Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

[Timan Veteran]

Uh oh, did they remove double clicking the titlebar to minimize? :( And the new expose is... weird. Well, guess it'll take some getting used to. Nice and fast thus far :)

Last check box

[5Horizons]

Thanks Timan!

[rajputwarrior]

I can't believe so many people are getting it really soon or already got it and mine still says "not shipped" but "will ship by August 28th", and what I did was a pre-order! That's scandalous!

If yours was in Ontario yesterday, I should have received my copy like today because I'm in Quebec!

(btw, good that you still support the Canadiens even if you're not here anymore!)

i was never from here, born in raised BC, just love the habs and hate the canucks.

And its in calgary now... went from ontario, to memphis TN and now in calgary... hopefully tomorrow :)

[PyX]

Where does Snow Leopard come from?

I'm talking about the physical product, from where it's shipped, not where it was designed (duh, it's California)... U.S.A? China? North Korea?

[AltecXP]

Mine shipped from 2 miles from my house.

[blachole]

Where does Snow Leopard come from?

I'm talking about the physical product, from where it's shipped, not where it was designed (duh, it's California)... U.S.A? China? North Korea?

I live outside of Philadelphia and mine shipped from central PA. It looks as though they are shipping all the software to all the local stores and the stores are shipping the items out for them or some other local facility is shipping it for them.

[AltecXP]

I live outside of Philadelphia and mine shipped from central PA. It looks as though they are shipping all the software to all the local stores and the stores are shipping the items out for them or some other local facility is shipping it for them.

Closest Apple store to Philly is KOP I believe, not Middletown.

[cabron]

I ordered mine with Amazon, they have an special of only $25 dollars, free shipping and not taxes if you choice the super saver. ;)

[BoDEAN]

I just rebooted in 64-bit mode (thinking it would do it automatically) and things are running much quicker. I'll keep testing. Here is the command to make sure it always boots in 64-bit mode (warning: check the compatible Mac list to make sure your chipset supports 64-bit):

link for that list?

GF has a Imac 2.00ghz Intel Core Duo processor. I take it that's 64 bit.

Also, snow leopard doesn't boot 64 by default?

[0sit0]

They have it in BestBuy as well... 4 bucks cheaper lol

[BoDEAN]

They have it in BestBuy as well... 4 bucks cheaper lol

25 bucks at best buy.

[Timan Veteran]

Those who are using LCD displays and find the text smoothing to be absolute ######... There is a fix (to enable subpixel crap)

Type this in terminal...

defaults -currentHost write -globalDomain AppleFontSmoothing -int 2

[AltecXP]

I actually prefer it.

[NeoXY]

Just got my copy and its sitting here. Thinking about doing an upgrade (will eventually wipe and reinstall) but am not sure since LCC is not compatible with SL yet.

And just so we are clear. I will not use my MX Revolution without LCC. The hardware is useless without the hardware.

I know its the first day of release, but sigh logitech :(

[veritas310]

link for that list?

GF has a Imac 2.00ghz Intel Core Duo processor. I take it that's 64 bit.

Also, snow leopard doesn't boot 64 by default?

Here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773

List of Compatible Mac's

It does not boot into 64-bit by default, much to my dismay. You can, however check by going to Apple>About This Mac> More Info...

Click Software and look for this: "64-bit Kernel and Extensions: Yes" Most likely yours says "No". If you want to leave it native 32-bit and sometimes boot into 64, hold down 6+4 when booting and it will enter 64-bit. Cheers.

[the evn show]

I just rebooted in 64-bit mode (thinking it would do it automatically) and things are running much quicker. I'll keep testing. Here is the command to make sure it always boots in 64-bit mode (warning: check the compatible Mac list to make sure your chipset supports 64-bit):

Can you offer benchmarks or some other form of support for this?

It would be big news for everyone if what you claim is true.

Given that the public literature all claims no perceptible difference, what you're saying is significant.

[veritas310]

Can you offer benchmarks or some other form of support for this?

It would be big news for everyone if what you claim is true.

Given that the public literature all claims no perceptible difference, what you're saying is significant.

I will certainly provide benchmarks when I can do so, I've had work all day and just from normal use, everything is running much smoother (than the 32-bit kernel, which I posted earlier as seeming to run slower than Leopard). I'll update when I can. You lose nothing/no negative effect to using 64-bit, so why not? So long as your software is compatible with it, if not just boot back into 32 (holding 3+2 during startup or 6+4).

[the evn show]

I will certainly provide benchmarks when I can do so, I've had work all day and just from normal use, everything is running much smoother (than the 32-bit kernel, which I posted earlier as seeming to run slower than Leopard). I'll update when I can. You lose nothing/no negative effect to using 64-bit, so why not? So long as your software is compatible with it, if not just boot back into 32 (holding 3+2 during startup or 6+4).

I've got an "old" macbook 2.4 GHz around here somewhere - if I have some free time this weekend I'll collect a few numbers too.

I'm mostly interested in the claims of "upgrades are doom, always clean install". so I'll probably wipe the thing and install 10.5 from the retail disk, then upgrade to 10.6 from the $29 copy of 10.6. then compare that file system with a clean install from the mac box set (had to buy that for my girlfriend who's still stuck on 10.4).

I'm willing to be there's very little significant difference apart from a "previous system" folder, but I've never found anything authoritative to confirm or discount that suspicion.

Can't hurt to run a few benchmarks too.

[rajputwarrior]

you think if i went to best buy and bought it there and then returned my unopened copy i am getting from apple i could pull it off?

[veritas310]

Absolutely, I'll update when I can as well.

[Phantom Helix]

Can you offer benchmarks or some other form of support for this?

It would be big news for everyone if what you claim is true.

Given that the public literature all claims no perceptible difference, what you're saying is significant.

What specific tests or benchmarks would you suggest?

I have white plastic MacBook and an early 2009 iMac with a 2.66ghz and 4gb ram, lets get as many different systems as we can together and and build a real performance map

My base install was 2GB MORE that 10.5.5

http://www.macworld.com/article/142471/200...opard_math.html

I know this makes perfect sence to change this, however are the "Storage media" companies behind this?

my WD 2TB externals were 1.82gb in leopard, but in SL they are a full 2TB lol so it would seem to me it benefits them in selling their products.

Just got my copy and its sitting here. Thinking about doing an upgrade (will eventually wipe and reinstall) but am not sure since LCC is not compatible with SL yet.

And just so we are clear. I will not use my MX Revolution without LCC. The hardware is useless without the hardware.

I know its the first day of release, but sigh logitech :(

LCC was JUST a couple days ago updated to 3.0 and logitech is so slow at updates, don't hold your breath for a SL 3.1 LCC or anything lol

Edited August 29, 2009 by Phantom Helix

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

FYI 10.6 is using a different method for showing size

i read its not using the 1024 = 1GB method, its using 1000 = 1GB

[AltecXP]

I know this makes perfect sence to change this, however are the "Storage media" companies behind this?

my WD 2TB externals were 1.82gb in leopard, but in SL they are a full 2TB lol so it would seem to me it benefits them in selling their products.

Read the thread before wasting a post next time. that math doesn't acct for SL still taking up 1.5GB of more space than L.

[Phantom Helix]

Read the thread before wasting a post next time. that math doesn't acct for SL still taking up 1.5GB of more space than L.

hey listen im sorry my comment seemed to offend you some, i think your post was a bit rude, but i forgive you, my comment was about the "new math" itself and not how it relates to SL base install size, and I have been reading the thread what do you think I missed?

[rajputwarrior]

FYI 10.6 is using a different method for showing size

i read its not using the 1024 = 1GB method, its using 1000 = 1GB

is that what apple is doing to say SL takes less space? that's pretty stupid and underminded

and i wish i never bought it through apple anymore :( could have purchased it at futureshop by now

Edited August 29, 2009 by rajputwarrior