SuperSite Blog

Paul,

Lying again?

Snow Leopard does in fact support a "pure" 64-bit kernel...on some machines it boots into 32-bit kernel by default, but can be overridden by (ridiculously) holding down the 6 and 4 keys...OR an entry can be added to a boot file to cause it to start in 64-bit mode by default.

If you're going to call Apple out for only having a 32-bit OS because that's what it boots into by default (for legitimate reasons), AT LEAST MENTION THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY!

"This is absolutely not the case on my mid-2008 Macbook. In my experience, Windows is still at about two-thirds the battery life of Snow Leopard."

Maybe because Windows is a processor hog so it drains the battery since it's inefficiently using the CPU....

Disclaimer...I actually really like Windows 7

Yeah, Paul kinda lied about 64-bit Mac OS. pancahe is right, Mac OS 10.6 indeed has two kernels and on the modern Macs you can use 64-bit kernel.

Mac OS is very much like Windows which also has two kermels, except that Windows 32-bit kernel doesn't have the ability to run 64-bit apps like Mas OS one does.

As always, Mac OS wins on technical/software elegance front and loses on hardware front. Nothing has changed.

I really like the added HFS driver, even if it is read only.

So what can a "pure" 64-bit OS do that a hybrid 32-bit/64-bit OS cannot?

Anyone know?

"Certainly, it's more exciting than Snow Leopard."

Again, I ask:

Should gaining new features be the driving reason behind upgrading your OS?

Should hardware upgrades be the most common way of gaining performance upgrades?

"It is a hybrid 32-bit/64-bit OS, and it actually boots into a 32-bit kernel by default. That's a 32-bit OS, folks..."

This is an argument about semantics.  Another pundit puts it this way:

"The kernel in Snow Leopard is designed to load in 32-bit operation by default on most Mac systems. However, focusing on the kernel, which facilitates very low-level functions that generally don't benefit from 64-bit operation, is missing the real point of 64-bit computing in Snow Leopard.

...the vast majority of applications, kernel extensions and application frameworks in Snow Leopard run in 64-bit operation. This means that nearly all the core applications that ship with Snow Leopard (the Finder, Spotlight, directory services, the Dock, etc.) are running in 64-bit mode."

"What Apple has done in Snow Leopard is to ensure that almost any part of the operating system can run in either 32-bit or 64-bit operation -- and that by default, the vast majority of components run in 64-bit mode."

www.computerworld.com/.../What_s_the_real_deal_with_64_bit_computing_in_Snow_Leopard_

Software compatability.

"Basically, whether the machine is booted into the 32-bit kernel or the 64-bit kernel, any application that can run at 64-bit will run in that mode automatically.

By having Snow Leopard boot into the 32-bit kernel, Apple improves software compatibility. That's because kernel extensions must match the kernel's mode, or they don't work. While Apple did a fine job porting over its native applications for 64-bit compatibility, there are still some third-party vendors that haven't released updates for their software (such as the aforementioned Cisco VPN software) yet."

www.computerworld.com/.../Review_Apple_s_Snow_Leopard_opens_door_to_a_fab_future

Paul,

Of course you can run 64 bit Windows on your Macbooks or any other Core 2 Duo Macs that you might have.

The Boot Camp drivers are pure garbage. Your Macbook has Broadcom Wireless and Marvell Ethernet adapters, the drivers for which are available in 64 bit for XP or Vista or 7. You can get them on official sites or install from the Leopard DVD manually.

If you have Realtek audio then you are covered as well. The only problem you might have is graphics (that was the issue I had on my iMac 7,1). Apple shipped a shitty Radeon 2400 XT Mobility driver for Boot camp which didn't include Catalyst Center so there was no way for me to even change brightness but.. if you get the desktop driver (32 or 64) for either ATI or Nvidia cards you can run Mobility Modder and it will install just fine as well as all utilities for your Macbook or whatever.

If you have an Intel integrated chip then you are covered too since both GMA950 and X3100 drivers are available in 64 bit.

I have Windows XP 64 bit running on my 2006 Macbook and iMac 2007.

If you want I can mod the drivers for you an email them, Paul. Specifically the Sigmatel Audio since that one is not available in 64 bit but I have modded it manually and it works like a charm on my Macbook 2006.

Do Not Use Boot Camp Drivers. If you use Windows a lot, get the latest ones and if they are not compatible.. mod them.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a 64bit boot camp installer that works even with unsupported macs like the MacBook? You have to find it on the snow leopard disk using Windows Explorer under 'Drivers' and 'Apple' and there should be an installer package called 'BootCamp64'.

"OpenCL is designed in a hardware-agnostic way. Code can run on whatever computing resources are available in a given system. That includes integrated GPUs, discreet GPUs, the main CPU, and even other specialized processors.

Apple proposed the spec last year, noting that it planned to build it into Snow Leopard. Apple then joined with the Kronos Group to create a working group to define the spec as an open standard. That worked wrapped up last fall, and the 1.0 version was finalized last December. Apple released Snow Leopard last Friday with the first implementation of OpenCL.

--

Some of the early testing with OpenCL Benchmark, though, show promise of some massive speed-ups in the kinds of calculations that OpenCL is designed for."

arstechnica.com

animosity

"on the modern Macs you can use 64-bit kernel"

Well, that actually is a wildly inaccurate overstatement.

The reality is that you can ONLY use the 64-bit kernel if ALL of the following are true:

1) Your Macintosh is one of the very few models ever made that support the 64-bit kernel (meaning it was a new model in 2008 or 2009 and not even in all those cases or even all the models currently being sold - see: blogs.zdnet.com/Bott for details)

2) You will not use ANY 32 bit drivers or Kernel Extensions such as running Parallels other system software not explicitly rewritten for the 64-bit kernel. Of course, you probably don't actually HAVE 64-bit drivers for your hardware but...

3) You manually select the 64-bit kernel at boot time by holding down the 6 and 4 keys at the proper point in the boot cycle every time you want to get the 64-bit kernel (or find and manually tweak a *nix style config text file in an undocumented way to override Apple's default).

That's quite a bit more than just "modern Macs" as a requirement to use the 64-bit Mac OS X that Apple's been saying they have for, what, 3 versions now? (By comparison, Windows 7 will be the 3rd fully 64-bit consumer OS available from Microsoft since they released their first back in April 2005)

But, hey, maybe Apple will really deliver a true 64-bit experience in another year or two with Mac OS X 10.7 - Hairless Siamese Cat (see www.fakesteve.net/.../mossbergs-official-snow-leopard-review.html)

"Should gaining new features be the driving reason behind upgrading your OS?"

According to Cupertino and its shameless pundits:

When Leopard was released?  Yes.

Snow Leopard?  No.

mikegalos,

You're absolutely right. And what sucks is that my 2 year old iMac HAS 64 bit EFI which means it should be able to get inside the 64 bit kernel but it can't. Apple doesn't allow it for reasons unknown. Pressing 6 and 4 won't help.

Maybe it is because of the drivers but knowing Apple, they probably won't bother to try to get them working since such iMacs are "already out of date and unsupported".

Mike Galos,

Since you mentioned drivers...

what happens in Windows 7 64-bit if I only have 32-bit device drivers for my hardware..

How does Windows 7 accomodate this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH Paul.  Tearing apart someone else review.  How about correction your lame Snow Leopard review.  How about retracting or correcting your incorrect statements like this one....

"Exchange Server support, which is a big feature, sure, but none of them can do automatic configuration, so you'll need a slew of server information, which isn't the case in, say, Outlook on Windows."

Or wait leave it there, so when Apple fans read this review the mistake above and the others in the review will show how ignorant you are to Apple and for that sake anything but a Windows client OS.

I think Apple sites you stick to apple reviews, this one is close since its about Boot Camp, and MS sites should stick to MS stuff.

Dipsh

Actually that's the wrong question. The right question from Cupertino is: "Should gaining new features be the driving reason behind PAYING FOR a new OS?"

To which the answer is always, "No. You should pay Cupertino any time they ask whether there's any reasonable reason or not."

rr0de74@live.com

And Apple fanatics should stay on their Apple sites and Microsoft fanatics should stay on their Microsoft sites.

Then the question is - what are you doing here?

Panache

Since Microsoft has been making 64-bit consumer operating systems for over 4 years now that's not much of an issue with even reasonably modern hardware.

Now, it was a valid problem back in the early days of Windows XP 64-bit back in 2005 which is where Apple users find themselves today.

Give Apple a few years and they'll probably make it reasonably easy to get 64-bit drivers. Say around the release of Mac OS X 10.7 (Hairless Siamese Cat) or 10.8 (whatever tabby it gets named for)

So, to be fair to Apple, why don't you ask again in 2013 (2 releases and $258 in upgrade fees from now) when Apple's 64-bit driver support will hopefully be up to where 64-bit Windows support is in 2009.

Mike Galos,

Actually that's the wrong question. The right question from Redmond is: "Should gaining new features be the driving reason behind PAYING FOR a new OS?"

To which the answer is always, "No. You should pay Redmond any time they decide they screwed up the last release so majorly, that they need to recover the money they should have made had they done it correct the first time."

The Apple 64bit approach is so much better for the user.  

Under Windows If you are running XP64bit, Vista 64bit, or Windows 7 64bit and you have a piece of hardware that works perfectly but does not have a 64bit driver your choices are:

1.  Throw away that hardware, and buy new hardware that is supported in Windows 64bit.

2.  Format your hard drive and reload a 32bit version, provided you have a key  for the 32bit version.  Backup all your data before you attempt this at home.

Its a WIN, WIN for the user:(

In Snow Leopard if your driver/software does not work in 64bit mode, reboot into 32bit.  Most users would hate that because its so easy.

Imagine if Microsoft sold a single version of Windows 7 (Ultimate) that was a hybrid 32/64bit that cost $29.  This single $29 hybrid, ultimate version would upgrade a Vista machine, with or with out a OS on the drive.  It will never happen, but go ahead for a moment and imagine that.

evgenij,

You're supported by Apple. Why if you want 64-bit support all you have to do is go down to your local Apple Store and say, "Hi, I'd like to throw away my old Mac and buy a new one."

They'll be happy to support you doing that.

"The reality is that you can ONLY use the 64-bit kernel if ALL of t

the following are true:"

But you can run 64 bit apps with either kernel.

"According to Cupertino and its shameless pundits:

When Leopard was released?  Yes.

Snow Leopard?  No."

Companies will say what they have to to market their wares.  

What do *you* think:  "Should gaining new features be the driving reason behind upgrading your OS?"

Weird how you can't even answer a simple question.

My question to you didn't even MENTION apple.

"Now, it was a valid problem back in the early days of Windows XP 64-bit back in 2005 which is where Apple users find themselves today."

That was a valid problem in 2007 when Vista shipped.  Heck its still a problem today.  Greatly reduced of course but its still a problem.

mikegalos,

You're right again. Too bad that won't happen. My next purchase will be a PC which I'll be happy to build myself.

I bet next version of OS X will only boot in 64bit kernel mode, say 2 years from now 10.7.

I also predict Mike will moan, even though he does not own any Apple hardware, that users of 32bit (core solo/core duo) Macs wont be able to upgrade to 10.7, in 2011.

Lastly I predict that it will be a huge hit, bigger than Snow Leopard.

rr0de

And I'll predict that whenever Hairless Siamese Cat ships the Mac fanatics will say it's fine that their overpriced two year old hardware won't support its features.

"So what can a "pure" 64-bit OS do that a hybrid 32-bit/64-bit OS cannot?"

Run 64-bit threads in native-mode on the CPU, which is faster than hybrid mode.

