users who remain on the 32-bit kernel will see some performance boost from the streamlined kernel and rewritten Finder. That means that every machine that is capable of running 10.6 should see some performance boost. You might bother to learn something about Mac OS X before making baseless comments about it.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By DEredita on 8/24/2009 7:38:08 PM , Rating: 2
I much rather pay $200 for an OS upgrade on a machine that can have the memory upgraded, than pay $29 on a machine that can only support 2GB of memory.

Now if this OS upgrade also included firmware upgrades that flash the machine to enable upgrading the memory to 4GB or 8GB, than I would be satisfied.

All of my Windows machines have 4GB to 8GB of memory, they all have been affordable, and are highly capable machines of doing heavy Adobe CS4 work with 64-bit Adobe applications (something the Mac doesn't have).


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By gstrickler on 8/25/2009 12:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I much rather pay $200 for an OS upgrade on a machine that can have the memory upgraded, than pay $29 on a machine that can only support 2GB of memory.
Either you don't read or you just like ignoring facts. The machine in question isn't limited to 2GB, it can have 4GB installed, and just like Windows machines based upon the same chipset, it can only use 3GB of that 4GB, so there is no reason to install more than 3GB.
quote:
Now if this OS upgrade also included firmware upgrades that flash the machine to enable upgrading the memory to 4GB or 8GB, than I would be satisfied.
What part of "it's a hardware limitation" didn't you understand? His machine uses the Intel 965GM chipset, which supports a maximum of 4GB of RAM. The first Intel mobile chipsets that support more than 4GB of RAM were introduced in Q3 '08, 8+ months after his particular model was discontinued. In fact, neither Intel, AMD, nor Nvidia made a MOBILE chipset capable of supporting more than 4GB RAM prior to 2008. A firmware update can NOT provide support for addressing that isn't supported by the hardware.

Just in case I was unclear the first 5 times, 4GB is a limitation of the chipset and there is nothing Apple or anyone else can do about that.
quote:
All of my Windows machines have 4GB to 8GB of memory, they all have been affordable, and are highly capable machines of doing heavy Adobe CS4 work with 64-bit Adobe applications (something the Mac doesn't have).
You're correct that CS4 for the Mac is 32-bit only, and Adobe plans to address that in CS5. See this adobe blog for details.
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_...

However, 32-bit on Mac is not the same as 32-bit on Windows. 32-bit versions of Windows (excluding the very expensive "Data Center" or "Enterprise" editions) are limited to a maximum of about 3.5GB RAM (less on most hardware configurations, as little as 2.2GB on some). 32-bit Windows apps are limited to 2GB (yes, I know about the /3GB boot.ini switch, it's not really relevant and it's of very limited use). From a practical standpoint, 32-bit Windows is limited to 2GB/app and about 3GB total RAM. You need a 64-bit version of Windows to actually use 4GB or more and you need 64-bit applications to make use of more than 2GB/app.

32-bit Mac applications can use a full 4GB and the 32-bit kernel in Mac OS X (10.4 and later) can support up to 32GB of RAM. In short, a 5GB Mac with Mac OS X 10.5 and 32-bit versions of CS4 can use the same amount of RAM a 5GB PC running 64-bit Vista and 64-bit CS4 can.

Your 4GB machine has no real advantage over a 4GB Mac running CS4, and your 8GB machine has only a small advantage vs an 8GB Mac, and then only if you're working with really large images.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By encia on 8/27/2009 9:54:52 AM , Rating: 2
Dell M1530 (Santa Rosa Chipset) can support more than 4GB of RAM.

Refer to http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=2...

6GB of RAM was installed.


By gstrickler on 9/16/2009 6:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
I had a typo in my post. The Santa Rosa (965) chipset can support up to 8GB of RAM, however, the machine in question has the Napa (945) chipset, which is limited to 4GB RAM. As I said, it's a hardware limitation.


RE: Can someone tell me why I should be excited?
By Parhel on 8/24/2009 3:21:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Will this speed up my older 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo white Macbook


Why do Mac users feel the need to tell you what color their system is when they post? No kidding . . . I see that all the time and nobody else does that about any other platform.

Will it change the answer? "Well, it doesn't speed up the silver ones, but since you have a white one . . ."


By DEredita on 8/24/2009 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 5

Because there were also black and aluminum Macbooks, which featured different hardware.


By gstrickler on 8/25/2009 12:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
In some cases, the color or other distinguishing feature is officially used (at least in Apple tech documents) to differentiate between similar models with different hardware. They could give the specific model number or revision, but no one would recognize those as quickly and they're a lot harder to remember.


I like the name....
By AEvangel on 8/24/2009 1:51:35 PM , Rating: 5
I like the fact that Apple is calling it "Snow Leopard", perhaps as an early warning to their customers that it wont do well in the heat like their 3Gs iPhones.




RE: I like the name....
By sapiens74 on 8/24/2009 2:47:12 PM , Rating: 1
You tried to hard on that one bro.....


RE: I like the name....
By soydios on 8/24/2009 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 1
<grammar>
*too*
</grammar>


RE: I like the name....
By sinful on 8/24/2009 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 3
Isn't the Snow Leopard an endangered species..?

;)


RE: I like the name....
By sebmel on 8/24/2009 3:26:34 PM , Rating: 4
If they wanted to suggest unreliability they ought to have called it OS Xbox. Nothing sets a worse example:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=16054...


RE: I like the name....
By teng029 on 8/25/2009 12:06:41 AM , Rating: 1
that comment was beyond stupid.


