Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Simon · 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jasoco

But preferably I'd want no installer. Make the app install stuff on first run instead by copying/moving files out of the app package into their support locations in the Library if needed.

I entirely agree with that. I think most apps would work just fine that way.

The one thing I'd like to see is those apps document clearly is where they 'litter' your file system. Installing 'behind the curtains' is fine, but you should be able to read up on what happened if you want.

/Library is a big place and there are lots of subdirectories for stuff to hide in. I like keeping my system clean. If I decide to get rid of an app, its help menu or readme should tell me where it dumped support files so I can remove them should I chose to do so.

Jasoco · Aug 28, 2009, 04:42 AM

Just keep the places apps throw stuff limited to Application Support and Preferences.

You know what I hate? Apps that put files in hidden DOT folders in my Home folder. Even Apple does it with the DVD drive. This is a Linux/Unix thing that Apple should put a stop to. Place that stuff in the damn Applications Support folder or Preferences please!! The problem is they are hidden, so when your HD space starts disappearing, you don't understand why you can't find it. Because it's hidden!

When a DVD is inserted, OS X stores information about it in a hidden .dvdcss folder in your Home folder. After a while you end up with hundreds of files in there storing info. You can delete them, but OS X will just recreate them when you insert the DVD again.

DarWINE does it too. And so does LÖVE, a 2D game creation engine that was ported from Windows to Linux first then OS X.

TETENAL · Aug 28, 2009, 08:00 AM

OK. Apparently running browser plug-ins as separate processes is disabled in the 32-bit version of Snow Leopard. Which is a pity since Flash is crashing a lot now and taking down Safari with it.

Art Vandelay · Aug 28, 2009, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

But they're still morons for not making the helper task a unibin.

No one is disputing that! I particularly love how they deliberately install font conflicts with the way they install Office's fonts.

TETENAL · Aug 28, 2009, 11:16 AM

I still cannot sort search results by size? WTF?

Spheric Harlot · Aug 28, 2009, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

OK. Apparently running browser plug-ins as separate processes is disabled in the 32-bit version of Snow Leopard. Which is a pity since Flash is crashing a lot now and taking down Safari with it.

The Flash plug-in runs in its own little process, here.

It's even called "Flash Player (Safari Internet plug-in)".

This is a 32-bit EFI MacBook.

I also haven't had Flash crash on me yet on 10.6.

gilp1n · Aug 28, 2009, 12:24 PM

I went to install an old Apple Garageband Jam pack, and hundreds of Software Update windows opened simultaneously stating that I need to install Rosetta, causing my dock to go crazy.

Video can be found here: YouTube - Snow Leopard Dock

Sorry for the very poor quality, using a camera to take the video.

I hope this get's fixed soon, because I would like to install the software (or does anyone know a way around this problem?)

TETENAL · Aug 28, 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

This is a 32-bit EFI MacBook.

This is a 32-bit EFI but still a 64-bit processor MacBook, right?

On my 32-bit MacBook browser plug-ins run within the Safari process.

moep · Aug 28, 2009, 12:39 PM

Random SL question: How do I get the Text–replacement feature to work in Applications other than TextEdit? (c) (r) (p) TM and so on don’t work here in Safari.

kylef · Aug 28, 2009, 12:42 PM

The good: everything except the bad.
The bad: can no longer control items, eg Adium status, from the dock.

That's my list so far.

Spheric Harlot · Aug 28, 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

This is a 32-bit EFI but still a 64-bit processor MacBook, right?

On my 32-bit MacBook browser plug-ins run within the Safari process.

Yes, that's correct. Safari itself is running in a 64-bit process on this Core 2 Duo MacBook.

Jasoco · Aug 28, 2009, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I still cannot sort search results by size? WTF?

I don't know! It makes no sense! But at least we can do Date Modified and Created.

We can't do Version, Comment and Label either. But aside from Label, I don't care about the other two. But seriously. Size and Label.. why can't we use those? WTF?

gilp1n · Aug 28, 2009, 02:13 PM

I can still control my Adium status from the dock...

turtle777 · Aug 28, 2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Jasoco

I don't know! It makes no sense! But at least we can do Date Modified and Created.

We can't do Version, Comment and Label either. But aside from Label, I don't care about the other two. But seriously. Size and Label.. why can't we use those? WTF?

Come on, people, stop complaining, it could be worse.

My Lotus Notes version doesn't even let me sort by SUBJECT.
It's an email client, and I can't sort ANYTHING by subject?!?!?! WTF

[/favorite_rant]

-t

Eden Aurora · Aug 28, 2009, 02:46 PM

Anyone care to write about speed increases they have noticed or not noticed using the iLife software.

xi_hyperon · Aug 28, 2009, 03:00 PM

If anyone has any experiences running Parallels 3.0 in SL, I'd like to know how it runs.

Jasoco · Aug 28, 2009, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Come on, people, stop complaining, it could be worse.

It was worse. In Leopard. But it was also better in Tiger. So...

But hey, I'm just glad they returned the date sorting at least. Next let's get Size in there at least, Apple. Please? I'll be your bestest friend.

Eug · Aug 28, 2009, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora

Anyone care to write about speed increases they have noticed or not noticed using the iLife software.

It's Snappier™ of course! Sorry people, I couldn't resist.

Jasoco · Aug 28, 2009, 03:30 PM

I'm leaving to get my copy in a few minutes. As long as they still have some left.

Drakino · Aug 28, 2009, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by xi_hyperon

If anyone has any experiences running Parallels 3.0 in SL, I'd like to know how it runs.

Snow Leopard will block Parallels 3 from running due to compatibility issues. http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3258 . Looks like you may need to pay for Parallels 4.

PasteEater · Aug 28, 2009, 04:01 PM

Out of curiosity, what's the final Snow Leopard build number? Some were saying 10a432, others were saying 10a435.

I'm not ready to upgrade yet, but I'm just wondering who was correct.

Brien · Aug 28, 2009, 04:39 PM

It's 432. The 435 thing was a hoax.

As an aside, I arrived early to my store this morning (9AM) only to find that they were already open and selling SL.

jay3ld · Aug 28, 2009, 06:02 PM

I got mine from FedEx finally. Poor guy didn't know what Apple was doing, he just knew he has had a lot of these today, and I am in the middle of Microsofts home state.

Oh well, that said. Trying to get time machine to force a complete backup (So I have a easy restore point) and will be soon installling Snow Leopard.

fisherKing · 06:41 PM

so far so good...all my apps seem to work..! and there are new versions of some (like mail unread menu).
took about 40 minutes (i think), not bad. now off to explore...

edit:oops! flash player just crashed, but...did NOT take down safari. woohoo!

Eriamjh · Aug 28, 2009, 06:29 PM

I got 10GB of free space on my MBP CD. The wife gained about 13GB. I didn't know being universal was so FAT.

Haven't really noticed much difference. As long as it works.

Also, don't know if this was pointed out, QT7 Pro is moved to the Utilities folder.

adamfishercox · Aug 28, 2009, 06:30 PM

You might have also noticed that your hard drives themselves grew a bit

Eug · Aug 28, 2009, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I got 10GB of free space on my MBP CD. The wife gained about 13GB. I didn't know being universal was so FAT.

Haven't really noticed much difference. As long as it works.

Also, don't know if this was pointed out, QT7 Pro is moved to the Utilities folder.

How much of that savings was drivers though?

Jasoco · Aug 28, 2009, 07:33 PM

Got my copy installed after some trouble with overheating. My poor broken Mac has a broken fan controller and overheats. It shut down twice during the install. Fortunately OS X automatically recovers from a botched install when that happens. After three tries I finally got it installed. I guess I'm taking this thing to the shop on Monday.

Art Vandelay · Aug 28, 2009, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

How much of that savings was drivers though?

