Snow Leopard build 10A432 goes 'Golden Master,' mischievous sources claim
By Joseph L. Flatley 
posted August 12th 2009 12:04PM
posted August 12th 2009 12:04PM
[Via MacRumors]
posted August 12th 2009 12:04PM
powered by gdgt
Apple Mac OS X Snow Leopard
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Zak,
Ive never seen a Mac OR PC crash that wasn't caused by a low level OS error (yes macs get them too), 3rd party software, or faulty hardware. Can you tell me in what way PCs crash that macs don't? or wait...they are BOTH COMPUTERS.
your argument makes absolutely no sense and missionsparta's rebuttal was totally accurate (in terms of your initial argument).
I have both a Windows computer and an iMac. I can tell you that my Win 7 computer does "hang" not crash; I have had Windows Explorer (not internet explorer, mind you) crash and die, my task bar disappears, and I have to restart. That is not a problem, as I love Win 7 otherwise. But on my Mac I have only once had a problem with Safari closing on me. Overall I just prefer to compute on my Mac, I feel it's just nicer to handle and use.
I agree with you Zak. I have been using Macs for 16+ years, and for 13 of them, a minimum of 9 hours a day (I have also been using Windows just as long - just not as much). Yes, Macs crash, but not very often. Maybe what is viewed as 'crashing' is just hanging. In that case, learn about 'force quit'
Sounds to me like there is something seriously wrong if your computer is crashing this often. An average day has me running Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Bridge, Dreamweaver, iCal, Lotus Notes, Firefox, Safari, iTunes, Fetch, Quark Xpress, Excell and Word all at the same time. I really can not remember my last crash.
Programs hanging? Yes, happens a couple times a month maybe.
It's funny cause missionsparta still hasn't provided the specifics as to what software was being run when it crashed. If he could provide the specifics, I wouldn't be surprised if some mac savvy person was willing to try and help troubleshoot.
I couldn't live without firefox on my mac. I have add-ons and such that are a real pleasure for browsing. Safari is nice and all, but I like the browsing experience better on firefox
Amazed that people are STILL calling this a "Service Pack". Do some research.
They are calling it a Service Pack to try to compare it to the competitor. It also "gives" them the ability to harp on Apple for charging a fee for the upgrade.
yeah, like Win 7 isn't just a "Service Pack" for Vista.
and costs a lot more compared to SL.
Still no information on a UK launch though. Just a "Notify Me" on the Apple website. :(
@yakapo
Well, 10% marketshare is freaking huge in reality. And with Apple's margins that's awesome. Makes me wish I had more shares of apple (but it's damned expensive.) Also, they won't release OS X for generic x86 machines as that would kill their hardware business (even if it doesn't bring in the lions share of the money these days.)
@10minutehobo
I wouldn't want to run Windows 7 on a P3 or a netbook. As hyped as the claims of a speedup are, I sincerely doubt it's faster than XP on older hardware. It is certainly not a "whole new OS" but an evolutionary *fix* from Vista. From what you say I suspect you're a 4chan-descended Apple-hater.
Damn I hate the engadget comment system. Click add comment, doesn't add the comment. Click back, click add comment, doesn't add the comment. Click back again, click add comment, it does add the comment but forgets who you replied to.
Is Leopard faster than OS9? Why not? Ah, must be hyped.
Maybe not on a P3, but on a netbook, Windows 7 is perfectly usable.
@microlith, I like how you tried to justify that. Not even justifiable.
Also microlith at least try out Windows 7. Everyone else has and they love it. It only makes sense that you not having tried it would think the complete opposite. Also a lot of it has been completely redone to make it run so well on netbooks.
I know a few Mac people and they agree it's people like you that make them look bad.
From my own experience(running Windows 7 RC on my Asus Eee PC 1000HE netbook), it runs at least as fast. Boot time seems to be a bit faster and it doesn't have the massive slowdown problems you get with XP from leaving the computer on for extended periods of time. All of that is with Aero effects running and everything. It definitely isn't slower at any point, so it's a pretty darn decent upgrade from Vista.