A 32-bit kernel requires the CPU to always be in hybrid mode.

WOW64 makes the CPU switch modes for 32-bit threads.  64-bit threads still run in native mode.  That's why Microsoft chose to use that option.

The bigger question here is:  Why didn't Apple just update the firmware to be 64-bit EFI if that's all it took to make those systems bootable into a 64-bit kernel?

The answer?

They didn't think to put enough storage space on the flash ROM for a 64-bit firmware.

Apple's EFI is a joke.

Let's compare and see who is worth trusting with a 64-bit OS

Apple:

2003 - Mac OS X 10.4 (Panther) - Announced as the new 64-bit platform

2005 - Mac OS X 10.5 (Tiger) - Announced as the new "enhanced" 64-bit platform in the first of several "now we're doing 64-bit for real" announcements

2007 - Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) - Announced as the new 64-bit platform along with an admission that Tiger wasn't "true 64-bit"

2009 - Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) - Announced as the new 64-bit platform along with an admission that Leopard wasn't "true 64-bit but only supports 64-bit as a non-default option available only on a few models made within a year of release.

Microsoft

Developed but not shipped:

Windows 2000 ported to 64-bit Alpha - project killed by DEC during RC2 testing

Developed and Released:

Windows 2000 Server (Intel IA64)

Windows XP (Intel IA64)

Windows Server 2003 (Intel IA64)

Windows Server 2003 R2 (Intel IA64)

Windows Server 2008 (Intel IA64)

Windows Server 2008 R2 (Intel IA64)

Windows XP (X64)

Windows Server 2003 (X64)

Windows Server 2003 R2 (X64)

Windows Server 2008 (X64)

Windows Server 2008 R2 (X64)

Windows Vista (X64)

Windows 7 (X64)

panache

"My question to you didn't even MENTION apple."

Seeing that this is a topic about Apple, you're actually bragging about being completely off-topic.

You are probably right Mike.  

At the same time Windows 7 SE will still ship in both 32bit and 64bit versions, 5 each that is.  Upgrade pricing will be $199 for the Pro version.  There will be a cheaper pre-order price for digital downloads (while supplies last????)  The winsupersite will post thousands of screen shots of every build leading up to release.  Paul will tell everyone about the Killer new feature, "Live Products Pre-Installed" and will remind everyone he was the first to break this news, for 5 years after that post.

Dude, where's my ZFS?

www.appleinsider.com/.../apple_confirms_annual_ipod_event_for_september_9.html

The day the Zune HD gets kicked in the nuts.  Mike G has promised to post a review of the iPod Touch that you can actually buy on that day, to the Zune 120 since the HD wont be out.

Waethorn

"Dude, where's my ZFS?"

At Sun or Oracle or whoever they are this week (but not, apparently, at Apple despite it being on the list of features not just for Snow Leopard but for Leopard itself - although strangely then only in a read-only mode)

But, hey, I'm sure Steve Jobs minions will happily tell you why you don't need a modern file system.

Mike,

I think you may be slightly retarded.

You were talking about drivers.  I had a question regarding your statement.

You can't follow that?  Explains why you can't answer simple questions.

rr0de

So are you predicting that Apple will release:

A drop in iPod pricing to make it compatible with Zune HD (which you can order today)

A subscription model that let's you get unlimited listens for $15 and includes 10 song purchases per month

An increase in screen resolution

True HD out

HD Radio (and, for that matter radio at all)

Tegra chipset

OLED high-res screen

An iTunes that actually works

I actually predict that on the 9th you'll be back here telling us why any of those shipped by Apple are incredible Apple innovations and any that aren't shipped by Apple are stupid things nobody needs.

(But you won't know which until Cuptertino tells you what to think)

Or do you want to go on the record now (beyond something like "whatever Apple does is good and whatever anybody else does sucks")

Didn't think so. That would require thought rather than being a loyal follower.

Apple is waiting to make sure their version of ZFS is compatible with WinFS:)

Mike,

And what does MS have to say regarding modern filesystems?  Just curious.

I meant, NTFS is such a piece of crap, it still requires defragmentation....talk about being in the stoneage.

What every happened to WinFS?

I'm sure Steve Ballmer will tell you why you don't need a modern file system

rr0de

Feel free to compare and contrast the current version of NTFS with whatever bag on a bag Apple has built on top of HFS

It'd be amusing.

Mike - How easy it is to switch between all those various Windows versions.

When I install 64 bit Windows 7 on my core duo laptop in October...oh wait, I won't be able to install that on my two year old machine....it does not support it. :)  A two year old machine cant run 64 bit Windows 7.  Microsoft left behind.

When I install 64 bit Windows 7 on my computer and need to boot into 32 bit windows to use an older piece of hardware, can I do that simply by restarting the machine and holding down two keys?  Do I need to buy a new version of the OS?  Do I need to reinstall the entire OS?  

So while  you may mock 10.6 for being a hybrid, it actually offer MORE flexibility than Windows 7 will.

Mike I am not predicting anything.  The FACT is you cant touch a Zune HD.  Yet you were asking to have it compared to the current iTouch the other day.

I am just asking that you do the same, compare the new iTouch on the 9th to the best Zune you can buy on that day.

Now I might be wrong, Apple might say the new iTouch will be available at the end of the month.  They usually hard launch but sometimes they do so with in 30 days.

As to all that other stuff, I honestly dont care.  There is NO way I would buy a Zune.  I dont think its a bad product, but at this point I have had nothing but a great experience with iPod products, including iTunes and I have invested $$$ in devices like the Bose sound station that works with my iPods.

Anyhow I stand by my prediction, the Zune HD gets kicked in the nuts, buy a cheaper iTouch, that you can have sooner.  Amazon will see a huge spike in Zune HD pre-order canalizations.

@All: And again, NEAR NOBODY NEED 64BITS OS!!!! Only certain specific software need it so... This is a false problem...