Exchange Server 2007?
By jonmcc33 on 8/24/2009 7:39:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Snow Leopard is the only desktop operating system with built in support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007...


Who in their right mind would run Exchange Server 2007 on anything but an Active Directory (Windows Server) environment? That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard from Apple yet. Apple...you continue to disappoint.

Bob: Email is down again!
Harry: Why is that?
Bob: Steve decided to power down his MacBook Pro and take it home again so there goes our Exchange Server!

Just rolling my eyes at the concept...honestly.




RE: Exchange Server 2007?
By InsaneScientist on 8/25/2009 12:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
You wouldn't... Actually, you can't.
Exchange 2007 requires a litany of Active Directory requirements:
The Schema Master must be running Windows Server 2003 SP1 or later
At least one global catalog server must be running Windows Server 2003 SP1 or later
Enterprise level Exchange installations require at least one domain controller running Windows Server 2003 SP1 or later - Standard installations require Windows Server 2000 or later
The domain functional level must be at the Windows 2000 native level or higher
etc, etc, etc...

There's a heck of a lot more, but I'm tired of typing, and you probably don't care what the requirements are (and if you do, they're well documented, so look them up). The only reason I know all this is that I'm neck deep in an Exchange 2003/2007 transition right now.

But, to answer the implied question (i.e. why would this matter) there are an unfortunate number of circumstances in the IT world where the boss or someone that you don't have control over has decided that they're going to get a Mac and it's your job as an IT person to make it work on the network.

Over the years, Apple has made strides in making this reasonable with the introduction of SMB access to windows shares and the addition and refinement of an Active Directory plugin built into OSX.

Now they're adding client support (I think the reason that you're confused is that you're thinking it's server support) for Microsoft Exchange, which is the principle enterprise e-mail system out there.

Now if only they'll add the ability to browse computers (or servers) in an Active Directory environment rather than having to connect directly to the shares, we might actually be at the point where Macs make an acceptable alternative in certain scenarios rather than simply a nightmare for systems administrators. :)


RE: Exchange Server 2007?
By Senju on 8/25/2009 12:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
Now if only they'll add the ability to browse computers (or servers) in an Active Directory environment rather than having to connect directly to the shares, we might actually be at the point where Macs make an acceptable alternative in certain scenarios rather than simply a nightmare for systems administrators. :)

I completely aggree. AD is a mess to setup and the browsing picks up server names like proxy servers. This is a big security risk so I really wish APPLE would address those issues. If you have SANS file sharing that holds user home directories, forget it!!! OS10 gets completely confused!!!
Apple always reminds that their products are not for the enterprise but they market them that way and the end-users get big expectations!!! For now, I just solve all this by installing VMWare with XP and go home!!! :D


RE: Exchange Server 2007?
By Senju on 8/25/2009 12:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
You sound very young! There are many ways to connect to Exchange using a MAPI client. Entourage via OS10.5 can already do this. However, it looks like native support for Exchange2007 is a welcome feature for the Enterprise. This is many for admins since the setup should be a lot easier. The MAC user can already have access to Exchange2003 but the single sign-on with AD is a mess. Anyway, there is a huge population of MAC users that demand access to Exchange.

So..."the stupidest thing I have ever heard" is really not that stupid! It is a blessing from a Exchange Admin point of view.


RE: Exchange Server 2007?
By ffakr on 8/25/2009 1:14:24 AM , Rating: 2
You don't understand.. or perhaps I'm not appreciating the humor.

10.6 supports Exchange, it doesn't run exchange.

Window's doesn't bundle Outlook but Apple's bundles Mail and iCal apps can interface with Exchange 2007 via MAPI.


Is this an upgrade only?
By Assimilator87 on 8/24/2009 6:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
I was planning on buying Snow Leopard to run OSx86, but the article only mentions upgrading from Leopard for the $29 license. Is there a different SKU for full installs or does the $29 one do that as well?




RE: Is this an upgrade only?
By SiliconAddict on 8/24/2009 6:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
And install is an install is an install for OS X. There is no actual upgrade vs. full install disk. However I would wait at least until the first patch arrives. They rushed this to market to match Windows 7’s release. $20 says there are going to be some pretty heinous bugs found and patched within a month. I went through 10.4 and 10.5 and both were buggy out of the gate for me.


RE: Is this an upgrade only?
By ffakr on 8/25/2009 1:06:37 AM , Rating: 2
10.5 was awful. They significantly rewrote directory services and it hosed our AD integration for a year.

10.6 looks better so far. The biggest complaint is with Adobe.. but their software sucks equally on Windows 7 and 10.6. Said software shall remain nameless.. by me.


By SiliconAddict on 8/24/2009 6:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've got $20 on 4 weeks out from launch.




EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15;
By on 8/28/2009 10:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
HTTP://www.crispstyle.com

the website kicksquality :/ for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the

nike,jordan,prama,****, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the

decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive,

and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short

time.

free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

our price:
gstar coogi evisu true jeans $36;

coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;

coogi DG edhardy gucci t-shirts $15;

CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes $35;

jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33;

EDhardy gucci ny New Era cap $15;

coach okely **** CHANEL DG Sunglass $16;

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s28 ( JORDAN SHOES )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s1 ( Ed Hardy )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s5 ( Bikini )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s6 ( T-Shirt )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s29 ( Nike_shox )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s21 ( Air_max_man )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s65 ( Handbag )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s11 ( Jeans )

http://www.crispstyle.com/productlist.asp?id=s6 ( Polo tshirt )




By on 8/30/2009 11:02:43 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.crispstyle.com

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch $31

http://www.crispstyle.com




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki