Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Now Available (Delivery on Aug. 28th)(store.apple.com)
store.apple.com
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - Now Available (Delivery on Aug. 28th)
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL?mco=NzgxMDc3NA
120 comments
What about those stuck on Tiger (my gf)? Buy Leopard and Snow Leopard update or buy a full version?
I'm still on Tiger and I'm probably not going to upgrade. I have a first-gen "lapburner" MBP which works just fine. Leopard didn't really offer anything ground breaking and it doesn't appear Snow Leopard will either. And I figure anything ground-breaking will require newer hardware, so I guess I'll stay on Tiger until the machine stops working. Which coincidentally is also why XP users don't upgrade either.
I think it depends. If you have a first-gen MBP than you are better off getting the new OS. 10.4 "supported" Intel chips but it always felt like a hack between PPC and Intel platforms. 10.5, and each update since, has gotten progressively better for Intel chips.
I think you've fallen for the marketing trap where a list of features has to be present for it to be worth something. Not many lists include code and platform optimizations because it doesn't market well. I've used OS X since 10.1 and each update has gotten remarkably better. Things have mellowed out in 10.5 but the OS feels fully baked.
I think you've fallen for the marketing trap where a list of features has to be present for it to be worth something. Not many lists include code and platform optimizations because it doesn't market well. I've used OS X since 10.1 and each update has gotten remarkably better. Things have mellowed out in 10.5 but the OS feels fully baked.
Good points, but I don't think I'm falling for a marketing trap to want something tangible for paying out $130. The OS works fine for me now. If Apple wants more money for me then I want more than just optimized code.
In the end I don't think there really is anything they can do to make me pay more money for the OS. I already bought iWork 08, I bought SuperDuper! for backup, and everything else I use is either open source or comes included with the machine. If Apple wants me to upgrade, then they need to discontinue security updates for 10.4 or some widget I badly need needs to be 10.5+. And honestly, it's not me that Apple has to contend with, it's my wife and her iron grip over the budget ;)
In the end I don't think there really is anything they can do to make me pay more money for the OS. I already bought iWork 08, I bought SuperDuper! for backup, and everything else I use is either open source or comes included with the machine. If Apple wants me to upgrade, then they need to discontinue security updates for 10.4 or some widget I badly need needs to be 10.5+. And honestly, it's not me that Apple has to contend with, it's my wife and her iron grip over the budget ;)
I've upgraded a few MBPs (1st & 2nd gen) and even some old powerbooks all of which perform perceivably better with 10.5 YMMV
Time machine alone was worth the price of admission. There were also some good unix upgrades in there if that sort of thing carries any weight with you.
Time machine is great, except for the fact that it Denial-of-Services my machine every time it does a back up. It reminds me of the late 1999-2000 when the Anti-Virus programs for windows (Norton/Symantec) would do a full system scan on a desktop and make it useless for an hour. That, and my 18 month old top-of-line spends an inordinate amount of time with the spinning beach ball. And crashes when I plug in a 30" monitor 20% of the time.
I'm hoping that a scorched-earth fresh install of 10.6 will either eliminate the amazing flakyness or alternatively point me to a hardware problem.
I'm hoping that a scorched-earth fresh install of 10.6 will either eliminate the amazing flakyness or alternatively point me to a hardware problem.
What Unix upgrades?
Leopard was the first version of OSX (actually, first BSD based OS) to receive UNIX 03 certification
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
That's not exactly a good reason to upgrade by itself.
It could be if you were required by some regulation to use a UNIX certified OS. IIRC, there were little feature changes that warranted the certification.
As for myself, I have an older iMac that won't run SL, a netbook that runs Linux and I am perfectly happy with both.
It could be if you were required by some regulation to use a UNIX certified OS. IIRC, there were little feature changes that warranted the certification.
As for myself, I have an older iMac that won't run SL, a netbook that runs Linux and I am perfectly happy with both.
Insanity. Before Leopard, Spotlight was a debacle. After Leopard, it just works. Also: isn't there a whole lot of software you can't install now because Tiger doesn't have Core Animation and isn't LP64?
I also wouldn't trust Tiger security on an external network.
I also wouldn't trust Tiger security on an external network.