Pingback from  Twitter Trackbacks for                 Snow Leopard: Great news for Windows 7, too - SuperSite Blog         [winsupersite.com]        on Topsy.com

Wow this blog went down.  NTFS fragged?  

I agree with you EricoF3 98% of users dont need more than 4gig or more than a dual core.

@mike galos

Sorry OT but refers back to the howling anti-trust at Apple post.

I am really surprised at how hard it is to find OS market share figures for the period when Microsoft was in hot water with the DOJ .... however I found these:www.wgss.com/.../win95.htm

Are they even remotely close?

rr0de74:

I HAVE touched, played with and throughly fondled a Zune HD (at the recent Best Buy sneak preview event.)

As a music and media player, it completely destroys the iPod Touch. It's not even a contest. And I own an iPod Touch (first-gen.) From a media playback standpoint, the only thing iPod Touch has that Zune HD doesn't is a loudspeaker. By contrast, Zune HD has HD Radio (which sounds fantastic), can play and output 720p movies and has an extremely well-done UI.

Once Microsoft gets the Zune HD app store going, it will be quite a formidable competitor in the PMP space.

First off, this is not a site about religion or politics, its about computer software.  Unlike religion of politics, different approaches to the same problem (like the 32 to 64 bit transition) are useful and can be compared and contrasted.  Future transitions could benefit from studying the Microsoft and Apple solutions to the same problem.

One feature I like in Snow Leopard is the ability to see a list of the installed applications in the System Profiler utility.  It also shows if they are 32 or 64 bit apps.  Does Windows 7 have a feature like this?  

Apple's focus was clearly set on getting applications recompiled for 64-bit operation.  The OS, while important, was left at 32-bit to provide maximum compatibility.

"Let's compare and see who is worth trusting with a 64-bit OS"

This is what Mike does when he loses an argument...changes the subject.

You know, facts really annoy him.

@UnnDunn is "completely destroys" a technical term?  How does this Zune HD "completely destroy" the iTouch?  Please tell us.

How did your 30 seconds with the Zune HD compare to your review of the iTouch that will be released on Sept 9th?  Please do tell.

While I wont discount the radio completely, as some people probably use it, I dont listen to radio and have not for some years unless I am in a rental that cant jack my iPod, but that means nothing.  

I will discount the 720p output.  I will discount it on any device of that size right now.  I will bet you that less than 1% of users will buy such a device and actually use 720p out.  How many 720p movies can you fit on even the largest Zune HD?  I know when I rip a movie, and normal wide screen SD movie at 2000bit rate its about 3gig per movie.  I bet a 720p movie would be 8-12gig.  So on a 32gig Zune HD I could get 3 maybe 4 HD movies on it?  How long would it take to sync 3 12gig movies, hour, maybe 2?

That said I bet the new iTouch will have 720p out.  There are youtube videos showing the 3GS doing 1080p right now.

www.engadget.com/.../iphone-3gs-totally-capable-of-1080p-video-playback

Since the new iTouch will basically be a 3GS minus the phone (faster CPU, better camera, compas etc.), I am betting Apple will support at least 720p officially just to take the thunder from the Zune a week before its available.  I also bet they will offer a 64gig iTouch for $399 so you can fit 7-8 HD movies on it:(

Some day when these devices have 128-256megs of storage, and you can readily download compressed HD movies from iTunes/Zune then it might be a feature that is wanted.  Right now its a bullet point on a powerpoint slide, like squirting.

well you are snarky, thurrott.  just another jerk in the talking head soup...  you're everything you deride mossberg and pogue for being except they have a success that seems to burn you up inside.

"where is winfs?"

instant searching?  that shipped in vista

single-instance storage with redundancy?  that shipped in whs

database storage with both options?  that shipped in sql server 2008

"where does windows show you what is 32-bit and what is 64-bit?"

it's called the processes tab of task manager.

SPiotr

They're probably right as far as they go for 1994 but they're from 1995 (with a possible update in 96 but pretty likely not improving the accuracy of the 1995 numbers) and seem to include projections for part of 1995 and completely for the years later.

Unfortunately even the 1994 numbers are suspect as they don't include character mode operating systems which were still a big product or Mac or NeXT or other alternatives and only list Microsoft and IBM GUI products for Intel x86 family processor personal computers.

Very interesting.

All the Mac fans rushing to defend Apple. Daring to say that Paul lied, he's a jerk, or arguing semantics. False outrage, anyone?

However, I hate to say it but the Mac defenders are completely wrong and Paul is correct. I'll walk you guys through the answer as to why Paul is correct.

1. news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10320314-37.html

"For the most part, everything that they experience on the Mac, from the 64-bit point of view, the applications, the operating system, is all going to be 64-bit," Stuart Harris, software product marketing manager at Apple Australia said

Curious that Mr. Harris said "for the most part." Most meaning the vast majority but not entirely. If it was 100% fully 64 bit, there would be no need for the word "most."

2. a) Harris said that at this stage there were very few things, such as device drivers, that required 64-bit mode at the kernel level but the option is available.

"But we're trying to make it as smooth as possible, so people don't end up finding that 'oh, that doesn't work' because it's not available yet," he said.

Same article. Not everything is 100% 64 bit within Snow Leopard. Lets go through a small list shall we?  

b) www.macobserver.com/.../snow_leopard_mac_os_x_is_64-bit_again

iTunes, Front Row, Grapher and DVD Player are applications which has not been rewritten to fully utilize 64 bit addressing space.

3. Further proof can be found on Apple's website.

www.apple.com/.../technology

Nearly all system applications — including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat — are now built with 64-bit code.

Nearly just like the words for the most part doesn't translate to 100%. Which means some of the internal applications in Snow Leopard even running in 64 bit mode, are 32 bit programs.

