Mac OS X 10.6 code named Snow Leopard

adsl3g

adsl3g

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
3
Location
Pretoria
http://arstechnica.com/journals/app...0-6-code-named-snow-leopard-may-be-pure-cocoa

The next version of Mac OS X is code-named "Snow Leopard," and will indeed be Intel-only, we have learned. This info is hot on the heels of TUAW's original scoop about Mac OS X 10.6 being readied for shipment as soon as Macworld 2009 and being Intel-only.

People familiar with the situation have confirmed to us that TUAW's details are true—Snow Leopard is currently on track to come out during next January's Macworld, and it will not contain major OS changes. Instead, the release is heavily focused on performance and nailing down speed and stability. With Apple's current (and future) focus on smaller, thinner, and more mobile devices, this move makes perfect sense. Things like the MacBook Air, iPhone, iPod touch, and other mysterious devices that have yet to be announced need better performance for better battery life, and that's definitely something Apple wants to excel at in the years to come. Our sources did not note whether Apple planned to discuss Snow Leopard at this year's WWDC.

Something else that may happen is that Apple may eventually wrap everything in Cocoa—things that are currently only Carbon accessible will be no longer. This (which is reportedly not yet in stone) should make many Objective-C programmers happy, although those who are married to Carbon may get a bit bristly at the news. (Note: There may be some disagreement here as to what exactly "Cocoa-only" means, so take that into account when thinking about this. For example, Apple may only axe Carbon UI stuff.) Of course, it seems like 10.6 is all about making graybeards bristly, as PowerPC users will soon be left out in the cold too.
Click to expand...
 
Ya but my 17" Powerbook still serves me very well thank you very much!
 
VertigoZA said:
Ya but my 17" Powerbook still serves me very well thank you very much!
Click to expand...
As does mine but buy the time the 10.6 (and I'm not buying "snow leopard" btw) comes out PPC will be pretty long in the tooth.
 
Snow Leopard? That's the worst name ever and is so close to Leopard they would never call it that. Marketing logic tells me no one would actually buy that as they would consider it not much better than Leopard.
 
koffiejunkie said:
It's not going to make your PPC be worse than it is now at whatever it is you're doing with it.



Why would you want that?
Click to expand...

Read about it here and there

June 6, 2007 1:28 PM PDT
Apple will include ZFS in OS X Leopard, Sun confirms
Posted by Declan McCullagh 10 commentsWe've heard rumors for a while that Apple's forthcoming Leopard operating system will use the next-generation file system called ZFS.

Now it seems to be official. As MacRumors.com notes, Sun Microsystems' Jonathan Schwartz said on Wednesday that ZFS would be "the file system" for Leopard, succeeding HFS+.

ZFS, which (sort of) stands for Zettabyte File System and was originally developed by Sun, is a huge step forward from traditional file systems. It protects all files with 64-bit checksums to detect and fix data corruption and, as a 128-bit file system, can handle many orders of magnitude more space than current versions of Microsoft Windows, OS X, or Linux. (There is a movement afoot to port ZFS to Linux but it's complicated by restrictions in the GNU General Public License.)

One of the biggest changes ZFS offers is what's known as a pooled storage model. What that means is that physical drives become even more removed from logical volumes, and getting more free space simply means plugging in more drives. The file system takes care of the rest for you.

ZFS also offers snapshots of the state of a file system at a particular time, handles RAID-type backups automatically, and offers optional compression. Here are 10 reasons to reformat your hard drives with ZFS.

Perhaps the best thing about ZFS, though, is that its 128-bit limit should last for quite a while. One post calculated that fully using that much storage (2^128 = 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456 bits) would require more energy than it would take to boil Earth's oceans.
Click to expand...
 
I know about ZFS and that it was going to be included. Didn't know (and Apple hasn't confirmed) that it will be *the* file system.

Another thing I'm curious to know, is if they'll panelbeat ZFS to be case-insensitive too? Because if they don't (and I hope they don't), a lot of software vendors will have to start coding with their brains instead of with their behinds.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I know about ZFS and that it was going to be included. Didn't know (and Apple hasn't confirmed) that it will be *the* file system.

Another thing I'm curious to know, is if they'll panelbeat ZFS to be case-insensitive too? Because if they don't (and I hope they don't), a lot of software vendors will have to start coding with their brains instead of with their behinds.
Click to expand...

Ah, so now u see why it interests me.
The 128 bit part really catches my eye.
 
Rewind said:
Snow Leopard? That's the worst name ever and is so close to Leopard they would never call it that. Marketing logic tells me no one would actually buy that as they would consider it not much better than Leopard.
Click to expand...

I don't know - the fact that it is just for Intel machines, could have some performance benefits - I would definately get it (a bit of new eye candy would also be nice).

..and the name isin't so bad - snow leopard - snow as in pure white for intel only??!?
 
It depends really what it delivers. If its awesome then everyone will buy it. Something tells me they gonna move towards better multi touch with this release. They will want to beat micorsoft. Its always possible they wait for 10.7 though.
 
alf101 said:
Maybe they'll make it more gaming friendly.
That would be a reason to buy it.
Click to expand...
Make OsX more gaming friendly? :confused: How is it unfriendly in its current guise?
 
By the fact that it doesn't support DirectX it's not gaming friendly.
 
Unless I'm mistaken DirectX is a set of proprietary Microsoft API - I'd suggest against holding your breath if you're waiting for Apple to support it. ;)
 
I think it's more likely that Bill Gates will turn out to be Steve Jobs before we see DirectX on OSX.
On the downside all games are coded with the API so games on a Mac need to be made in OpenGL which (I think) is technically better but not very well supported.
 
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer will get a job juggling snowballs in hell before they'll license DirectX to anyone.
 
bwana said:
Make OsX more gaming friendly? :confused: How is it unfriendly in its current guise?
Click to expand...

For starters, I tried the Doom 3 and Quake 4 Mac demos on OS X .
They suck. look bad, slow framerate etc.
Work better if I use XP on the same machine.

Then there's the availability of games, not much of a variety, unless u like the Sims or want to pay R350 for Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

If you could get all the "PC" games to run as well on OS X as they do on Windows, then I would think Mac sales would go up by quite a bit.



No, I don't want to have to use Boot Camp for that...:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X