Every security update Apple ships for Leopard it also ships for Tiger.
And I preferred spotlight in 10.4. In fact, 10.4 was all around a much better OS than 10.5, which was the first update to Mac OS X that felt like a step backwards.
Of course, I'll be updating to 10.6 as soon as I can get my hands on it. If nothing else, the promise of a 10.5 that doesn't suck is worth it. To be fair, 10.5 is much better now then when it shipped. When it shipped, it was terrible.
And I preferred spotlight in 10.4. In fact, 10.4 was all around a much better OS than 10.5, which was the first update to Mac OS X that felt like a step backwards.
Of course, I'll be updating to 10.6 as soon as I can get my hands on it. If nothing else, the promise of a 10.5 that doesn't suck is worth it. To be fair, 10.5 is much better now then when it shipped. When it shipped, it was terrible.
You're making the assumptions that every security flaw fixed was:
(a) intentionally, knowingly fixed
(b) disclosed.
(a) intentionally, knowingly fixed
(b) disclosed.
How was it a step backwards? Mind you, I was a bit late to the party - I started on 10.5.2 - but everything's much more polished than it was in Tiger, both graphically and performance-wise.
Leopard, pre 10.5.2, was indeed a mess. Lots of performance problems. I don't think it was until 10.5.5 that it caught up to Tiger in terms of performance and stability. 10.6.0 is great out of the box.
The difference is that Mac OS X tends to get faster with newer versions. Apparently Snow Leopard even takes up less disk space. Not the case with newer versions of Windows.
In the description it says perfect way to upgrade for tiger users, does it not?
I wonder how its going to work. If you have Leopard and your hard disk dies - do you have to install Leopard and then upgrade to Snow Leopard (which would be a pain), or will the upgrade allow a clean install onto a blank hard disk?
Still on Tiger here too, which is my main reason for wondering if I can get away with the $29 version!?
Still on Tiger here too, which is my main reason for wondering if I can get away with the $29 version!?
Reports indicate that the $29 version will install on a clean machine just fine, no need to install Leopard first. It's kind of an honor system thing with Apple.
Cheers for the info. I will get round to upgrading eventually then, but I reckon I will give it a few months until any compatibility issues are ironed out!
$29 version is only an upgrade for Leopard users.
<s>I'll buy a full version if I were in Tiger.</s>
Edit: Mac Box Set seems a better choice too, US link: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MACBOX-101801 169$
Edit: Mac Box Set seems a better choice too, US link: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MACBOX-101801 169$
looks like they're recommending the 'Mac Box Set' http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MACBOX-101801
What's with the query string on the link, is that an affiliate identifier? The link works just fine without it, in either case.
No, not an affiliate id I simply copied the url straight out of my address bar - I'm guessing it's a session id or something.
Here is the id-less link for anyone who doesn't believe me (I can't change the url of the post unfortunately): http://store.apple.com/us/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL
Here is the id-less link for anyone who doesn't believe me (I can't change the url of the post unfortunately): http://store.apple.com/us/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL
If it were an affiliate ID, I don't see why it would matter.
May I ask how it is "now available"? From the site, it says that it will be delivered Friday. Did Apple not update the page this links to? Is this an "it's available for purchase now for delivery later" post that the headline is misleading me on?
Hmm, not exactly convincing. Leopard brought stuff like time machine, this smells more like a big service pack. I mean, OpenCL and some of the central applications running 64-bit? Better Quicktime and a new Safari? I don't even use QT and Safari.
And it's $29? Too little to be too much, but still a lot for a service pack.
And it's $29? Too little to be too much, but still a lot for a service pack.
Apple choosed speed, optimization and refinement over features. And I welcome this choice wholeheartedly, enough bloat already... make my OS faster, slimmer and more robust and I'll be happy.
Sadly the price point of Snow Leopard, and the sort of reaction that you have make me think that the big shops will continue to make ever more massive and bloated softwares...
After all, you get what you are ready to pay for : if you think features are worth more bucks than optimization, that's what you'll get.
Sadly the price point of Snow Leopard, and the sort of reaction that you have make me think that the big shops will continue to make ever more massive and bloated softwares...
After all, you get what you are ready to pay for : if you think features are worth more bucks than optimization, that's what you'll get.
Did you even read link?
Here http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/ are the new features that went into this release. And your comment doesn't even make sense, first you say it's a service pack than you rattle off a short list of new and upgraded items. These things do cost money to develop. And I'm pretty sure $29 barely covers the cost of it. I don't remember anything new being in Windows when a SP rolled out except a new browser. (There was the uPNP browser that popped up in SP2 I believe)
Here http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/ are the new features that went into this release. And your comment doesn't even make sense, first you say it's a service pack than you rattle off a short list of new and upgraded items. These things do cost money to develop. And I'm pretty sure $29 barely covers the cost of it. I don't remember anything new being in Windows when a SP rolled out except a new browser. (There was the uPNP browser that popped up in SP2 I believe)
Every other "system update" reboot I've made for the past 20 months seems to have included an update to QuickTime and Safari -- both of which, by the way, are available as free downloads -- and the prominent featuring of those two products as a component of a whole new version of an OS makes it feel like a service pack.
> and the prominent featuring of those two products as a component of a whole new version of an OS makes it feel like a service pack.
point me to a page that only displays those 2 updates as the main features. In my browser Apple is clearly marketing the 64-bit, Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL as the main reasons to upgrade.
Also stop referring to an OS upgrade as a service pack. Because it isn't. Microsoft releases service packs, just like Apple releases minor updates to their OS, (eg. 10.5.7)
point me to a page that only displays those 2 updates as the main features. In my browser Apple is clearly marketing the 64-bit, Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL as the main reasons to upgrade.
Also stop referring to an OS upgrade as a service pack. Because it isn't. Microsoft releases service packs, just like Apple releases minor updates to their OS, (eg. 10.5.7)
Also stop referring to an OS upgrade as a service pack. Because it isn't.
Well, that convinced me!
Well, that convinced me!
Thras, I'll ask you this completely sincerely, because I don't and never have understood this. Why do you, and people like you, get off from reading a lengthy debate on a topic online, and ignoring every point except the one that's not a point, then snarking about it? It's not just you: A lot of people do it, and it baffles me. I always really enjoy being told why my opinion on something is wrong, and these snarky responses don't seem to prove anything.
You more or less said that the grandparent was wrong "just because." You were telling someone that he was wrong without any argument. Exactly what you complained about with me, btw.
The only possible response to that sort of thing is snark.
The only possible response to that sort of thing is snark.
> The only possible response to that sort of thing is snark.
Uh.. no it's not. You could respond like you just did now and explain that they "were telling someone that he was wrong without any argument."
Uh.. no it's not. You could respond like you just did now and explain that they "were telling someone that he was wrong without any argument."
The new Quicktime leverages various features in Snow Leopard, e.g. Grand Central.
When Apple first announce 10.6, they said it wouldn't have any end-user features, but just a lot of re-engineering under the hood. Well, they couldn't help themselves, and there are a bunch of smaller features, plus things like Exchange support across the board.
And there really has been a lot of re-engineering, most of it focussed on making things a lot faster and smaller.
I think Apple deserve our thanks for actually making performance and improved footprint an explicit goal of a major release, rather than larding on new feature after new feature in some kind of misguided feature war.
And there really has been a lot of re-engineering, most of it focussed on making things a lot faster and smaller.
I think Apple deserve our thanks for actually making performance and improved footprint an explicit goal of a major release, rather than larding on new feature after new feature in some kind of misguided feature war.
Snow Leopard has always been described by Apple as a performance and stability upgrade.
It depends on what you plan to do with it, I suppose. I'm personally happy to pay merely for a decent chunk of performance improvements (isn't that what we do when we buy faster computers, after all?), but the new frameworks are also interesting—OpenCL, for example.
Also, there is some software that needs an update to work well on Snow Leopard, for example MacPorts.
Apple has a few employees working on MacPorts who, along with the ADC devs, did a great job updating it for Snow Leopard in the past few months.
1.8-rc1 has already been tagged in svn and I'm sure the final version will be ready in time :)
1.8-rc1 has already been tagged in svn and I'm sure the final version will be ready in time :)
I think what everyone likes to point out re: MacPorts isn't MacPorts itself, but the software that it compiles, that needs work still.
Nice to see Apple shipping before their publicized time frame (September). A rarity.
The other way to look at this is that Apple gave themselves plenty of buffer to ship.
True, but unlike practically everyone else they didn't allow their work to fit the expanded time available. Everyone builds in buffers and pads their estimates, but few people are able to work to their original true estimate.
OpenBSD has done it 26 times in a row:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/16/2322203/Why-OpenBSDs...
PS: This article was written before 4.6 has was minted; it will actually be released a full month early.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/16/2322203/Why-OpenBSDs...
PS: This article was written before 4.6 has was minted; it will actually be released a full month early.
True, but unlike practically everyone else they didn't allow their work to fit the expanded time available.
Again, how do we know they didn't account for it when they buffered initially? Maybe they had a different internal timeline (end of aug) vs. an external timeline.
Only way to know is if one is in the Snow Leopard team or has access to that kind of info.
Again, how do we know they didn't account for it when they buffered initially? Maybe they had a different internal timeline (end of aug) vs. an external timeline.
Only way to know is if one is in the Snow Leopard team or has access to that kind of info.
> how do we know they didn't account for it when they buffered initially? Maybe they had a different internal timeline (end of aug) vs. an external timeline.
If they were like practically everyone else in this wacky industry, they would be late for the internal timeline but not worry about it because the external timeline is the one that matters. Thus, there would be very little pressure to meet the internal timeline and a lot of pressure to meet the external timeline. Worse, they would wind up being late for the external timeline as well as the internal timeline.
For example, if someone wanted to add a feature to Snow Leopard, the dev team might say "we can't make our internal schedule if we add this." But some product manager would say "well, will you still make the external schedule?" and bang they would start to slip.
If they had an internal schedule and managed to stick to it I believe they are an exception to how software is usually developed.
If they were like practically everyone else in this wacky industry, they would be late for the internal timeline but not worry about it because the external timeline is the one that matters. Thus, there would be very little pressure to meet the internal timeline and a lot of pressure to meet the external timeline. Worse, they would wind up being late for the external timeline as well as the internal timeline.
For example, if someone wanted to add a feature to Snow Leopard, the dev team might say "we can't make our internal schedule if we add this." But some product manager would say "well, will you still make the external schedule?" and bang they would start to slip.
If they had an internal schedule and managed to stick to it I believe they are an exception to how software is usually developed.
[deleted]
just ordered the family box set. better deal, imho.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MACBOX-101801 click the family pack option...
Also, there is no difference in price when purchasing under the education store, afaik.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MACBOX-101801 click the family pack option...
Also, there is no difference in price when purchasing under the education store, afaik.
I really like the Apple Family pack pricing. I almost never buy a single copy anymore.
Anyone know how those of us who bought an mac recently get it for $10? I didn't see a link on that page.
It seems so:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/
FYI, as of right now, they aren't passing the info from the verification screen to the cart correctly, so you have to use the fax-in form.
http://images.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/docs/OSX_HW_UTD_FF.p...
http://images.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/docs/OSX_HW_UTD_FF.p...
I am having the same problem on the European (Dutch) store as well when I followed the link to computers bought on the Apple store itself.
When I follow the link for computers bought via a reseller it works without a problem.
When I follow the link for computers bought via a reseller it works without a problem.
i just ordered it through their website after qualifying my recent macbook pro. it worked fine and i didn't have to fax anything.
Thanks. Just found it as well.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/ for all those who claims it's just a service pack.
But, as I said elsewhere, the major improvements are under the hood.
But, as I said elsewhere, the major improvements are under the hood.
As a non Mac OS user, that link just reinforces to me that it looks like just a service pack. But at $29, I don't think it matters. If it were $129, that would be ridiculous.
Whoops--I didn't realize that all the changes weren't under that one link. You have to look at all four:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/universal-access/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/exchange/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/universal-access/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/exchange/
As a user, yes, but as a developer, there's some really awesome stuff in this release (both from the perspectives of the apps being developed and from the tools used to build them). Can't wait.
Maybe this blog post will help:
http://reverttosaved.com/2009/08/24/helpful-hints-for-mac-us...