I believe that Apple and Mr. Harris had to add this precise language to their website and his interview to avoid legal reprocussions. Since there are 32 bit applications in OS-X even when running a 64 bit kernel, that would be misrepresentation. That bit of legalese of using the words "most" and "nearly" because Apple would be misrepresenting the capabilities of Snow Leopard if they said "fully", "completely", or "100%" 64 bit.

Unlike Windows 7, that is fully 100% 64 bit down to drivers, processes, services, and native applications.

4. Also, suites such as iWork and iLife have not been made fully 64 bit yet either. However, when Office 2010 is released, there will be a fully 64-bit version.

In conclusion, Paul is right on this one. Or else why would Apple use such curious language if every single bit of Snow Leopard was 64 bit? Not even Apple says that in any interview or on their website. So for you guys to come on a website and lie when the answers are out there, just isn't smart.

On a side note, there are several incompatible applications in Snow Leopard. I'll list them.

gizmodo.com/.../the-mac-os-x-snow-leopard-applications-blacklist

Applications that won't open in Mac OS X Snow Leopard

• Aperture ver. 2.1.1 and earlier

• Keynote ver. 2.0.2 and earlier

• AirPort Admin Utility for Graphite and Snow ver. 4.2.5

• Parallels Desktop ver. 3.0

• VirusBarrier X4 ver. 10.4.4 and earlier

• SPSS 17 ver. 17.1

• Director MX 2004 ver. 10.2

• EyeTV ver. 3.0.0 to 3.1.0

• Ratatouille ver. 1.1

Applications moved to an "Incompatible Software" folder during the installation of Mac OS X Snow Leopard

• Parallels Desktop, ver. 2.5 and earlier

• McAfee VirusScan, ver. 8.6

• Norton AntiVirus ver. 11.0

• Internet Cleanup 5 ver. 5.0.4

• Application Enhancer ver. 2.0.1 and earlier

• Unsanity

• AT&T Laptop Connect Card ver. 1.0.4, 1.0.5, 1.10.0

• launch2net ver, 2.13.0

• iWOW plug-in for iTunes ver. 2.0

• Missing Sync for Palm Sony CLIE Driver ver. 6.0.4

• TonePort UX8 Driver ver. 4.1.0

• ioHD Driver ver. 6.0.3

• Silicon Image SiI3132 Drivers ver. 1.5.16.0

Not so seemless as we are lead to believe. I'm not saying anything bad about OS-X. Its a modern, easy to use, and colorful OS. Better than Windows? No. Windows better than OS-X? No. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. But lets be honest here. OS-X 10.6 Snow Leopard is NOT 100% fully 64 bit. For that honor, everything within the OS including the applications must be able to run natively in 64 bits. As hard as it maybe to hear, Windows has been there at least since 2001 with Intel Itanium processors. Apple didn't start upgrading OS-X for partial 64 bits until 2003. Perhaps in version 10.7 maybe? We'll see.

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » Snow Leopard: Great news for Windows 7, too

rr0de74: The rumors are that a 64GB version of the Zune HD will be available this fall, just not at launch.

As for reasons why the Zune HD is a better PMP than the iPod Touch...

Zune HD has a better DAC in it, delivering more natural sound, not the artificially-boosted highs and lows delivered by the iPod Touch.

Zune HD just feels more comfortable in the hand. It doesn't have that maddening curved back and thin sides that the iPod Touch has; you can actually grip the Zune HD confidently, without the constant fear that it may fall out of your grasp. This despite the fact that Zune HD is SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than iPod Touch.

The screen on the Zune HD is just stunning. Colors are incredibly vibrant, and blacks are quite dark. It's OLED.

As I mentioned, the UI puts the media player on iPod Touch to shame. A "pins" feature stores all of your favorite playlists/albums/etc. as well as the most recent things you have loaded onto the device, for easy access. The software also loads a lot of artist metadata onto the device; bios, photos, discogs, etc. and those are browsable on the device on the go. The UI can be a little over-designed at times, but it's no big deal. In comparison, the media player/browser on iPod Touch is woefully under-developed.

In addition, the UI is incredibly fast, smooth and responsive. Rotate the device, and the screen with rotate itself to the new orientation BEFORE you're done, not 3-4 seconds after like on an iPod Touch.

The on-screen interface during TV output (in 720p or 480p) is amazing. It does as good a job as Apple TV.

And then there's the Zune Marketplace and Zune Pass. It's the best value in music today. You can have my Zune Pass when you peel it from my cold, dead fingers. Especially now, with all the rich metadata on Zune HD, it's like a richly-detailed music guide mated with a celestial jukebox in your hand, with no per-song costs, 10 free (to keep) songs per month and unlimited subscription downloads. It will also play movies and TV shows purchased on Xbox 360.

It really is a phenomenal PMP.

I found this "review" by Mossy to be quite funny and accurate, hopefully no one has linked to it yet, since I'm not sure where I got it.

www.fakesteve.net/.../mossbergs-official-snow-leopard-review.html

@subzerohitman you are as bad as Paul.  If you know OS X (very doubtful) read Paul's review on his main page and count the mistakes he made.  I will call them mistakes, he would call them lies.

I have a question for you, on your Windows 7 64bit, if you have hardware that works just fine but there are no 64bit drivers for it, what are you going to do?  Throw it away?  Reinstall 32bit windows?  Give it away and buy more hardware?

On Snow Leopard you would boot 32bit kernel until either a 64bit driver was created or you eventually replaced the hardware.  The point is you could use it NOW.

The fact that people cant see that the flexibility of Apple's approach to 64bit, that benefits the END USER, is beyond me.  Its makes you look effing stupid if you cant see it.

Does Snow Leopard have 32bit software...yes.  Does 98% of Vista/7 64bit users use 32 bit IE8....YES!

The next iLife and iWork will ship 32bit/64bit I have zero doubt.  All users of those products on Snow Leopard wont have to make a choice, it will just install and work.  Can you say the same for Office 2010?

