Phantom Helix Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 lol, ok gotchya. is it just me or do the stacks/new dock menus/ and any other hud window need to be unified in their shade as-well? appears other than the blur or no blur the shade of the stacks is lighter than that of the dock menus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 is it just me or do the stacks/new dock menus/ and any other hud window need to be unified in their shade as-well? Yeah, I would definately unify all of these HUDs interfaces. I'll have to install this update on my MacBook Unibody ASAP to get the new feel. I always thought that Vista, being black, wasn't ergonomical to the eye... Leopard darkened a few things and now Snow Leopard's turning black, I'm not sure this is good news for me. It seems rather nice though, I'll give it a shot today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 ^ Just tested out the new build of Snow Leopard, and I don't like that they put a new "Options" submenu there. Unless they will add features to it later, it's very useless right now and adds more clicks to do simple things. Also, there's 2 options in this menu (Keep in Dock and Open at startup). That line called "options" replaces these 2 options I've named but... why do a submenu just to save one line of text, and add more clicks to the user? Also, is it just me or if you hover a file onto the Finder's icon, it brings out a Finder window? I don't remember enabling this hack on my MacBook, just my iMac.. Expos? is really smooooooooth in this version, I've never seen that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Helix Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 think that is in response to Windows 7 jump lists? And i like it cuz im a big "Dock" guy, don't like always moving mouse up to the menubar to get to those options lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Also, is it just me or if you hover a file onto the Finder's icon, it brings out a Finder window? I don't remember enabling this hack on my MacBook, just my iMac.. Good, they brought back the spring-loaded application icons of Leopard, but now they're enabled by default instead of being a Terminal hack... By far the best "new" feature of this build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Helix Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I still have not found much that justifies the 1.3gb update size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismaddern Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I still have not found much that justifies the 1.3gb update size When they update between developer seeds do they not just replace the System folder with an imaged version that's downloaded off Software Update; it'd be really messy to keep performing 'updates' on the kernel? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillz Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 The old format was "screenshot ON x.x.x at y.y.y" Now, it's "screen shot x.x.x at y.y.y" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Helix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 When they update between developer seeds do they not just replace the System folder with an imaged version that's downloaded off Software Update; it'd be really messy to keep performing 'updates' on the kernel?Chris Ok, the last update 10a394 was only 698 or something, if what you say is true why the vast size difference this time? a simple replacement of the folder would mean that it grew in size, yet my install is still only 5.32gb total? am i misunderstanding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I suspect that a lot of the changes are under the hood and you can't see them with your eyes. If they change Expos?, Spaces, QuickTime, the Dock, the Finder, etc. you must be at 500 MB already... As for the rest, I have no idea XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alter Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 - 64-bit: Support up to 16 TB of RAM Hold on, I'm not sure if I'm really reading this clearly... Sixteen Terabytes of RAM? As in Random Access Memory? That's a sh**load of memory! I think I'm perfectly fine with my 4GB. Also, who's going to use 16TB of RAM? Are there any supercomputers out there that use even close to that much? And if there are, why would anyone want to run a supercomputer on Mac OS X? Speed exceeding 20% - 50% faster than Leopard...wow. This just boosts my whole opinion on it! I got a new Macbook Pro 13" a few days ago, and the pre-installed OS (10.5.7) is absolutely horrible when it comes to speed D= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctified Veteran Posted July 11, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2009 This just boosts my whole opinion on it! I got a new Macbook Pro 13" a few days ago, and the pre-installed OS (10.5.7) is absolutely horrible when it comes to speed D= Are you sure there's nothing wrong with your laptop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alter Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Are you sure there's nothing wrong with your laptop? Yeah, I'm absolutely sure. Windows runs smoothly on it with Boot Camp. Now I'm not any Mac guru, but I'm pretty sure that Apple would design their Macs to run Mac OS X faster on their machines than Windows does with Boot Camp, but I can tell a huge difference in the speed of the two operating systems. Windows is comparably faster. I have run multiple hardware tests on the system, including the Apple one where you hold D while starting up, and no problems have been found :] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Hold on, I'm not sure if I'm really reading this clearly...Sixteen Terabytes of RAM? As in Random Access Memory? That's a sh**load of memory! I think I'm perfectly fine with my 4GB. Also, who's going to use 16TB of RAM? Are there any supercomputers out there that use even close to that much? And if there are, why would anyone want to run a supercomputer on Mac OS X? This just boosts my whole opinion on it! I got a new Macbook Pro 13" a few days ago, and the pre-installed OS (10.5.7) is absolutely horrible when it comes to speed D= Not again ... Let me guess you are the same person that posted this morning about MAC OS X criticisms.... You were called WORD s p a c e r or something like that... and your thread was closed by a mod?