I'll get it and pray that the Exchange integration makes using Mail and iCal a little smoother. Besides, I just like upgrading to new releases :-)
Requires: Mac computer with an Intel processor. No upgrade for my 12" powerbook. :-(
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
Requires: Mac computer with an Intel processor. No upgrade for my 12" powerbook. :-(
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
This is a surprise? I think that lack of support for the PPC Mac's has been pretty well known for some time now.
I think the removal of PowerPC support is why the OS is now something like 6 or 7GB smaller than before.
The same mistake, again and again. Please read http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=747316
But it then adds in x86_64 support, which brings the size back up. The smaller files are likely to be from not installing all the resources (localizations, drivers, etc) at once if not needed.
Can someone give a quick non-marketing-speak version of what Grand Central Dispatch really does?
GCD is an updated and up-rated scheduler for Mac OS X.
The following does contain marketeering, but also has some decent technical details:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/technology/docs/GrandCentral_...
The following does contain marketeering, but also has some decent technical details:
http://images.apple.com/macosx/technology/docs/GrandCentral_...
While I'm sure the scheduler had to be changed to accommodate it, it's not primarily a new scheduler. It's really a sophisticated thread pool system implemented in the kernel and exposed to programmers through language extensions.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_pool_pattern for the basics on the idea - which has been around for a long time.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_pool_pattern for the basics on the idea - which has been around for a long time.
Thanks - this makes more sense. Just a scheduler wouldn't explain how "With GCD, threads are handled by the operating system, not by individual applications. GCD-enabled programs can automatically distribute their work across all available cores, resulting in the best possible performance whether they’re running on a dual-core Mac mini, an 8-core Mac Pro, or anything in between."
Yeah, that sounds about right. It's a thread API that relies on applications providing "blocks" of work to the OS, and transferring their arguments and results around in message queues. So if you have five applications running, each of which has 8 threads to handle the needed parallelism on a Nehalem box, you don't need 40 separate threads and their stacks. The OS just spawns 8 threads.
That sounds OK, if kinda unexciting. I'd like to see some benchmarks vs. traditional threading before I commit to liking it. History is littered with cute new IPC mechanisms that didn't turn out to have the benefits promised. This sounds a lot like a combination of sysv message queues and solaris doors, neither of which managed to drive much real innovation.
That sounds OK, if kinda unexciting. I'd like to see some benchmarks vs. traditional threading before I commit to liking it. History is littered with cute new IPC mechanisms that didn't turn out to have the benefits promised. This sounds a lot like a combination of sysv message queues and solaris doors, neither of which managed to drive much real innovation.
The thread pool approach allows you to exploit much finer grain parallelism than explicitly fork/joining your own threads. So, an application that makes good use of this would probably have hundreds, if not thousands, of discrete work tasks (which I normally call "units of work," but Apple calls "blocks.")
What a thread pool infrastructure buys us is the separation of tasks (the bundle of information passed around the queues) from their execution context (in this case, a kernel thread). It puts a level of abstraction between what is executed and how that's executed.
At the risk of belaboring a point, this is an old idea - this is traditional multithreading. Java has a library for doing it, as does C++ (in Boost). A library for this kind of parallelism was, in fact, the first C++ library, written by Stroustrup. Even the Linux kernel uses this technique internally (by which I mean it's not exposed to applications at the user level). Cilk (the MIT project that spawned the company Cilk Arts which was recently acquired by Intel) is probably the best known example of providing language-level abstractions for this technique. (I reccomend their paper "The Implemention of the Cilk-5 Multithreaded Language": http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/cilk5.pdf)
By pointing out that this is an old idea, I don't mean to denigrate what Apple has done. Execution matters, and from the looks of it, they've executed this well - they've got something working at the language and kernel level, which is non-trivial.
What a thread pool infrastructure buys us is the separation of tasks (the bundle of information passed around the queues) from their execution context (in this case, a kernel thread). It puts a level of abstraction between what is executed and how that's executed.