Lastly listing applications that are old really shows your genius Subzero.  A really great example.

Parallels 2.5 and earlier??????  The latest shipping version (4.0) works with 32bit or 64bit kernel in SL.  4.0 came out in the fall of 2008.

How many 16bit Windows apps run on Vista 64?  Please list the ones that dont.

Microsoft had some apps that could not run on Vista when it first shipped because those apps needed to have UAC off.  Those apps were fully up to date when Vista shipped.

"Mac to Windows switcher guide"? yeah... that ought to be a big seller.

As stated, no 64 bit CPU and no 64 bit EFI, then can't run in 64 bit mode or at least is not supp-orted if you able to boot. Hybrid had to be create to so not to abandon yet another line of Macs that do not have 64 bit capable hardware. As Mike stated and as Wae has been posting for about 3 yrs to my knowledge.

I was on call last weekend and has a $50 Apple gift card, so I got SN and installed it [after making two backup clones]. The graphics drivers are better for my ATI 1900XT, but don't see much difference. Our Exchange server is not 2007, so still can't use Mail. Had to reinstall MS Office, but now it works fine, but opens a little slower at the first. Can't wait to test printer sharing with Windows. Maybe Apple got it right this time. Still neutral on this one, but gotta go meet our new cardiologist, so I'll post later.

@DRWAM a method had to be created.  Apple chose the hybrid method.  Microsoft chose the multiple version method.  

Both do the same thing, give the user of all 64bit supported hardware the ability to use a all 64bit OS.  Users with some 32bit hardware can use a 32bit OS.

The only advantage is that on Snow Leopard if you are forced to use a 32bit Kernel, because you have a printer/scanner/whatever that does not have 32bit drivers, but your CPU is 64bit, you can use 64bit applications in the OS.

Again I ask which is better for the end user.  Better as in less confusing, easier to use etc.

"I have a question for you, on your Windows 7 64bit, if you have hardware that works just fine but there are no 64bit drivers for it, what are you going to do?  Throw it away?"

There is very little hardware on the market that doesn't carry Certified for Windows Vista stickers on the packaging.  When it carries that logo, it has been certified for 32-bit AND 64-bit versions of Windows with WHQL-approved drivers.

If it isn't certified for Vista yet, it's old, and I doubt anybody in their right mind would try Windows 7 on such old hardware, knowing that it isn't certified for even Vista.  (Certified drivers for Windows Vista work great in Windows 7 too, although your video card would get a boost by using a native Windows 7 WDDM 1.1 driver)

So in answer to your question, yes, I would rather throw it away than attempt to get Windows 7 working on it.  Luckily, every computer built within the last 5-6 years has supported 64-bit (except for netbooks), and every piece of hardware on the market built by any respectable hardware manufacturer after Vista's launch is now fully certified and carries the logo.

What's this?  iPod's aren't certified?  ;)

According to my Mac zealot cousin he "foolishly" upgraded one of hos production machines and it breaks "everything".

His words not mine.

When I used Macs I waited until the .4 upgrade to switch, seems like solid advise still.

That said I know I'll install Win 7 the day I get it on most my machines, do what I say, not what I do.

Oh and more thing you've all been waiting for, Opera 10 is now available.  

You could all read a real review instead of Paul's tripe, and get the real skinny on 64bit OS X from someone more technically adept (Mac-wise) than Mike Galos...

http://bit.ly/B4yxd

Anyone that upgrades any OS over the top is a fool.  Anyone that upgrades an OS without verifying that their hardware/software is supported before upgrading their OS is a fool.....on any platform.  OS upgrading should be...

1. Verify all hardware and software is compatible with new OS.

2. Perform a clean install of new OS after you have backed up everything.

@Wae I agree with you.  If I wanted the OS upgrade bad enough I would replace the old hardware.  That of course does not go well with Mike G he goes out of his way to moan about the PPC Mac's that are nearing 4 or more years old every chance he gets.  There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade.

rr0de

One More Time...

You're missing a few key points.

Apple has produced and advertised yet another 64-bit OS that doesn't actually run in 64-bit for virtually all users. They were deceptive about 64-bit in Panther and Tiger and Leopard and they're doing it yet again.

Let's do the math.

We start with a total Mac installed base of about 35M computers.

40% of Macs still in use can't run Snow Leopard at all because they believed Apple's "PowerPC is the future" and now have abandonware. That's 14M abandoned computers.

Of the 60% left made in the last 3 years, only some of those made in last year qualify. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that's now down to 15% or, roughly, 5,250,000 total computers.

So you've got a solution that can't physically work, ever, for 85% of the Macintosh computers out there.

Now of those 15%, the only ones that can run the 64-bit kernel are those with totally new drivers for all their hardware. Let's be kind and say that's 1/3rd of what's left.

You have a solution that only works for 5% of the Macintosh installed base (And then only for those who learn the secred "hold down 6 and 4 during boot" handshake.

That means that out of a billion personal computers out there, there are 1,600,000 total computers that are physically capable of running Snow Leopard in 64-bit mode.

We're now down to a group as small as the Linux installed base.

But, yeah, you might say that Apple's finally got a 64-bit OS that only works on 5% of their installed base.

Now, you argue that this is a good choice. Perhaps it is if you don't want people actually running in 64-bit because you now have that secret handshake to discourage even that 5% from running in native 64-bit.

And now you have to convince 100% of the driver vendors to write a new 64-bit native driver for all their legacy hardware to get those numbers up. Good luck with that.

Now, the other point you're missing is that what you have is a solution that means since the software stack is a hierarchy, the lower you have to break 64-bit and fall back, the more gets stuck in 32-bit. With the kernel boot choice, Apple has chosen an all or nothing approach. And 95% of the users get nothing.

