Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OS X Snow Leopard Details

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the padding-on-little-cold-feet dept.

OS X 489

JD-1027 writes in to kick off a discussion of OS X Snow Leopard. Apple's stated goal: "Taking a break from adding new features, Snow Leopard — scheduled to ship in about a year — builds on Leopard's enormous innovations by delivering a new generation of core software technologies that will streamline Mac OS X, enhance its performance, and set new standards for quality." The technologies: Grand Central to get better use of multiple processors and multicore chips, OpenCL to tap the power of the GPU, 64 bit so we can finally have our 16 TB of RAM, QuickTime X for optimized modern codec performance, and built in Exchange support in iCal, Address Book, and Apple Mail that most likely will help get Macs into corporate environments. We've previously discussed ZFS in the server version of Snow Leopard."

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23780995)

I for one welcome our new apple discussion-kicking overlords

One wonders... (4, Insightful)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781049)

...if this will be a free upgrade similarly to the upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1. It would seem hard to justify a purchase price of anything more than $20 that adds only additional stability and developer tools. If anything, this version seems more geared for developers than end-users.

Re:One wonders... (-1, Offtopic)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781073)

Oh, and, uh, first post!

Re:One wonders... (3, Insightful)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781125)

Oh, and, uh, first post!
Awww...you were doing so well until this...

Sorry. (4, Funny)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781655)

Only after posting did I realize it was the "first" and got swept up in the excitement of it all. I promise it won't happen again. :)

Let me get the rest out of my system, so I am not tempted:

o Does it run Linux?
o Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these
o Profit!
o In Soviet Russia, post firsts you!

Re:One wonders... (5, Interesting)

TobyRush (957946) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781983)

Sure, the boosts in efficiency and stability will be welcome, but I for one am very excited about full Exchange support in iCal and Address Book. Heck, the Exchange support in Mail is a bit spotty as well, so touching that up would be great as well.

But what would really be great (and very much in line with the whole "embracing enterprise" thing) would be native support for Cisco IPsec VPN connections. As it stands, you have to use Cisco's own clunky client; if you could use the built-in client you could connect via a menubar icon. (Shimo does this pretty nicely, but it just became crippleware.)

It seems like an obvious addition, given the iPhone 2.0 OS is supposed to have it. Anyone know if it's on the docket for Snow Leopard?

Re:One wonders... (-1, Troll)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781285)

Before reading your post I was wondering if I would be reading a comment that would mention 10.1 and make the comparison and then suggest that we should receive some sort of discount because of no new features. If you think this 10.6 release only provides 'additional stability and developer tools' then you're half right since Apple state themselves that there will be no end user features. Well done on pointing out the obvious! You're not thinking about the second layer of ground work being developed here that will springboard us into a healthy looking 10.7 and .8 release. I think its insulting to only want to pay $20 for something which will provide current Intel machines with a refinement of OSX's technologies. At the moment I have a MB with 4 of RAM and a huge capacity HD with a 7200rpm drive, my only upgrades are a SSD or a faster operating, my only options before buying a whole machine. I would be glad to pay full price if it means not buying a new computer in 3 years time because of the streamlining of OSX taking place. This isn't a 10.1 people and Apple knows that. If you don't want to pay for some polish then wait for the shiny to come in 10.7, its not like Apple take 5 years to release a new version of their operating like some companies do.

Re:One wonders... (1, Funny)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781509)

I have a MB with 4 of RAM and a huge capacity HD with a 7200rpm drive

Do what?

My best guess translation.

I have a motherboard with 4GB of RAM and a huge capacity 7200rpm harddrive.

Re:One wonders... (2, Insightful)

BorgCopyeditor (590345) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781709)

MB = MacBook?

Re:One wonders... (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781515)

Um, since when are "stability and performance" considered "features", I would call them the basis of every operating system. I don't think I should have to shell out more money for "stability and performance" because they should have been included with Leopard, but obviously were not.

Re:One wonders... (3, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781663)

Well, most users are comparing against Windows on a Dell, not Irix on an O2. "stability and performance" seem like luxuries in comparison.

Or so I've heard.

Re:One wonders... (3, Interesting)

prefect42 (141309) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781777)

IRIX on an O2 as a pinnacle of stability?

Hahaha. IRIX back then was so buggy I'm amazed that the user experience was as good as it was.

Re:One wonders... (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782015)

Yeah, but it sure looked cool in Jurassic Park :-p

Re:One wonders... (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781691)

I think they have been included, its not like OSX is constantly crashing and buggy as hell. A refinement itself would create bugs that would need fixing.

Re:One wonders... (4, Interesting)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781967)

OS X Tiger isn't buggy, Leopard on the other hand is a steaming pile. I have constant problems with it, both at work and at home. Hell, iTunes, an app you think Apple would have put some effort into perfecting, manages to crash on a daily basis. I hit the little report button, but Steve is so obsessed with the iPhone it seems Leopard bugs are getting the cold shoulder.

Re:One wonders... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782043)

Indeed, it sounds remarkably like something M$ would do.

OS X SP 2, anyone?

Re:One wonders... (4, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781891)

Okay, I guess I implied too much in my comment about paying $20. What I meant to say was that I can't imagine that Apple would roll out the release bandwagon as they did for both Leopard and Tiger (t-shirts, closing the Apple store for a couple of hours, etc.) for this particular release as they've stated that there are no features that would inspire my mom to want to upgrade immediately.

That said, Apple has done amazing things with every release of OSX and I look forward to Snow Leopard as much as every other release. I simply didn't read it as something that anyone should treat as a Really Big Deal, even to the point that Jobs barely mentioned it in the keynote, unlike Leopard that got its coming out party twice.

Therefore, if a 10.6 box just appeared in the Apple stores, but didn't get much mention, it would probably be missed by most. Sure it would be pre-installed on new machines, but where would be the hype to get everyone on it as quickly as possible? This is why I was thinking about the 10.0->10.1 upgrade; if this is the first Intel-only release, how would they sell a version that offers no new features, and is unavailable to everyone who doesn't haven an Intel machine? I, personally, wouldn't want to be in the marketing department trying to sell 10.6; if they just make it available as a download, they might ultimately save a lot of $$$ that would have been spent trying to market it, then explain it, correct the marketing, etc.

Jubeezus Folks get a grip (5, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781395)

Jobs announces he's going to enormously simplify the morass of parallel programming and then also take GPU programming languages far beyond NVIDIA. And he's going to make this all in the core of the OS so it will be ubiquitous.

Oh and one more thing, we've already done it and it's going to be in our next release

Then I read posts about "well what about NTFS or Power PC".

Jebezus! get a sense of proportion here. Yeah NTFS might sell a few enterprise computers. So maybe that matter financially. But apple's doing fine with it's cash flow and we won't be talking about NTFS 5 years from now.

We will be talking about the future of computing which is how to tame and unify alternative and multicore architectures in a way the programmer does not need to worry about.

That's earthshaking if it could be done next year! Now a lot of people have blunted there spears chargin at this one so one needs a healthy dose of skepticism that it could be accomplished in a decade let alone in a few months. On the other hand the one person we know not to scoff at when he says he's going to make something complex really simple, retain 99% of it's power, and deliver it ubiquitously and accessibly is Jobs/Apple.

So doubt and wonder. Pour awe and skepticism. But fuck, don't ask about NTFS when this kind of thing is being annouced. You might as well ask about Zune support in Itunes.

Re:One wonders... (4, Insightful)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781495)

And thus Microsoft dominates. The prevailing attitude is to pay for new features, but not to pay for stability, security, or optimization.

Re:One wonders... (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782023)

Well, yeah.. If Apple sold Leopard at a discount because of its instability, insecurity and inefficiency then they could charge for upgrades to those aspects. But I don't remember hearing about anything like that from Apple, and now they want to charge for something we expected to be in there anyway?

This is why no-one expects to pay for service packs. Can you imagine the uproar if MS charged for XP SP1/2/3?

The fun part is the counter-argument has always been "This OSX point upgrade has over 200 breathtaking new features!", but here even that doesn't apply; it really is going to be a stability upgrade like a service pack.

No-one but Apple would escape criticism for selling stability, security and performance updates...

Re:One wonders... (1)

triyaka (1307245) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782103)

That's a weird argument considering considering Microsoft just starting charging a WAD to 'upgrade' from XP to Vista. The latter moved users a generation backwards. Should Snow Leopard prove to be speedier or more graphically aesthetic, I wouldn't hesitate to pay $20. No OS author claims their software is perfect as-is when published. It's always logical to assume that advances will be made. It's already hard to believe Snow Leopard could be any more stable than Leopard (which is already lightyears more stable than Win XPsp3).

Re:One wonders... (1)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782115)

And thus Microsoft dominates. The prevailing attitude is to pay for new features, but not to pay for stability, security, or optimization.

It's hard to sell stability or security to OS X users, because they already believe their platform is stable and secure. Hell, stability is probably a hard sell to XP or 2000 users too at this point since those OS's are fairly stable compared to others in the past.

Re:One wonders... (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781645)

I dunno, if they make it smaller enough and faster enough I'd pay $60 for it, even with no extra features.

Re:One wonders... (4, Insightful)

gomerbud (117904) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781677)

Native Exchange support for Apple Mail is well worth more than $20. I won't have to suffer as a second class citizen at work any more.

