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

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.


"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














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