Most of it. If you pay attention to the package sizes in the Installer, you'll notice that the core OS of SL is bigger than Leopard.

Also, remember that even though there is no PPC code, they now have 32bit and 64bit binaries for most everything. So, you're just swapping one fat binary for another fat binary.

kylef · Aug 28, 2009, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by gilp1n

I can still control my Adium status from the dock...

Whoops - I use an old wireless mighty mouse that doesn't have a right click and I'm used to click-and-hold, which Apple have taken over. Control-click does the trick.

Eriamjh · Aug 28, 2009, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

You might have also noticed that your hard drives themselves grew a bit

Yeah. The whole binary GBs versus decimal GBs... Apple kinda folded on this one. It would have been easy to give the user the option to select it.

I gained space no matter what.

I noticed that in the System Profiler under applications you can see which apps are Intel, Universal, PPC, 32 bit or 64 bit.

lpkmckenna · Aug 28, 2009, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

I still cannot sort search results by size? WTF?

Seriously? Jeez, that is ridiculous.

B Gallagher · 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Most of it. If you pay attention to the package sizes in the Installer, you'll notice that the core OS of SL is bigger than Leopard.

Excellent point. To compare, the "Essential System Software Only" sizes are 2.6 GB for 10.4.0, 5.9 GB for 10.5.0, and 8.01 GB for 10.6.0.

Edit: Despite my custom install for 10.5 being around 3 GB less than that for 10.6, I still gained about 8 GB of HDD space. I'm oh so confused, but by no means about to complain.

Eug · Aug 29, 2009, 09:19 AM

Supposedly, 13" Mac laptops are not supported for 64-bit mode in Snow Leopard, whether or not they have a 64-bit EFI. Nonetheless, this is my 13" MacBook Pro:

davidflas · Aug 29, 2009, 09:48 AM

I have been happy with my update, no issues so far!

frdmfghtr · Aug 29, 2009, 10:31 AM

Mostly error-free here as well. My first install was over-the-air on a MacBook Air sharing the DVD with my iMac. The install took over an hour, but when both units are talking to the Airport Express N wirelessly, that's to be expected. The iMac took about 30-40 minutes (I wasn't watching too closely).

The only two issues I have found so far:

(1) GPGMail was disabled in Mail 4.0 No big deal, because nobody else I know uses signed/encrypted email

(2) The Safari Adblock plugin doesn't work. It seems to install OK, but it's nowhere to be found in the Safari preferences.

I also ran XBench on each under Leopard before making the upgrade, and got lower scores after upgrading. I waited a while for Spotlight to finish up and for the hard drive activity to settle down, but was somewhat puzzled. I've also heard that XBench isn't that good of a benchmarking tool. I'll have to poke around the web for benchmarks.

Spheric Harlot · Aug 29, 2009, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by B Gallagher

Excellent point. To compare, the "Essential System Software Only" sizes are 2.6 GB for 10.4.0, 5.9 GB for 10.5.0, and 8.01 GB for 10.6.0.

Edit: Despite my custom install for 10.5 being around 3 GB less than that for 10.6, I still gained about 8 GB of HDD space. I'm oh so confused, but by no means about to complain.

10.6 essential system software is only about 5 GB.

Eug · Aug 29, 2009, 11:35 AM

The essential software was claimed to be 8 GB for me according to the installer (after I erased my hard drive), unless I misread the dialogue box. I realize that 8 GB is using decimal numbers, but that's still a fair bit larger than 5 GB.

Cold Warrior · Aug 29, 2009, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by frdmfghtr

(2) The Safari Adblock plugin doesn't work. It seems to install OK, but it's nowhere to be found in the Safari preferences.

You may have to launch Safari in 32-bit mode for it to work with this. I used SafariBlock for a long time, and it's a great ad blocker, but I don't want to use Safari 32. x64 Safari is much quicker, so I shifting my ad blocking to GlimmerBlocker, which is working great so far and its preferences pane even loads natively (system prefs doesn't need to open in 32-bit mode).

I tried CSS-based ad blocking but didn't like it.

turtle777 · Aug 29, 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

You may have to launch Safari in 32-bit mode for it to work with this. I used SafariBlock for a long time, and it's a great ad blocker, but I don't want to use Safari 32. x64 Safari is much quicker, so I shifting my ad blocking to GlimmerBlocker, which is working great so far and its preferences pane even loads natively (system prefs doesn't need to open in 32-bit mode).

I need to give it another try.

A while back, I tested it, but often the connection times out.

-t

Eug · Aug 31, 2009, 08:53 AM

1) What uses OpenCL?
2) Yes Snow Leopard is faster, but how much of that is perception due to changed timings? eg. Have they changed the timing of some drop down sheets?

P · Aug 31, 2009, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

My Lotus Notes version doesn't even let me sort by SUBJECT.
It's an email client, and I can't sort ANYTHING by subject?!?!?! WTF

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who has to deal with Lotus Notes... It's amazingly powerful in some weird ways (such as labeling stuff based on whether you are on To, CC or BCC - awesome feature, couldn't survive without it) but it does fail at the simplest things.

turtle777 · Aug 31, 2009, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by P

. It's amazingly powerful in some weird ways (such as labeling stuff based on whether you are on To, CC or BCC .

Huh ? I can do this with Apple Mail.

Anything that Apple Mail can do can (by definition) NOT be amazingly powerful

-t

P · Sep 1, 2009, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by turtle777

Huh ? I can do this with Apple Mail.

Anything that Apple Mail can do can (by definition) NOT be amazingly powerful

-t

Yes, it was more impressive in 1999 or whatever it was when I first saw it, but it's still fairly neat to have icons for that feature, colors for the sender and folders for the subject.

turtle777 · Sep 1, 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by P

Yes, it was more impressive in 1999 or whatever it was when I first saw it, but it's still fairly neat to have icons for that feature, colors for the sender and folders for the subject.

Icons ?

I don't have icons for this feature in my Notes. Maybe that's a custom install for your company.

And don't get me started on folders and archiving. What a clusterf*ck in Notes.

-t

- - e r i k - - · Sep 1, 2009, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

Yeah. The whole binary GBs versus decimal GBs... Apple kinda folded on this one. It would have been easy to give the user the option to select it.

Uhhh... no

adamfishercox · Sep 1, 2009, 09:52 PM

Apple is doing it "right" by using the correct definition of Gigabytes. The base 2 definition they were using before is really a Gibibyte. Plus, all hard drive manufacturers use base 10 so it only makes sense that you would want your 500 GB drive to be 500 GB, no?

Chuckit · Sep 1, 2009, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

Apple is doing it "right" by using the correct definition of Gigabytes. The base 2 definition they were using before is really a Gibibyte. Plus, all hard drive manufacturers use base 10 so it only makes sense that you would want your 500 GB drive to be 500 GB, no?

No, it doesn't. It was a way for hard drive manufacturers to artificially inflate the size of their product. That was the only logic that was ever involved in the base 10 numbers.

What makes sense is that when I send a file to my Windows and Linux and Unix and Mac OS X (pre SL)-using friends, I don't see a completely different file size from everybody else.

- - e r i k - - · Sep 1, 2009, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, it doesn't. It was a way for hard drive manufacturers to artificially inflate the size of their product. That was the only logic that was ever involved in the base 10 numbers.

Load of crap and you know it. Didn't we already have this discussion already? Yeah, I bought into that conspiracy theory once too…

Chuckit · Sep 2, 2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Load of crap and you know it. Didn't we already have this discussion already? Yeah, I bought into that conspiracy theory once too…

The conspiracy where hard drive manufacturers were the only ones who said 1 KB = 1000 bytes and every operating system on earth besides Snow Leopard says 1 KB = 1024 bytes? I'm pretty sure that's a historical fact, and no, I don't recall anybody disputing it. (Some people were saying it shouldn't be so, but I think it's pretty indisputable that it is so.)