Re:One wonders... (0, Flamebait)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782039)

Native Exchange support for Apple Mail is well worth more than $20.
Not to me.

That's why I'm going to buy it. (5, Insightful)

DancesWithBlowTorch (809750) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782159)

...if this will be a free upgrade similarly to the upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1. It would seem hard to justify a purchase price of anything more than $20 that adds only additional stability and developer tools.
While reflections on the desktop and a new way to flip through folders would be worth $120 to you?
You see, this attitude of consumers is exactly why companies like Apple and Windows have so far focussed more on building OSes that look good, rather than work well. People want a shiny new thing, not a really efficient, rock solid operating system, because they have got used to crashes, useless error-messages, viruses and spam.

For me, this is the most enthralling idea in the End-User computer market in years. Finally, a company decides it's time to stop adding new eye-candy. Instead, Apple is taking a step back and taking their time to iron out the bugs and add actual innovation.

OpenCL sounds amazing. If it works as advertised, it will give developers who really care about performance the option to tap into the hugely parallel architecture available on the GPU that was inacessible to most of us so far (unless we wanted to learn the obscure proprietary semi-languages of ATI, IBM and nVidia).

Grand Central seems to be just the opposite of this: It will make sure those eight cores we'll soon all have in our machines will actually get used, even if the developers who wrote the programs we run didn't care to think about parallelization.

I'm bying Apple stocks. At a time when Microsoft's developers are once again falling victim to the marketing department (remember when Windows 7 was supposed to be a clean new start?), Apple is taking a bold step in what I think is the right direction.

How about NTFS read-write? (2, Interesting)

caution live frogs (1196367) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781055)

How about NTFS, Apple? About damn time OS X supported read-write for NTFS - hard to bring it into corporate environment when you can't read from a Windows partition. NTFS-3G drivers are stable, they ought to have been integrated with Leopard to begin with.

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (1)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781099)

Man, I'd love to see NTFS support on Mac....it's so frustrating bringing work to and from a PC =(

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (3, Interesting)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781131)

How about NTFS, Apple? About damn time OS X supported read-write for NTFS - hard to bring it into corporate environment when you can't read from a Windows partition. NTFS-3G drivers are stable, they ought to have been integrated with Leopard to begin with.
I'd rather see them license something from MSFT like they did with Active Sync and Exchange support in OS X. Paragon Software has a stable read/write drive which I already own and it seems to integrate well into OS X.

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781217)

hard to bring it into corporate environment when you can't read from a Windows partition.
How so? As a desktop client, Mac OS X has already had excellent support for SMB/CIFS for quite sometime. Mac OS X Server also has an excellent implementation of CIFS powered by Samba+LDAP and can even join an ActiveDirectory domain.

Yeah, if the Winbox and Mac are separate machines (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781467)

As a desktop client, Mac OS X has already had excellent support for SMB/CIFS for quite sometime.
That doesn't help with dual-boot PCs. To make CIFS mounting useful with Windows and Mac partitions on a single hard drive, you'd probably need to run Windows (or Linux with NTFS-3G) in a virtual machine.

Re:Yeah, if the Winbox and Mac are separate machin (4, Insightful)

shird (566377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781537)

"That doesn't help with dual-boot PCs"

The GP was referring to a 'coporate' environment. It's pretty rare to have dual boot machines, it's either one or the other, with networked resources. If you want to dual boot, your data would still be stored on remote servers and accessed via CIFS/whatever in a corporate environment anyway.

Re:Yeah, if the Winbox and Mac are separate machin (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781893)

In fact, in all my years of working in corporate environments I have seen a grand total of ONE dual-boot machine and it was custom-built for a specialized purpose involving some discreet simulation software that ran on both Linux and Windows and it was so occasional that the Windows version was needed that it was deemed a waste of money to have two machines, so they decided to dual boot the Linux box. *shrug*

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (1)

Amiga Trombone (592952) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781531)

How so? As a desktop client, Mac OS X has already had excellent support for SMB/CIFS for quite sometime. Mac OS X Server also has an excellent implementation of CIFS powered by Samba+LDAP and can even join an ActiveDirectory domain.

It has support for SMB/CIFS. "Excellent" is pushing it a bit...

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781393)

You mean, sort of like how MacFUSE [google.com] enables tons of FUSE filesystems, including NTFS, to be used with your Macintosh? Old news.

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (2, Funny)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781679)

Right, and is microsoft going to as ZFS read-write support? Umm, no.

Re:How about NTFS read-write? (2, Funny)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781997)

lmao...

Right, and you're implying that ZFS has anywhere *near* the penetration of NTFS?

???

I hope not. That would be incredibly stupid of you.

To wait or not to wait (0)

Slimee (1246598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781065)

I'm curious as to whether or not I should wait to upgrade my Tiger to Leopard, or just wait a year for Snow to come out and just upgrade to that. Though, I dunno that I'll really have a terrible need for SnowLeopard given that I have a first generation Macbook...not even a Pro=\.

I'm kinda surprised though to see a new OS release so soon from the original Leopard...Like they said, it's no major jump...I guess saying it's like Windows 98 to Windows 2000...as opposed to XP to Vista. But why am I making Windows analogies in a Mac story? Please don't hurt me!

I'm also curious as to what the price point will be for its release, and if its release will bring a price drop to the original Leopard making it more enticing to people who haven't made the changeover yet.

Re:To wait or not to wait (3, Funny)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781165)

it's no major jump...I guess saying it's like Windows 98 to Windows 2000...as opposed to XP to Vista. But why am I making Windows analogies in a Mac story? Please don't hurt me!
Windows 2000 was a major improvement over Windows 98. And, arguably, they weren't in the same line at the time anyway. 2000 used the NT kernel while 98 was on the DOS kernel.

XP to Vista, arguably, was a more minor upgrade. (And, I use the term "upgrade" very loosely. That should be good for a few mod points.)

Re:To wait or not to wait (1)

codemachine (245871) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781271)

I think you mean Windows 98 to Windows ME. ME was basically a small update to 98, same kernel and basically the same UI. Windows 2000 was based on NT4. Windows 2000 had a similar UI skin to the Win9x series, and did include the win32 bits, but was far different besides that.

Re:To wait or not to wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781589)

2000 to XP, not 98 to 2000, given that that was a huge jump architecturally, and most of your 98 apps (at least gaming-wise) wouldn't run on 2000.

Actually come to think of it, 98 to ME would be a better reference :D

Re:To wait or not to wait (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781873)

Leopard was the longest time we waited between OS X releases (And one of the top few longest between all Apple releases). You must be new to Macs/Apple. I would be very surprised if Jobs didn't say anything about the 'next' release. Whether it be 10.6 or 10.5.5

10.0 - March 24, 2001
10.1 - September 25, 2001
10.2 - August 23, 2002
10.3 - October 24, 2003
10.4 - April 29, 2005
10.5 - October 26, 2007

That's 6 months, 11 months, 14 months, 18 months, 30 months.

Heck looking at Wiki, Apple has always kept a relatively short release time (Nothing as short linux kernels, but absolutely nothing as long as Microsoft)

1.0 - Jan 84
2.0 - Apr 85
3.0 - Jan 86
4.0 - Mar 87
5.0 - ???
6.0 - Apr 88
7.0 - Jun 91
8.0 - July 97
9.0 - Oct 99

64 bit (1)

kraemate (1065878) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781089)

Isnt Leopard 64 bit already??
And if not, apple is making a 64bit OS this late?
(btw i run leopard.. how do i check if its 64 bit? (core 2duo proc)

Re:64 bit (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781523)

Some of the tools delivered by Apple in Leopard aren't. Like System Preferences modules, kernel extensions and some plugins. And I think there was still a limit of 16Gb of RAM because the memory manager wasn't fully there (I could be wrong though).

Re:64 bit (1)

WMD_88 (843388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781821)

Apple lets you configure a Mac Pro with 32GB RAM, so I doubt 10.5 only supports 16.

Lack of PowerPC support? (3, Insightful)

rsborg (111459) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781107)

The dev builds don't support it now, and Apple claims [apple.com] that:

Snow Leopard dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users, and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos.
Is the universal binary on it's way out?

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781605)

There are already some programs that provide only Intel builds out there for Mac. It's annoying, but my Intel machine is my main one (the PowerPC one I keep just because I don't want to sell it or throw it away :)).

It's just the Apple mindset, and it's kind of ironic. Apple computers do tend to be well built, and last a good while, but Apple's stance seems to be that everyone should always be buying the latest and greatest, and that you should ALWAYS have their latest OS release.

Look at software applications for example. Many of them already now require OS X 10.5 or newer. My PowerPC mac runs 10.4 and I have no intention of upgrading it, so I'm shut out of those applications completely (except for older versions). Windows software on the other hand: most stuff out there now will work at least as far back as Windows 2000. Not as much, but still a lot of stuff will work back to Windows 98 and some ever Windows 95.

Basically just accept: if you want to be part of the Mac club, Apple expects you to be regularly dishing out cash for their stuff.

For what it's worth, I do thoroughly enjoy using a Mac (though I have Windows and Linux systems too). I just am not happy being forced to move up from 10.4 to 10.5 when I didn't want to at the time.

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (2, Insightful)

evand (2571) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781835)

I don't understand how it's Apple's fault that the authors of the software you want to use choose to only support 10.5. I understand why they would, as Leopard has some pretty nice upgrades for developers, but Apple certainly doesn't mandate that they do so.

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782017)

Apple indirectly causes it by setting up Xcode so that by default (and often by requirement depending on the features you want to use) it always wants to produce code that works on the same version it's running on.

There's also the case where many of Apple's own applications work in much the same way (the newest version of Safari for example, requires not only 10.5, but 10.5.2).

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782053)

It is the problem of providing developers new toys to play with on a very regular basis. Because a new major windows coming with a truly new development platform takes like five to six years to get out, and even when it gets out, it's in the culture to support old stuff as long as humanely possible.

By releasing a new OS X development platform that is not backward compatible every year or two Apple is the culprit that gives incentive to its developer community to do the bad thing.
Microsoft got as far as giving XP the power to run XAML apps even though it's the latest and greatest in windows GUI libraries.

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781935)

Apple's Stance to is fade out support for old hardware. Tiger eliminated G3 support. I doubt snow leopard will drop G5 support seeing how it is 64 bit. Of course it will be three and a half years since apple started supporting Intel at all. A complete drop of powerPC is about due.

it is something you either love or hate about Apple. Apple has been the first to drop old hardware and software designs which hamper innovation.

Case in point with USB ports why are some computers still shipping with PS/2 ports? Everyone laughed at Apple for dropping the floppy drive yet 5 years later everyone had done the same thing.

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782129)

Case in point with USB ports why are some computers still shipping with PS/2 ports?
Why not? USB doesn't really offer much over PS/2, and because PS/2 ports have their own interrupts, they tend to respond more snappily (I've had cases where on a USB keyboard on a system under load, the computer couldn't keep up with my typing and everything was appearing a half second or so after I'd typed it. the same has never occurred on PS/2 keyboards). Of course, I'm just a weirdo that way. As an interesting note, my Dell here at work bought about a year ago still sports a factory installed 3.5" floppy ;).

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (1)

Brummund (447393) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781973)

Blaming software vendors for not supporting 1.4 is kind of quirky, as it is really upto the software vendors what versions they will support, isn't it? I can imagine that quite a few of the free(ware) software will only support one version (after all, it is free), but if there's a market, I'd guess the commercial vendors would provide support for 1.4 as well?

(As for me, I've been wearing jeans and a turtle neck for a few years now, and it was only natural that I this year made the final leap, and got myself a Mac. My previous computers have all been running (Debian) Linux, except for a few laptops with Windows.

I haven't had so much fun since my old Amiga days while getting into Mac OS X. God, I love it. Granted, it is not perfect, but most of my problems have been related to thirdparty apps (Growl 1.2 to 1.3, and some confusion related to installing for all users or myself). Also, the Finder is somewhat quirky, and I don't get why I can't add folders anywhere I want on my dock.

My motivation for using Linux wasn't necessarily the fact that most of the software was free, but that I reall did loathe using Windows for my everday needs.

I am more than happy to pay my way to get working software. Of course, if it is free, yeah great, but if the stuff works and its a few dollars away, who cares anyway? Steermouse was well worth the money, as the defaut mouse setup in Mac OS X is imho retarded.

Now, if I only could get the alt-keys to work in Terminal/bash, and not just print funny letters. :-)

Re:Lack of PowerPC support? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781739)

AN APOSTROPHE DOES NOT MEAN "HOLY SHIT HERE COMES AN S"!!!

it's = it is. "is the universal binary on it is way out?" WRONG. it's not like this is difficult or anything!

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

End of PowerPC Support? (4, Informative)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781113)

It is rumored that 10.6 is going to be the end of PPC support. I suppose it's time, although there are some PPC machines that are less than 4 years old. Still, as bittersweet as it is, it's probably time to let go of the legacy code and firm up the OS. I'm happy running Leopard on my Frankenmac 1.8ghz (Sonnet upgraded).

A good analysis of this decision can be read at RoughlyDrafted Magazine [roughlydrafted.com] .

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (1)

crimguy (563504) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781355)

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781471)

It still is a rumor. The only thing we are certain of is that the developer preview requires an Intel processor.

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781799)

They found lots of bugs when they were building programs for both platforms. Add in the fact that the next gen iPhones and iPods will use a PPC chip, I don't see a reason why they would drop it from their development system.

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (1)

AtariKee (455870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781915)

I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash later. Perhaps they're gauging the reaction to just the rumors of dropping PPC support.

We shall see. We shall see...

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782131)

Next gem iPhones and iPods will not use a PPC chip. They bought PA Semi for their engineering team and ability to make low power chips, not for the chips themselves. They aren't going back to PPC for anything.

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (2, Interesting)

Amiga Trombone (592952) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781971)

The only thing this demonstrates is that the developer release doesn't support PPC. Whether the production release will is still anyone's guess. I don't think we'll know for sure until it hits the shelves...

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (5, Insightful)

GreatDrok (684119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781455)

I don't see why they would drop PPC support yet. Certainly, stripping PPC code from an Intel Mac doesn't make much difference to the disc space use. Mostly, stripping out unused languages makes much more difference. I gained 2.5GB of space on my MacBook Pro by doing so and I now have universal binaries that are very similar in size to those seen in Snow.

They still have to maintain a port of Mac OS X just in case, and the also have to keep OS X running on the iPhone (Strong ARM) so I don't see the benefit of focussing just on Intel CPUs. In addition, keeping code running on PPC will help with keeping bugs down as it is often the case that just the act of compiling C code for a different architecture can result in unseen bugs showing up. As for performance tuning, rarely do you need to worry about much more than some small parts of the code to fine tune for a specific platform.

I'm not surprised that this developer preview is Intel only but I will be surprised to see the final release be Intel only. Leopard on PPC could no doubt do with some fine tuning although it does run surprisingly well on my nearly five year old G4 iBook. Besides which, the last of the PPC machines were being sold by Apple as late as the end of 2006 (PowerMac G5s) so I think it would be a bad move for them to drop support this early.

Re:End of PowerPC Support? (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781551)

I assume that, by nature of 3 architecture shifts, Mac devels know how to write and maintain portable code. (68k->PPC, PPC->x86)

A *lot* of people would be burned if they switched away already. PPC still works great for most people.

If there are some features that don't work (or even don't work well enough) on PPC, then by all means make it x86-only

But they shouldn't drop support already. Out of the people I know who switched away from Windows, the thing they've been happiest with has been the fact that they don't need a new computer every 3 years. That's a major selling point - buy a computer and it's an investment, so we'll keep it working great for YEARS.

Disclosure - I'm not a mac fanboi by any means, and use Windows on a daily basis. I'd switch to linux if it wasn't for games. But I can recognize benefits when I see 'em.

Tagged (-1, Offtopic)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781115)

Tagged: stupidname

cause well, I hate it. IARAMO (i am really a mac owner)

Re:Tagged (2, Funny)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781243)

If I have to pay for an imcremental upgrade that doesn't even fully change the name i'll be pissed but they can all it "leopard monkey" or whatever if it's a free upgrade that increases stability and gets me my 16 TB of ram

Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (2, Interesting)

gumpish (682245) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781179)

I am personally through with using Apple's "codenames" for their OS releases. It will never be anything other than "ten point six" to me.

It's almost as if Apple is trying to prove that FOSS projects don't have a monopoly on horrible names.

Yeah... "Leopard"... "Snow Leopard"... that's not gonna cause any confusion, right?

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781459)

or what about their choice of Grand Central [grandcentral.com] as their multi-threading tech? Google's not going to be too happy about that...

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (4, Funny)

DaveM753 (844913) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781497)

Robin: Leaping Leopards, Batman! Is that a Hardy Herron or a Gusty Gibbon???

Batman: Shut up. It's just 10.6, dude.

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (5, Insightful)

stefanlasiewski (63134) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781501)

Yeah... "Leopard"... "Snow Leopard"... that's not gonna cause any confusion, right?

For the end user, it sounds like Snow Leopard is a minor upgrade. With bug fixes, performance enhancements, etc. It's a 10.5 -> 10.6 upgrade. Perhaps that's why they have a minor name change, from Leopard to Snow Leopard.

Or maybe they started following the Ubuntu naming Model. Let's see, is Hardy Hippo the same thing as Ubuntu 7.06 or what?

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781715)

Or maybe they started following the Ubuntu naming Model. Let's see, is Hardy Hippo the same thing as Ubuntu 7.06 or what?
Not sure. I've personally been waiting for Sultry Sasquatch before upgrading.

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (1)

XnavxeMiyyep (782119) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781591)

However, Apple has its own monopoly on names. It's the only group that uses non-phallic code names, as opposed to Microsoft and Linux, who use names like Longhorn and Hardy Heron.

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781743)

don't forget Woody

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (1)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781607)

Yeah... "Leopard"... "Snow Leopard"... that's not gonna cause any confusion, right?
Perhaps, but the fact the names are so similar is kind of the point: 10.6 isn't going to be all that different from 10.5 on the surface, and apple is trying to set expectations accordingly.

