|
|
Snow leopard: Release (Page 16)
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
Really, no speed increase at all from having a 64 bit version of iTunes ?
There must be some speed change if even slight.
|
I eat turtle soup for breakfast
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why am I not surprised. So much for not having to install Rosetta.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES
Why am I not surprised.
Because we've all known about that for months?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status:
Offline
|
|
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...
(
Last edited by goMac; Aug 27, 2009 at 02:38 PM.
)
|
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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 )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
Vandelay Industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2009
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: T •
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
MacBook Pro 13" 2.8GHz Core i7/8GB RAM/750GB Hard Drive - Mac OS X 10.7.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
MacBook Pro 13" 2.8GHz Core i7/8GB RAM/750GB Hard Drive - Mac OS X 10.7.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why, after all this time, does VISE still SUCK?
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why are so many here thinking that Office 2008 is a VISE installer? It's a .pkg using Apple's Installer.
|
Vandelay Industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
Vandelay Industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Well, the MS AutoUpdate update for 2008 is a VISE install.
Everything else is a .pkg.
|
Vandelay Industries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
But they're still morons for not making the helper task a unibin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
(
Last edited by Simon; Aug 28, 2009 at 07:04 AM.
)
|
•
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Home in front of my computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|