@10minutehobo
What about OS9, aside from being a totally (fundamentally) different OS from OS X?
@Templarian
Justify what?
I probably will upgrade to Windows 7, Vista does power my primary desktop. From all I've heard, 7 is faster all around compared to Vista. But I -do- own a netbook (aspire one) and people severely overestimate the power these things have. 1GB of RAM and a 1.6GHz Atom are painfully slow. Core to the problem is the Atom processor. It's even worse if you have one of those pathetically tiny SSDs. Hell I hated having XP on mine and loaded Ubuntu, which was very responsive (but still no good for cpu-intensive activities.)
I still wouldn't want to use 7 on a netbook. Desktop sure, netbook no. Maybe (just maybe) after they get dual-core Atom chips out paired with ion graphics chips. But not before.
@10minutehobo
Nice try, but OS 9 was released in October 1999, XP in October 2001, two years later. If you want to make a fair comparison, compare Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard to Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma". Is Snow Leopard faster than Puma? Yes, yes it is, as has every new release of OS X been. But on top of being much faster, Snow Leopard will also have a much smaller hard disk footprint too.
There's a reason why so many people are trying to get Mac OS X running on netbooks. It's a much more efficient OS than Windows XP or 7.
@madgunde
Remember XP was built off the 2000 kernel, which does indeed date from 1999. The deep plumbing of Vista and 7 is so vastly different from 2000 and XP, it's fair to say it's akin to the jump from OS 9 to X.
Also, I always hear how OS X is "oh, so much more efficient than anything else". What exactly IS more efficient about it? I'm genuinely interested.
Snow Leopard does 'Golden SHOWER,' mischievous sources claim
Did i click Tuaw by accident?
Yes, obviously. Because there are nothing but Apple stories on the front page.
Seriously, are you really this stupid?
i dream of a day i can read a blog that 100% troll free.
Very much looking forward to running this on my Mid 2009 MacBook Pro, and also very much looking forward to running Windows 7 Pro on my ASUS G50VT-X1 PC Laptop as well.
Hey can you run snow leopard 64-bit on the new macbook pros?
For whoever said windows was copying off OSX for the dock and all. Well lets see what has OSX copied off linux int he past 3 years and just renamed it? The two biggest, which everyone raves about are spaces and expose. Good job Steve for copying someone else and making it so it seems apple came up with it!!
Really? Where did Apple say they invented virtual desktops? Can you show me the quote?
I don't think Linux is as fun and easy to use as OS X. Not by a long shot. ALSO! Expose?! How was that ripped off in the last 3 years, seeing as it's bloody 6 years old.
Well... in all fairness OS X is built off of NeXTSTEP which was developed by a company (NeXT) started up by Steve Jobs when he was ousted from Apple some 20 years ago. The things that people generally talk about when they say "this company copied from that company" are insignificant to say the least. Things like Exposé and Spaces are nice and useful, but are dwarfed in comparison to the actual underlying code for the OS. As much as people like to bash Windows, it's pretty remarkable what they have done. Windows 7 basically needs to support every consumer level peripheral. That's no small feat... and it does so surprisingly well... and certainly much better than any previous version of Windows. It also supports application compatibility going back some 20 years. Apple took a different route when they went from OS 9 to OS X. They pretty much abandoned the old OS and went with an OS that was completely new (at least with respect to having absolutely nothing in common with the previous version). As a result, the underlying code in OS X is a bit newer than that of even Windows 7 which still has a bit of NT in it. Of course, Apple's market share at the time was tiny... so they could make that change. Microsoft is sort of stuck between rock and a hard place. I have no doubt that MS could develop a tight efficient OS (and I wouldn't be surprised if they have been actively working on doing so for years)... the problem is that the vast majority of people in the world with computers are running some form of Windows. That seriously limits what MS can do. They need to keep quite a bit of legacy code in their OS so the millions of people and businesses that rely on older technologies aren't left in the dust. Having said that, MS is definitely moving in the right direction with Windows 7. They will always have to support a few generations of hardware and applications... as such, Windows will always be bulky with legacy code. What they should do... at some point... is spin off a ground-up new OS... while still offering the traditional Windows. This way they could offer a compelling and completely modern OS for those that didn't need to rely on legacy code... but they wouldn't be leaving the Windows folks behind. Over years, businesses and individuals could gradually move over to the newer OS.
