[Simon]

Reality check time.

What benefit would anybody expect from having apps like iTunes, DVD Player, Podcast Capture, or Grapher be 64 bit? I'm serious, is there even the slightest advantage to having 64 bit versions of those apps?

[Simon]

As previously claimed by several sources (but also doubted by others even on this board), build 10A432 is indeed the GM build. It's been confirmed by people getting their hands on the SL update DVD early.

OS X Snow Leopard Retail Disc Contains Build 10A432 - Mac Rumors

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Ya but you'd think apples most used program would be the first to be upgraded

Given that iTunes is a Carbon app, and it would need to be completely rewritten in Cocoa to be 64-bit, I'm not surprised.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Reality check time.

What benefit would anybody expect from having apps like iTunes, DVD Player, Podcast Capture, or Grapher be 64 bit? I'm serious, is there even the slightest advantage to having 64 bit versions of those apps?

None, of course. He was just responding to SWG's post that iTunes was the only 32-bit app.

Now Chess.app, on the other hand, had better be 64-bit, or else I'll be

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

None, of course. He was just responding to SWG's post that iTunes was the only 32-bit app.

Yeah, I saw that. I was just curious if I was missing something.

I guess these apps are about the last ones we'd want Apple to be spending time on to get to 64 bits. I for one would rather seem them focus on the OS (including the Finder!), the frameworks, pro apps, and maybe iTunes.

[CharlesS]

Well, a 64-bit iTunes would mean that it got a rewrite, so if you wanted them to focus on iTunes, that would be a way to do it.

[Simon]

I'll take the rewrite regardless of the bitness. In fact, I don't even care if they rewrite it. I'm fine with whatever it takes to squish the bugs and make it faster.

[CharlesS]

Well if it gets a rewrite, it's gonna be 64-bit, because you just know that at some point they're gonna turn off support for 32-bit apps and require everything to be 64-bit.

The next version of Pacifist is going to be 64-bit for this reason, so that I don't end up getting unexpectedly Classiced at some point.

[Big Mac]

I don't think they'd be able to kill 32-bit app support for many, many years to come. That would just be ridiculous.

[kylef]

I'll head down to the Apple store on Friday morning to (hopefully) pick up a family upgrade pack for £40. Any word on an Erase & Install option?

[OreoCookie]

Yes, it exists. But you need to convince the installer by hand. It's a feature, not a bug, the default is just an upgrade install.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, it exists. But you need to convince the installer by hand. It's a feature, not a bug, the default is just an upgrade install.

As I expected. Thanks.

[Eden Aurora]

Really, no speed increase at all from having a 64 bit version of iTunes ?
There must be some speed change if even slight.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Reality check time.

What benefit would anybody expect from having apps like iTunes, DVD Player, Podcast Capture, or Grapher be 64 bit? I'm serious, is there even the slightest advantage to having 64 bit versions of those apps?

As far as I know, there is exactly one advantage: 64-bit Intel apps can use 16 directly addressable General Purpose Registers and 16 Floating Point Registers, while 32-bit apps have only 8 of each. More registers is good, because it decreases the chance that you have to hit the cache or even main memory in the middle of an execution stream. Since the CPU has more registers than that anyway and does excessive renaming to use them as well as it can, the benefit to having more registers is smaller than you might think, but there is a performance benefit. The encoding code is excessively SSE-ified anyway and won't benefit, but the app will be slightly Snappier. Very slightly.

[turtle777]

According to this news, the $ 29 upgrade disc is a full installer, which doesn't even need (check) for pre-installed Leopard.

Well, let me clarify: format + install works w/o Leopard present. It does not allow an update from Tiger, however.

Ok, so I don't know if that is news or not

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't think they'd be able to kill 32-bit app support for many, many years to come. That would just be ridiculous.

Yeah, that would be like having only one version of the OS that supports both PowerPC and Intel.

[Jasoco]

Apple probably wishes the DVD player would die since it cuts into their iTunes sales. I don't think it's a high priority. Else it would have been given the same QuickTime X makeover.

Personally, in the rare occasion I watch a DVD, I use VLC anyway since it can skip all the unskippable stuff and starts up right to the menu instead of making you sit through copyright info and commercials for new exciting Disney DVD's coming out real soon that you must buy!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Why am I not surprised. So much for not having to install Rosetta.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Why am I not surprised.

Because we've all known about that for months?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by P 

As far as I know, there is exactly one advantage: 64-bit Intel apps can use 16 directly addressable General Purpose Registers and 16 Floating Point Registers, while 32-bit apps have only 8 of each. More registers is good, because it decreases the chance that you have to hit the cache or even main memory in the middle of an execution stream. Since the CPU has more registers than that anyway and does excessive renaming to use them as well as it can, the benefit to having more registers is smaller than you might think, but there is a performance benefit. The encoding code is excessively SSE-ified anyway and won't benefit, but the app will be slightly Snappier. Very slightly.

Kind of. 64 bit apps have 8 64 bit general purpose registers and 8 64 bit floating point registers.

However, on the Intel architecture, each 64 bit register can be used as two 32 bit registers, so if you are running with only 32 bit accuracy you have basically 16 registers.

This can lead to a speedup under some cases. But you have to sacrifice 64 bit accuracy, which may not matter to a lot of people.

Edit: nevermind! CharlesS and I talked, and it looks like for once Intel added registers...

[CharlesS]

Intel didn't add the registers, AMD did. Remember that x86_64 was designed by AMD, not Intel. This is probably why it sucks less.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/24592.pdf

(the relevant information is on pages 23-26 of the book, pages 53-56 of the actual PDF. There's a nice table on page 24/54.)

Or, Wikipedia is always an easier read.

(by the way, goMac: thanks a lot for denying me the opportunity to come in here with a snotty know-it-all correction post )

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Now Chess.app, on the other hand, had better be 64-bit, or else I'll be

No worries -- Chess has been revamped in 64-bit goodness (and has some decent anti-aliasing, to boot). So all is right with the world!

[ben.r]

Assuming all adequate precautions, clones, backups, etc. and acknowledging that (with enough time and patience) the "best" way to upgrade from 10.5 to 10.6 would be a clean install, fresh user account (with same name, etc.), fresh install of all apps, and selective copying over of data from the clone, my question is, is there a net difference between:

a) Running the standard 10.6 "upgrade" Install in place
b) Erase & Install followed by Time Machine restore or Migration from a clone of 10.5
c) Any other combination, i.e. E&I followed by Migration of only User and Documents + fresh Application installs, etc.

In short, what's the sanest way from 10.5 to 10.6 with all Users, Applications and settings intact?

[TheoCryst]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Why am I not surprised. So much for not having to install Rosetta.

Hahaha, yeah... Out of curiosity, are you installing the original 12.0 release, or one with SP1 included? I THINK that the original is the only one that still required the PPC installer, but I'm not positive.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

No worries -- Chess has been revamped in 64-bit goodness (and has some decent anti-aliasing, to boot). So all is right with the world!

Chess is 64 bit in Leopard, too.

[Jasoco]

Originally Posted by ben.r 

Assuming all adequate precautions, clones, backups, etc. and acknowledging that (with enough time and patience) the "best" way to upgrade from 10.5 to 10.6 would be a clean install, fresh user account (with same name, etc.), fresh install of all apps, and selective copying over of data from the clone, my question is, is there a net difference between:

a) Running the standard 10.6 "upgrade" Install in place
b) Erase & Install followed by Time Machine restore or Migration from a clone of 10.5
c) Any other combination, i.e. E&I followed by Migration of only User and Documents + fresh Application installs, etc.

In short, what's the sanest way from 10.5 to 10.6 with all Users, Applications and settings intact?

Regular install. It's not an "upgrade" in the sense of an "upgrade".


Would you rather be using Snow Leopard in 20 minutes? Or in three hours after screwing around with copying and restoring and reformatting and wasting a lot of useless effort to get the same exact outcome you could have had if you had just used the 20 minute option instead?

People, the normal install is genius. Just use it!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Hahaha, yeah... Out of curiosity, are you installing the original 12.0 release, or one with SP1 included? I THINK that the original is the only one that still required the PPC installer, but I'm not positive.

Original. Mac's went intel in what... 2005 and "Office 2008" is still PPC. No excuse.

[ben.r]

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

It's not an "upgrade" in the sense of an "upgrade".

That's what I was coming to realise. We really have to let go of the concepts from the previous Installer options, right?

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

to get the same exact outcome

My question exactly. Sounds good, "Install" it is.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Because we've all known about that for months?

Or perhaps because I am not cool enough to read 16 pages in this thread along and follow every topic?

Shame on me

[Jasoco]

I've reinstalled Snow Leopard three times. And each time used the normal install option. And haven't lost a single application or setting. PhotoShop CS3 didn't even freak out. It worked as if it were still on Leopard.

Apple has streamlined an OS installer to the point there's one single page and a Customize sheet. (Make sure you click Customize when you get to the HD selection page. Turn off all the drivers, fonts and languages or you'll be sitting through more than 20 minutes of installing stuff you will never need. Also, make sure you install Rosetta too as it is off by default as is X11.)

[64stang06]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Original. Mac's went intel in what... 2005 and "Office 2008" is still PPC. No excuse.

2006 but yes, it's hard to believe the original Office 2008 installer is PPC only, considering the Office apps are universal.

[CharlesS]

I remember a bunch of apps in the early days of OS X whose installers still ran in Classic, although the final app was Carbon. Way to go, Installer VISE.

I guess this means I can relax about Apple removing Rosetta for a while, though.

[64stang06]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I remember a bunch of apps in the early days of OS X whose installers still ran in Classic, although the final app was Carbon. Way to go, Installer VISE.

I guess this means I can relax about Apple removing Rosetta for a while, though.

I can't remember but I believe The Sims was one of those apps. Had to install the app via Classic, then there was a patch to make it a Carbon app. I think the patch was Carbon also, but it's been almost what, 7 years since that?

[Jasoco]

Wasn't there a time when Office had a Mac-like "Drag and Drop" installation? In the OS X days? I swear there was. When did they go back to the archaic horrible installer method? And why the heck can't they at least use Apple's stuff and not that VISE crap?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jasoco 

Wasn't there a time when Office had a Mac-like "Drag and Drop" installation? In the OS X days? I swear there was. When did they go back to the archaic horrible installer method? And why the heck can't they at least use Apple's stuff and not that VISE crap?

In v.X and 2004 I think, but they took it away in 2008.

Mac Mojo : Office 2008 Enterprise series: Office 2008 Deployment

[Eug]

So it's a bonus not to have drag and drop installation?

I personally liked it better, but I don't understand the underlying workings of font installation, etc.

Anyways, I'm still waiting for my Snow Leopard to ship. Not yet. I guess I'm not getting mine until next week.

P.S. I'm just a little bit disappointed my iBook and tarted up Cube won't be able to run it. Oh well. Leopard will have to do.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So it's a bonus not to have drag and drop installation?

I personally liked it better, but I don't understand the underlying workings of font installation, etc.

It's Microsoft. Who's ever surprised when they get things all backwards?

My favorite part of that link was where they keep singing the praises of distributing software as a .pkg, then go ahead and use Installer VISE instead.

[Chuckit]

Why, after all this time, does VISE still SUCK?

[Jasoco]

Because it does. And it should just die. Make everyone use Apple's own installer. There's no reason to have so many different kinds out there. There's like a hundred on Windows too. Just standardize and streamline this stuff for goodness sakes! One installer to rule them all.

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 hate apps that throw files all over, but at least with OS X it's easy to find this stuff, since the filesystem structure isn't a total mess like Windows'. (How did they go this long without a standard Applications folder? Or a standard Home folder? I don't even think Windows 7 has it completely right either. The Unix/OS X/Linux file organization structure is genius. Applications for applications, User for users, and inside the users folder, neatly organized sub folders for all your stuff. How hard is it to do this?)

[CharlesS]

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.

And I think that most Mac users that have an opinion on the matter would prefer this too. Unfortunately, Microsoft has decided to prioritize the needs of IT personnel who are apparently too stupid to use PackageMaker themselves rather than ordinary users, despite the latter outnumbering the former by a whole bunch of orders of magnitude. This, again, is typical Microsoft.

[Jasoco]

What are you talking about PackageMaker? If the Office installer used Apple's own Installer, it would simply be the double-click and install and would bypass that horrible VISE by using a superior installer that comes with the OS.

Then again MS probably doesn't code their apps in the traditional Xcode methods anyway. Like Adobe.

Why are the two biggest app companies so horrible at programming apps? And in the case of Adobe, it's not only the Mac version. They just can't code logically at all.

[Art Vandelay]

Why are so many here thinking that Office 2008 is a VISE installer? It's a .pkg using Apple's Installer.

[CharlesS]

PackageMaker is the program used to build packages for the Apple installer. The rationale stated by MS in Cold Warrior's link was that IT admins liked having a .pkg so that they could use it to deploy the program. What I am saying is that it is easy to make a .pkg out of any drag-and-drop app using PackageMaker, and that these IT admins could just do that instead of having to foist the installer on the rest of us (and then it'd be a real .pkg, not this Installer VISE crap).

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Why are so many here thinking that Office 2008 is a VISE installer? It's a .pkg using Apple's Installer.

If it were a normal package using Apple's installer, then how would it require PPC? Apple's installer is obviously compiled for Intel.

[Art Vandelay]

There's a helper app that it utilizes that wasn't made universal, but the install for Office 2008 is an Installer package. Just try installing it and you'll see Installer run.

Further, if it wasn't a true .pkg, then I wouldn't be able to use ARD to install it. Something I've done dozens of times.

[CharlesS]

Okay, I stand corrected. I don't have Office 2008, but I figured, given the problem, that it was using VISE, since Office 2004 definitely did use it.

[Art Vandelay]

Well, the MS AutoUpdate update for 2008 is a VISE install.

Everything else is a .pkg.

[CharlesS]

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

[Simon]

Originally Posted by ben.r 

In short, what's the sanest way from 10.5 to 10.6 with all Users, Applications and settings intact?

Just run the regular SL installer the way Apple intended. It will run as the new smart update install which should be just fine. I'd make sure to have a good backup (TM and/or clone) before I do the update. Other than that, I'd leave it to Apple. With the SL installer they definitely have it covered.

[Simon]

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]

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.