The problem isn't the Apple solution, though. The real problem is that Apple is, once again, deceptive. Their 64-bit ecosystem is, at best, where Windows XP 64-bit was back four years ago when Microsoft considered 64-bit an evolving niche. Four years later, Windows 7 64-bit is ready for public release. It really took the ecosystem until last year to mature enough to see vendors shipping new computers with 64-bit native.

Apple, in their near-infinite arrogance, decided not to wait for an evolved ecosystem but to abandon most of their users, claim victory, and ship a product that will need a few years before it really works.

"That of course does not go well with Mike G he goes out of his way to moan about the PPC Mac's that are nearing 4 or more years old every chance he gets."

Actually, they're less than 3 years old.

Windows Vista was out almost 3 years ago too (November 2006), and yet there is tonnes of hardware that is older than that that was also 64-bit compatible and fully certified.  Apple cut their product support too early, or else embraced Intel too late.  In either case, which is better for the consumer???

whiplash

Not a big surprise to find Snow Leopard breaking "everything"

Low-level changes break a lot since every new bit of code must perfectly emulate the previous version despite the rewrite including matching the little bugs that changed behavior subtly but in ways that higher level software counted on. Snow Leopard is almost totally low-level changes.

Apple doesn't do real beta tests to find out what breaks since they prefer secrecy to giving up their big "wow" moments at keynotes. Without real, broad reach beta tests it's impossible to even dent the huge variations of hardware and software that exist even in Apple's semi-closed ecosystem.

Combine the two and you get a released product that's guaranteed to break a lot of stuff.

Luckily for Apple, most of their users can't use most of Snow Leopard's key new low-level features anyway since they only run on a few of the machines built in the last year so they might get lucky with the few parts that remain usable to the fraction of the installed base that can run it at all.

Waethorn

"Actually, they're less than 3 years old"

To be fair, the last line to switch to Intel at Apple was their very, very expensive desktops (not the laptop with a stand iMacs, the real desktop PowerMacs). That was 3 years and 1 month ago.

But the reality isn't just the 3 year old computers that are now abandonware (and that's about 40% of the Macs out there). The problem is that the only Macs that fully support Snow Leopard's new architecture bits are some of those made in the last year, even some made in 2009 are architecturally blocked.

A three year lifespan between "hottest computer we make" and "our latest system sofware doesn't support that architecture" is pathetic but less than one year? That's not just insane, that's counting on your customers being insane, too.

@Mike how many PC's out there today cant run Vista/7 64bit 300 million, 400 million, 600million?  The Windows fangirls at this site love to throw out that 1billion number a lot, how many of them can run a 64bit Windows OS?

@Wae I bought a HP laptop in August of 2007 (2 years old) that has a core duo in it.  Can I run Vista/7 64bit?  I bought a Black Macbook a month later for my wife and it has a 64bit EFI.

If you walk into a Apple store today, or since whenever the Mini was updated (March) how many of the computers in store you could buy today can run SL in 64bit mode?  All of them.  Some software or some non-Apple hardware might not have drivers, but all of them could boot in 64bit kernel.

One other deceptive point that hasn't been brought up is the benefits of the "Family Pack" upgrade pricing. Yes, it's a great deal if you bought several Macs in the last 3 years. It's not so good a deal if you buy it expecting to upgrade your older Macs as well as your latest.

It'll be interesting to see just how many of the Mac faithful really have bought five new Macs in the last three years to fully get the pricing benefits.

Maybe Apple should admit they're not in the "Home Computing" market anymore but offer discount solutions for "Mansion Computing"?

"I bought a HP laptop in August of 2007 (2 years old) that has a core duo in it.  Can I run Vista/7 64bit?"

You bought a Core Duo 2 years ago?  WOW!  You got hosed!

rr0de

I'd suggest you might want to revise your claim that

"... how many of the computers in store you could buy today can run SL in 64bit mode?  All of them."

Even Apple doesn't make that claim and the chart on Ed Bott's site shows that Apple is right in being quiet about that.

And even your exuberant claim says that you could have bought a brand new computer direct from Apple six months ago (and many months after Snow Leopard was announced) and it wouldn't ever be compatible or even be able to be made compatible with upgrades.

Really, you don't need to help me point out how badly Apple has screwed over their customers but feel free to continue if you like.

@Mike I am going out on a limb here but I am guessing, just guessing that the 3 year old Mac's worked just fine on August 29th.  I will make another guess and say they will perfectly capable/usable machines until they have a hardware failure.

" I bought a Black Macbook a month later [September 2007] for my wife and it has a 64bit EFI."

Did Christopher Lloyd drive his Delorean to pick that up for you?

Macbooks didn't add 64-bit EFI's until this year's models, so I know you're lying.  iMac's didn't have 64-bit EFI until last year.  There are absolutely NO 2007 models with a 64-bit EFI.

Hosed?  Why?  Its still works just fine, will install Windows 7 32 bit all day.  

That laptop was a "Laptop Hunter" special.  As in it was a back to school sale in August of 2007.  $599 with some mail in rebate.

It just goes to show you get what you pay for.  Had I spent more at the time I would have got a Core 2 Duo, but then it would not show off the Apple Tax now would it?  Oh the irony.

"Had I spent more at the time I would have got a Core 2 Duo, but then it would not show off the Apple Tax now would it?"

LOL!  Apple tax.  The biggest laugh in the industry is that you have to pay $2900(CDN) to get a Mac with a quad-core CPU.

Just LOL!

rr0de

"3 year old Mac's worked just fine on August 29th."

Yes, and so did any working 25 year old Macs.

And any 32 year old Apple ][s that are still running are... still running.

As are my 25 year old IBM PC/AT running Windows 1.04 and my 24 year old Mac + that I keep in the corner as a reminder of where we've been.

I didn't say they were broken. I said they were abandonware.

You know, something that's considered so obsolete by the manufacturer that they no longer consider it or its owners worth supporting anymore and think of as historical curiosities.