At the risk of belaboring a point, this is an old idea - this is traditional multithreading. Java has a library for doing it, as does C++ (in Boost). A library for this kind of parallelism was, in fact, the first C++ library, written by Stroustrup. Even the Linux kernel uses this technique internally (by which I mean it's not exposed to applications at the user level). Cilk (the MIT project that spawned the company Cilk Arts which was recently acquired by Intel) is probably the best known example of providing language-level abstractions for this technique. (I reccomend their paper "The Implemention of the Cilk-5 Multithreaded Language": http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/cilk5.pdf)
By pointing out that this is an old idea, I don't mean to denigrate what Apple has done. Execution matters, and from the looks of it, they've executed this well - they've got something working at the language and kernel level, which is non-trivial.
something to do with phonecalls I think...
Actually (and I'll hide my lack of knowledge by being vague) it's a means of making it easier for developers to create robust multicore capable software. I think.
Actually (and I'll hide my lack of knowledge by being vague) it's a means of making it easier for developers to create robust multicore capable software. I think.
Holy shit. Early chrismas!
Does anyone know if installing Snow Leopard requires the user to agree to allow Apple to collect unspecified user data?
Anybody know if you can install this on a clean hard drive? I've got Leopard on my MacBook, but want to swap out the existing drive and start fresh on a new SSD. Would be nice to not have to do a Leopard -> Snow Leopard dance.
Apple doesn't do "upgrades" - if you bought a retail copy it will install fresh on any Intel Mac.
Technically, it does (cheap upgrade copy of Tiger for those, who purchased Mac with Panther after the announcement of Tiger, required Panther). Still, I believe it's true that you can do a fresh install.
You might want to hold off a little while before upgrading, at least until 10.6.1. I upgraded my laptop 3 days ago and since then I've had at least 5 Mail.app crashes, finder a couple of times, and one terminal crash. I did an upgrade install, maybe a clean one is better, but I'm pretty surprised at the instability.
Also, if you use Macports, that's not up to speed yet so you'll be doing a lot of fiddling around to get that working. For example, I had to patch the port for Erlang to get that to install on 10.6, there's probably others. Wait a few weeks and that should all be sorted out for you.
Also, if you use Macports, that's not up to speed yet so you'll be doing a lot of fiddling around to get that working. For example, I had to patch the port for Erlang to get that to install on 10.6, there's probably others. Wait a few weeks and that should all be sorted out for you.
I've been using it for a week on a 1st gen MBP (32 bit) and haven't had any crashes.
I don't use Erlang, but I have a lot of packages from MacPorts (mysql5, mercurial, git, svn, xorg, perl5 and python26 ) installed without any problems. The only thing I've tried to build that failed is screen.
I did a clean install, so that may be the difference maker.
I don't use Erlang, but I have a lot of packages from MacPorts (mysql5, mercurial, git, svn, xorg, perl5 and python26 ) installed without any problems. The only thing I've tried to build that failed is screen.
I did a clean install, so that may be the difference maker.
This is a 64bit MBP so that is another difference.
Yeah, all of those installed without an issue for me too. Of course, you also had to build macports itself from source, since there is no binary yet.
Yeah, all of those installed without an issue for me too. Of course, you also had to build macports itself from source, since there is no binary yet.
How'd you get 10.6? Were they releasing developer copies?
Sure, but only high level developers got them. However, I was able to learn the final build number from a friend, then I just downloaded it off BT.
I have a copy on order but couldn't wait. Call it time-shifting.
I have a copy on order but couldn't wait. Call it time-shifting.
Could your instability be attributed to the fact that you might not be running the actual release version (or has been modified in some nefarious way)?
I should have mentioned that I also had the md5 of the release image. Needless to say, I verified it. There is no practical possibility that it is not bit-for-bit identical to the retail version.
Given that you acquired an illicit copy over the intertubes of unknown origin and authenticity, perhaps you should refrain from commenting?
I checked the file in the same way you would ascertain a Linux iso you downloaded from an unknown source over the internet is genuine. There is no doubt whatsoever about its origin and authenticity.
I am quite surprised no other operating system has something like GCD. Is that MarketingSpeak or is it really something new?
.NET has had runtime-wide thread pools since its inception. Unless there's something fundamental about GCD that I'm missing, that puts Windows at least 7 years ahead of OSX on this count.