Re:Who is in charge of codenames at Apple? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782025)

Perhaps they are just looking for a link... next one could be "Snow-white" and after that they'll have all 7 dwarfs to call their OSs after! ;)

"Snow Leopard"="Leopard, but cooler" (1)

jamrock (863246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782041)

In terms of interface, Leopard appears to be feature-complete, and I can only hypothesize that Apple is attempting to reassure PowerPC owners that they won't be left behind in that department by giving the next iteration of OS X a related name. And after looking at Apple's Snow Leopard page, I noticed something that I feel may be significant. Has anyone else noticed that nowhere on the page (nor indeed anywhere else) does Apple even mention "10.6"? Why is that? Could it be a suggestion that Apple themselves don't consider Snow Leopard to be different enough to earn the distinction over 10.5?

Grand Central -- details, anyone? (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781251)

I've been trying to find details on Grand Central with no luck. Anyone know of a link to any? Or, does anyone have substantive info on it they'd like to share here? (We won't tell anyone at Apple, promise...)

Re:Grand Central -- details, anyone? (1, Insightful)

mdf356 (774923) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781571)

"The way the processor industry is going is to add more and more cores, but nobody knows how to program those things," he said. "I mean, two, yeah; four, not really; eight, forget it."

Hmm. Last I checked AIX and Solaris and HP-UX supported 128 CPUs or more. They all scale pretty well. So either he's talking about the desktop OS, where more than 2 CPUs is pretty new, or there's something new here.

I'd guess that it's not really something new; the basic problem of making programming for multiple CPUs "easy" has been around since the 1980s and it's still not "easy" -- oddly enough, you still have to think about concurrency, locks, multiple threads, etc.

Re:Grand Central -- details, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781989)

grand central [grandcentral.com] 's website

Re:Grand Central -- details, anyone? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782089)

There seem to be absolutely no real details on this in the press or from Apple. I have not seen the WWDC iTunes videos yet, though, and there might be something there.

The closest thing that I got to additional information about Grand Central is some article specifically stating that it's a scheduler. It might be that's the assumption of the author, as they may be unfamiliar with Apple's affinity for adding or changing APIs.

This is a rather on-point announcement to me, as I'm writing software for OS X and have been doing "back to basics" readings which include Butenhof's POSIX thread book. I'd hate to settle on a particular approach to multithreading in my software and then find out Grand Central undercuts that decision.

Wow! great decision (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781325)

It is about time. We have zillions of programs for every major OS; so why waste time and money on adding features to the OS while third-party already do it? I believe it's a clever idea to enhance the core OS while keeping the outside intact (no new feature). Microsoft tried it with Vista, and they failed miserably. Was the task too big? Maybe. I hope Mac can achieve a complete OS core overhaul in a timely manner. It would set the bar pretty high for other OSes.

Missing Feature: Virtualization (1)

crunchy_one (1047426) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781583)

Where the heck is virtualization? The hardware is there, just begging to be used. No integrated kernel-level support for virtualization and no support for virtualizing OS X.

Apple has really dropped the ball badly on this one.

I want OS XXX dammit! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781617)

'nuff said!

OK, no. not enough said!

I want OS XXX qualaity porn, mkay?! p/.God, what the fuck do I have to do to get decent porn?!?!

Finally Someone Doing the Right Thing with an OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781629)

Instead of adding new features they are actually doing the right thing, making it more robust and stable. All developers do is cram more and more features into operating systems that we don't need or want. So Apple is finally doing this and everyone is saying, well it's not really worth paying for, I'd rather have another round of features I don't want and more instability. Slashdoters are so skitzo.

Super-Duper? (1)

IwarkChocobos (881084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781641)

I believe that Snow Leopard will just be a Leopard upgrade for those of us who have newer, Intel-based machines. I think that people who have MBP and the like were happy with the boost in performance with Leopard, but were a little upset with some app speed and lack of functionality of the new arch. Leopard still supports PPC, which causes some legacy code to be used, which causes it to be slow. Snow leopaard might not be the next Mac OS, it's just like extra icing for us Intel-Mac owners' cake. Just remember, it's not a new os, it's just a suped-up 10.5.

My #1 reason for no Mac's at work..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781687)

No docking station mechanism for Macbooks or Macbook Pros.... Apple would rather you buy a 2nd machine (a desktop) and sync between the two, but we all use laptops here at my office and dock them to get bigger screens and such when at the office.

There's no way I can convince management to go Mac without a native docking option...

Re:My #1 reason for no Mac's at work..... (2, Funny)

WMD_88 (843388) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781945)

Step 1: Plug in monitor cable. Step 2: There is no step 2! What do you need a docking station for?