The sad part is that you really think that it's OK for a vendor to move a product from "This is best product we make and worth paying the premium for" to "We don't support those things anymore" in only 3 years. In fact, you not only think it's OK, you're defending them. Guess that's cyberStockholm Syndrome at work.

@mike:

This time with Apple's "only "new" is hip" mantra is a double laugh, because Apple rode in on the EFI horse waaaay too early (the same custom EFI that keeps OS X exclusively on Macs), only to support 32-bit EFI and lock customers out of true 64-bit native processing (even though those processors are fully compatible) by not providing enough storage space to upgrade those [as Apple would call it...] "legacy" EFI firmwares to 64-bit.

Meanwhile, PC's are running native 64-bit CPU threads with what Apple apologists would like to point out is a platform firmware that dates back to the IBM XT - the BIOS.  PC's are moving ahead (slowly, but much more confidently) towards the already established EFI standard called UEFI, which is designed to be 64-bit from the get-go.  I have yet to see very many systems support UEFI, aside from Intel's own boards, but it now works, and it's nowhere close to replacing the BIOS - it is merely an extension firmware to the BIOS.  The only supposed "benefit" I could see is the support for GPT disks, but that's not even an option that any knowledgeable user cares about.  MBR is still the defacto standard in desktops.  In servers, GPT might make more sense, but it's only something that you'd need on a very complicated storage system.  It certainly isn't necessary on any personal computer, and probably won't be for the near future.

"I didn't say they were broken. I said they were abandonware.

You know, something that's considered so obsolete by the manufacturer that they no longer consider it or its owners worth supporting anymore and think of as historical curiosities."

Like Microsoft did with NT for Alpha and PowerPC?  

Or how Xbox will not play Xbox 360 games and vice versa in many cases?

Or MS Money?

Plays for sure, or whatever its called today?

Shall I continue..

All companies do this.  That is the price of technology.  In fact, Apple has been able to switch processor architectures twice so far and do it nearly flawlessly.  Please let me know when Microsoft ships a Windows disc that contains one installer for ALL versions and supports MULTIPLE processor architectures or 32/64 bit. Apple has done that multiple times.

You know what, 10.6 may not be 64 bit in every single facet like Windows 7. But I won't run into any issues when I use it.  I get the benefits of 64 bit applications AND I can use my 32 bit drivers on legacy hardware if I need to.  I can use my 32 bit plugins in Safari while that runs in 64 bit mode.  Best of all, it just works, and I don't need to screw around with anything or wipe my system to switch between 32/64 bit modes while all 3rd party developers get around to updating their products.

So *** and moan about it all you like, you may be techincally correct (Which is the best kind of correct--Futurama!) but the truth is OS X users don't really care.  They just get a product that works well.  I've installed 10.6 and my computer runs better now. In the end, thats what matters.  

Technologically, it is game over for Apple, if one is to insist on comparing OS X to Windows.

Windows is so far ahead of OS X in every technical context that comparisons between the two

are simply inappropriate. Any notion that Apple’s OS X is not and has not been desperately trying

to copy features now long since common in Windows and the tools used on the platform is ridiculous.

When Paul and others say things like: “Don’t get me wrong, OS X is a solid OS….” they are wrong,

and in my opinion, they are being kind (at best) or pandering to the broader community that might

otherwise be offended when facing the facts that OS X is not a solid operating system and it is not

by any means, “great.”

The facts are, OS X is in real trouble and while the developers at Apple and throughout the industry

“may” ( and I say “may” with a huge amount of caution ) be able to save the platform, Apple’s OS will

never catch up to Windows. At every fundamental level, Windows is perhaps as much as a decade ahead

of any other platform.

The reality is that since about March of 2008, Windows Vista ( especially x64 ) was already years ahead

of OS X Snow Leopard in every technical context. x64 Windows is only one part of the complete story.

DirectCompute on CUDA, under Nvidia’s framework (by the way, the exact same dependency that

OS X’s lie of an open source project OpenCL (Kronos, manufactured to be seen as open source, but practically bound to the gills and a tiny number of as yet to be developed for GPU’s  from Nvidia)), works now for all 8xx series GPU’s running on both Vista and Windows 7 – and is actually used by developers of software and games today. Adobe, Pinnacle/Avid and a large number of games devs, not to mention Microsoft itself, are among shipping examples.

Native hardware NX (zero execute) support, parallel to effective ASLR+DEP in Windows Vista/7 is only the

start of the superior and existing security model that make Windows safer than OS X SL. This is most especially so for x64 bit versions of Windows Vista/7 that ACTUALLY WORK! The aforementioned work pervasively and even for 32 bit based apps that do not invoke calls to the function that enables them – they are always on and native to Windows Vista /7 x64 (devs do not need to do a thing more!).

I could go on and on and on… but as I said at the outset, it’s laughable. There is only one reason to use OS X and that is if you prefer it over Windows. That is fine, but please do not be confused into thinking it is in any way comparable to Windows Vista x64, or Windows 7. It isn’t. It isn’t even close. (MPIO, Virtualization of the entire name space, etc… - it’s just nuts…)

One more thing… the UI and new task bar in Windows 7 is not some lame attempt to “copy” the OS X Dock.

(who would want to….) The new Windows 7 Taskbar is about introducing system wide touch as part of

moves into more natural computing interfaces – something Microsoft has been working on for more than a decade. Windows 7 features a systems wide ability to support a combination of touch and speech which alongside new hardware designs and screens most especially, provide targets large enough for human finger tips to more easily interact with (finger tips which are not square as Apple insists they are, but rounded as designed and when pressed against a hard surface).

The definitive review is up:  23 pages long.

arstechnica.com/.../23

Does any one know if a 32 bit EFI be flashed/updated to 64 bit, or is it entirely dependent upon the specific hardware [vs just not possible to upgrade to 64 bit]?

You guys are funny. Thanks for the laugh today...I needed it.

--tayme