Well... Java had them (in almost every OS it ran on) since day 1 too. That puts it a couple years ahead of .NET
I think the point of GCD is that the concept is being brought down to the C, C++, and Objective-C layers, through the introduction of "blocks"...
http://www.mikeash.com/?page=pyblog/friday-qa-2008-12-26.htm...
http://www.mikeash.com/?page=pyblog/friday-qa-2009-08-14-pra...
I agree there's too much marketing hype surrounding GCD, but neither the CLR nor the JVM can jump through that particular hoop.
http://www.mikeash.com/?page=pyblog/friday-qa-2008-12-26.htm...
http://www.mikeash.com/?page=pyblog/friday-qa-2009-08-14-pra...
I agree there's too much marketing hype surrounding GCD, but neither the CLR nor the JVM can jump through that particular hoop.
It's interesting. For the little I have seen (and I was only able to give it a quick glance) it includes syntactic support for multi-threading being built into their Objective-C compiler.
Are they forking the Objective-C compiler?
Are they forking the Objective-C compiler?
Apple has been shipping forks of GCC forever. In the future they won't have to fork clang because they own it.
Chris Lattner's first paragraph here talks about that a bit, although it doesn't give a timeframe for when the gcc implementation will make its way back to the main distribution:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2008-August/00267...
Although, there's a comment by Johannes Fortmann here that says that the code has been available in an svn repository since at least September 5, 2008:
http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2008/08/blocksclosures-for-c/
"If you check out the llvm-gcc svn trunk, you’ll find all the code there (you can even build your own llvm-gcc with working blocks)."
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2008-August/00267...
Although, there's a comment by Johannes Fortmann here that says that the code has been available in an svn repository since at least September 5, 2008:
http://mooseyard.com/Jens/2008/08/blocksclosures-for-c/
"If you check out the llvm-gcc svn trunk, you’ll find all the code there (you can even build your own llvm-gcc with working blocks)."
They are investing in heavily in llvm which they hope to replace gcc with in the future.
llvm-gcc?
here is a link to the 09 wwdc presentation. you can skip to the 10.6 section:
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/0906paowdnv/event/inde...
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/0906paowdnv/event/inde...
The first OS and computer that is fully accessible out of the box.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/universal-access/
I can't believe it has been considered important enough to be one of the major features of Snow Leopard, I am so happy for the blind and visually impaired. They did it with the new iPhone the first commercialized accessible touchscreen and they are doing it again with the new Mac OS. Apple is the most innovative tech company there is no doubt about it.
I can't believe it has been considered important enough to be one of the major features of Snow Leopard, I am so happy for the blind and visually impaired. They did it with the new iPhone the first commercialized accessible touchscreen and they are doing it again with the new Mac OS. Apple is the most innovative tech company there is no doubt about it.
Even in marketting copy, Apple's design taste is unrivaled:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/
I mean seriously, how many levels of tabs are too many?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/whats-ne...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/
I mean seriously, how many levels of tabs are too many?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/features/whats-ne...
Apple's marketing is an added feature. I get a lot of joy looking through their ad copy, in a way that I get out of very few marketing departments'.
I always wonder why Microsoft is so bad at advertising. They're not a stupid company. They create products that are nearly always good, if rarely (in my opinion) great. But they've never shown any sort of strength-of-focus and they make things that are ugly. I don't get it. In cases like this, it's easier to make something that's stark and simple than it is to make something cluttered and unappealing.
I always wonder why Microsoft is so bad at advertising. They're not a stupid company. They create products that are nearly always good, if rarely (in my opinion) great. But they've never shown any sort of strength-of-focus and they make things that are ugly. I don't get it. In cases like this, it's easier to make something that's stark and simple than it is to make something cluttered and unappealing.
The difference you're seeing is design that's driven by an individual with a single strong voice versus a committee. For clarification, I'm saying that Steve Jobs designed this web page, but whoever did was someone with the authority and the balls to say, "no" over and over to many different people. Those Windows 7 pages reek of too many cooks in the kitchen and/or lack of leadership.
This rings truer than ever:
http://dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html
http://dustincurtis.com/dear_dustin_curtis.html
[deleted]