Re:My #1 reason for no Mac's at work..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782021)

This has nothing to do with the topic. Besides, you could use the mini-dvi port and a usb keyboard. I used to do it with my mac laptop. The reason apple sucks in the corporate environment is because they only support their way and microsoft's way of doing things. If you have legacy stuff like say Novell edirectory, you're screwed. Leopard is a big step backward for business.

Re:My #1 reason for no Mac's at work..... (1)

Carl_Stawicki (1274996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782029)

You don't need a docking station to attach an external monitor to a MacBook or MB Pro. So depending on what you mean by "and such," the lack of docking station mechanism is not an issue. What ever your #2 reason is has just been promoted to #1.

Re:My #1 reason for no Mac's at work..... (1)

Idbar (1034346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782079)

Here's [youtube.com] the docking option for Macs ;)

mod 3own (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23781749)

Microsoft will never do this (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781753)

While Microsoft several times has claimed to "write the operating system from the ground up" they never do. They just keep bloating and never really optimizing. You need more memory, a larger graphics card, faster processor, etc. All the features you don't want and none you need.

I'm glad to see this happen. I want a fast and stable operating system. The operating system allows programs to run on top of it and provides space for that to happen. The operating system itself doesn't need MORE new features nonstop. That's not to say they can't update applications on the operating system still, but those things can be separated. iChat and the OS don't need to go hand in hand for example.

Re:Microsoft will never do this (3, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781869)

While Microsoft several times has claimed to "write the operating system from the ground up" they never do. They just keep bloating and never really optimizing. You need more memory, a larger graphics card, faster processor, etc. All the features you don't want and none you need.
Writing from the ground up and optimization etc are not necessarily linked!

I'm sure many slashdotters have shared in the experience of a project rewrite that ended up bigger, buggier, and all around worse than the system or project it replaced...

Re:Microsoft will never do this (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782081)

Well you do need to keep adding things like hardware support. That often involves rewriting a lot of code when we get big jumps in technology. For instance, say apple had frozen os features a few years ago and just focused on optimization. They might not have 802.11g/n right now. dtrace and zfs (read only) might not have happened. It's a tough balance between fixing things and moving forward. I'm glad apple claims they're fixing leopard. I hope it's true.

Exchange Support (1)

frodo527 (614767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781817)

I for one am looking forward to full Exchange support in Mail, iCal, and Addressbook. My employer is an Exchange shop so I currently use MS Entourage. I prefer the Apple applications, for several reasons, not the least of which is that Entourage uses a proprietary monolithic binary file to store user info (such as mail and calendars). Here's hoping that Apple's support for Exchange will allow us to keep our mail/calendar/address info in open formats.

Why did Apple ever go 32-bit x86 anyway? (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781863)

So Apple is going back to 64-bit x86. Good. The PowerPC machines were 64-bit, and moving to 32-bit Intel after 64-bit machines were out seemed a step backwards. It's disappointing that Apple didn't skip 32-bit Intel; now there will be a whole era of mixed-width code to get through.

Re:Why did Apple ever go 32-bit x86 anyway? (2, Informative)

crunchy_one (1047426) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782071)

Two reasons:
  1. Low-level Intel support was 32-bit only in the initial 10.4 release due to schedule and development constraints,
  2. Apple chose the Core Duo as its initial Intel offering, a 32-bit part.

Not everyone internally was happy about the choices, but management got what it wanted.

Re:Why did Apple ever go 32-bit x86 anyway? (2, Insightful)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 6 years ago | (#23782151)

Think about the cheaper and portable Macs though. The Mac mini and Macbooks could not have gone 64 bit immediately without increasing the size or heat output. And the tools in Xcode allow easy(ish) generation of Universal binaries which run on 32/64 bit Intel/PowerPC. I admit it's not as simple as pure 64 bit Intel, but it's not as bad as on Windows, where 64 bit adoption has been bad due to massive compatibility problems.

Strategy? (3, Interesting)

CallFinalClass (801589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23781871)

For a while there, I was thinking that perhaps Apple would merely *say* they wouldn't release many new features in Snow Leopard, but then turn around and at the last second release a feature-laden OS. But then I realized how hard it would be to do that. Too many third-party developers would have to be in the loop for this to work.

The idea would be to stop Redmond from using Apple as the R&D labs, as many suspect winds up being the case ("Start your photocopiers"), and deny MS even the opportunity to borrow for Windows 7.

The more I think about it though, the more obstacles I see to this. But it would be sweeeeet...

ho80 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782155)

go find something so that you don't if desired, we New core is Going incompatibilities HERE, HBUT WHAT IS [theos.com] on his halt. Even Emacs

Can someone answer a question? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23782157)

Will Snow Leopard be backwards compatible with all the security holes left in Tigger, Bagpuss or whatever the hell the last release was called?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>