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alter Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Not again ... Let me guess you are the same person that posted this morning about MAC OS X criticisms.... You were called WORD s p a c e r or something like that... and your thread was closed by a mod?.... o_o;... I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. But you can stick with that story if you believe :] Oh and uhmmm... usually on forums when accounts are banned, their IP address is banned too... but maybe not on this forum... You could ask an Admin to compare my IP address with the other person's IP if you wish. I have nothing to hide =d Any more questions? I'd be happy to answer :] PS: If I was the person that you're talking about, do you really think he'd say yes? Use common sense, buddy :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 o_o;... I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. But you can stick with that story if you believe :]Oh and uhmmm... usually on forums when accounts are banned, their IP address is banned too... but maybe not on this forum... You could ask an Admin to compare my IP address with the other person's IP if you wish. I have nothing to hide =d Any more questions? I'd be happy to answer :] PS: If I was the person that you're talking about, do you really think he'd say yes? Use common sense, buddy :p Yes, firstly you were not banned but your thread was closed. Second your claim has no merit if you search online reviews they'll tell you otherwise.. I am running MAC OS X and Win 7 using boot camp and I am also disagreeing with your statement. MAC OS X boots faster and shut downs faster, also battery efficiency is better by 2 to 2:30 hours on MAC OS X than on Windows 7. It seems that your case is some how amazingly singled out.... Also about your previous post, yes some people require more RAM. I am not sure if you've ever used VMWARE or VirtualBox or even just edited photos on photoshop or edited movies.... some apps just use more RAM... I dont see your point joining to NewEgg and making your first post to bash MAC OS X 10.5.7 with some unconvincing claims and you are doing this in a Thread that discusses the Snow Leopard.... So yes I do think you are the same person from this morning, and you dont need to have the same IP. With DHCP all you need to do is unplug your cable modem or DSL MOdem for couple of minutes and you get a new IP reassigned. I just dont understand why do some people go to this lengths to trash an OS.... I use Windows for certain thing, Linux for some other things and I just got into MAC OS X and I think is a pretty stable system and after using it for two weeks I really like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alter Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Yes, firstly you were not banned but your thread was closed. Second your claim has no merit if you search online reviews they'll tell you otherwise..I am running MAC OS X and Win 7 using boot camp and I am also disagreeing with your statement. MAC OS X boots faster and shut downs faster, also battery efficiency is better by 2 to 2:30 hours on MAC OS X than on Windows 7. It seems that your case is some how amazingly singled out.... Also about your previous post, yes some people require more RAM. I am not sure if you've ever used VMWARE or VirtualBox or even just edited photos on photoshop or edited movies.... some apps just use more RAM... I dont see your point joining to NewEgg and making your first post to bash MAC OS X 10.5.7 with some unconvincing claims and you are doing this in a Thread that discusses the Snow Leopard.... So yes I do think you are the same person from this morning, and you dont need to have the same IP. With DHCP all you need to do is unplug your cable modem or DSL MOdem for couple of minutes and you get a new IP reassigned. I just dont understand why do some people go to this lengths to trash an OS.... I use Windows for certain thing, Linux for some other things and I just got into MAC OS X and I think is a pretty stable system and after using it for two weeks I really like it. Hmm, sorry for misreading. Well, still, feel free to ask the admins. And also, you misread my post. I didn't care about efficiency or boot time. I said speed, meaning while running, not booting or shutting down. My first post wasn't to "bash" OS X 10.5.7, it was to express excitement on the new Snow Leopard... maybe you could interpret outside the box next time you read a post. By the way, I have Comcast FIOS for my internet, which does NOT allow you to replace your IP unless you call up the tech support and tell them that there's something wrong with it. In other words, I have a static IP address. I'm not going to any length to trash OS X. I love it completely, except for the lack of speed compared to Windows on it's own machine... I use Linux sometimes, but not as often. I have no real reason to use it except to mess around with. I use Mac OS for my school work, because it's one of the most stable environments when it comes to operating systems, as long as you don't tamper with it. I use Windows for... well... tampering with. I'm a Windows programmer, so I just mess around with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 So what apps are you actually comparing. I mentioned the boot time and shutdown time since those are the only things that are different on MAC OS X and on Windows 7, everything else pretty much runs as fast or as slow on both OS's..... actually iTunes is a bit more responsive on MAC OS X, but I guess thats understandable. If you really can notice that your MAC OS X is running slower than your Windows partition than you seriously have done something wrong when reinstalling the OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Alter Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 So what apps are you actually comparing. I mentioned the boot time and shutdown time since those are the only things that are different on MAC OS X and on Windows 7, everything else pretty much runs as fast or as slow on both OS's..... actually iTunes is a bit more responsive on MAC OS X, but I guess thats understandable. If you really can notice that your MAC OS X is running slower than your Windows partition than you seriously have done something wrong when reinstalling the OS... Well, Microsoft Office for one. It's pretty much the base operating system in a whole that I'm comparing. And yes, without a doubt, since iTunes and Safari are pretty much like what would be services to Windows, they will boot up and run extremely quickly and smoothly on the OS X 10.5.