There's room in this world for more than one good anything... whether it's Apple vs. MS, Ford vs. Chevy, Oreos vs. Hydrox (I was running out of examples... Oreos are WAY bettery than Hydrox). The new Zune HD has been getting tremendous reviews... but of course you automatically start seeing comments from iPod owners about how it will never be as good as an iPod (without even knowing anything about it).
It's like this whole healthcare "debate" that is going on. How many reasoned arguments have you heard? To be honest, I don't think I have heard a single one. All everything boils down to is a yelling match... with no intelligent discussion. There is effectively no debate. I suppose the many industries that would prefer for things to stay as they are like nothing more than this. To the extent that people don't talk to each other.... nothing will happen. Mind you... that's even with there being plenty of issues regarding healthcare that both Democrats and Republicans actually agree on.
It's really a shame that everything has to be so polarized that there can't be any room in between any two of anything. The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality has crippled this country. There's no room for discussion. There's no trying to listen to what the other guy has to say... It's all just following the sound bites that are fired at the respective sides.
cool story bro
joey
tl;dr;
Where can I download this?
I wonder what those benchmarks said. Does the new Mac OS X perform poorly? It would be embarrassing for Apple if it were to release an OS that would be considered inferior to its predecessor (e.g. the XP/Vista debacle).
The Troll has spoken...
@tuaamin13, True, Exchange support isn't useful for a pure home use OS. However, it is nice to have to easily be able to keep up with work e-mail at home. I can't stand Entourage, nor do I like firing up a VM to run Outlook in. And the web access to Exchange sucks if your not running Internet Explorer in Windows (yet another trip to the VM for just e-mail, no thanks).
Also, Google Apps offers Exchange support, so there are businesses out there not investing in the Exchange overhead, but still getting the same benefits. Now these businesses no longer need an Office license for their Mac users.
missionsparta: Obviously I wasn't clear, so let me be even more clear. I was offering to diagnose your problem for you because you are clearly not capable of diagnosing it yourself. But since you refuse to provide any relevant information, what other conclusion can I draw? You're being awfully persistent in calling Macs "garbage" without providing any evidence, proof or even any anecdotes regarding this Mac's behavior, no model numbers, no stats, nothing.
Seriously? You're going to continue to say Macs suck and refuse to go through the diagnostic process that would allow you to solve your issues with it? That's why you're a moron, and probably a liar too. Hey, prove me wrong. Give me the information I asked for. What's the matter, are you scared I might actually show you how stupid you're being about this?
Or continue to troll and live in ignorance, doesn't matter to me.
And Grammar Delinquent, how thoughtful of you to join in on his defense, despite the fact that he's a clueless jethro. Or did you not catch that part? If you think his rebuttal was "totally accurate", you may need to enroll in some remedial reading classes.
Macs need...those diangnostices things? But...but...the Apple ads and fans and employees say they just work!
You can still see the benchmark in Googles cache: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:9CslLg-WwesJ:browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/155091+&cd=1&hl=da&ct=clnk&gl=dk&client=firefox-a
Exchange in Snow Leopard kicks ass!! and it works with google apps too...... bam! This is super fast due to the fact that every OSX app is now 64-bit. Take those old 32-bit machines and prop open your window with them. Then throw them out the window.