*, however, Firefox does have a lag time when I try to boot that up. After booting up and starting Firefox for the first time, I'll get the spinning beach ball for 5 seconds or more before Firefox starts responding again. I haven't touched my Mac OS X partition except for re-sizing it with the Boot Camp installer, and I only used that tool to tamper with partitions. I used the basic functions; resize using the "Use 32GB" button and popping in the Windows install disc and letting it do its thing, with the exception of some user interaction during the installation. So in simpler words, I didn't do anything to the partitions =d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dysphoria Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Yeah I dont have MS office for MAC OS X i have one for Windows, but for MAC OS I use iWork09 and I also have NeoOffice installed and they both work great. Iwork is bit better integrated with MAC OS but they both do the job since I can open MS Office docs and spreadsheets. I've actually read some mixed reviews about MS OFFICE for MAC OS. Apparently is slower and also prone to crashes, but as you said before this is a Windows native up so it's understandable to have it run better on Windows OS. I know they way they increased responsiveness in Vista was buy loading it in the RAM and than having a background process run all the time.. The only time I use my Win 7 OS is when I connect to VPN at work since the VPN client provided by my employer only runs on Windows, and there are couple of other windows work apps I use for work, but other than that after being a Windows user for 15 years I am surprised at how far apple has gotten with it's OS and hardware design. I cant wait for the Snow Leopard. If this OS is running 6:30 hours on battery and is as responsive as it is, than I really want to see how will performance and battery life differ with Snow Leopard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Well Firefox and Microsoft Office are certainly not optimized for OS X, trust me. Office 2008 isn't even in Cocoa (it's in Carbon) and I'd still have a hard time believing that Firefox 3.5 is in Cocoa. You can't do huge applications in Carbon, or it becomes sluggish. I don't know in what language Photoshop was before, but I'm sure it was Carbon, and it was PowerPC as well. Now I think it's Carbon Intel because Adobe is lazy at work, and see, it doesn't give great results IMO. Why do something when you can actually do much, much better? This isn't like Adobe is a small company and they need to save. No, they are Adobe. Now, take other browsers like Safari, Camino, Shiira, etc. and take other graphic editors like Pixelmator for instance. You'll notice a huuuuge difference. And even, take Microsoft Messenger. I'm pretty positive this is in Cocoa, or it has been optimized really well if not... Compagnies like MS don't give a crap about using Cocoa ASAP, because OS X is not their platform. Same for Apple on Windows. They don't give a crap about making a whole new UI, etc. Now they did with Safari, it's pretty cool from them. And Adobe, well, it's a company that makes me completely speechless to be honest. It was good back in Photoshop 6 and 7, then it became a real joke. I'm not just talking about Photoshop. -- By the way, I think you're really exagerating about the term "horrible speed". My MacBook runs things great and you say you've got a MacBook Pro... But Snow Leopard definately makes everything a whole lot of snappier. It seems fresh, new. I wouldn't believe you if you said Snow Leopard was "horrible" on your MacBook... not that I believe you now, but you get it I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PL_ Veteran Posted July 11, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2009 And even, take Microsoft Messenger. I'm pretty positive this is in Cocoa, or it has been optimized really well if not... I don't think it is, but I know MS are shifting all their apps to it... Remember, Cocoa is not a make-everything-better framework. iTunes is Carbon and that runs great, and I think Final Cut and Logic are. Y'know, the serious apps. Well, Microsoft Office for one... Firefox does have a lag time when I try to boot that up. After booting up and starting Firefox for the first time, I'll get the spinning beach ball for 5 seconds or more before Firefox starts responding again. Snow Leopard most likely won't fix these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted July 11, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2009 Cocoa (while a great framework) doesn't magically make an app look or perform better, there's no user facing differences really (Case in point, people keep saying Firefox needs to use Cocoa instead of Carbon, it already does) Anyway, when's this getting released? I'm apparently getting a Mac Mini so I'd like to get into the free update period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Helix Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Cocoa (while a great framework) doesn't magically make an app look or perform better, there's no user facing differences really (Case in point, people keep saying Firefox needs to use Cocoa instead of Carbon, it already does)Anyway, when's this getting released? I'm apparently getting a Mac Mini so I'd like to get into the free update period. Planned release is september 2009 If you purchase between June 8th 2009 and December 26th 2009, the upgrade to snow leopard is $9.95 Here is a List of Qualified Macs for the Up-to-Date Program Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted July 11, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 11, 2009 Oh cool, the period's already started. Well, that's helpful, thanks for the links! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts