Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

By giga
in Apple (macOS)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

Phantom Helix

Posted
Posted (edited)

+evn

GeekBench results

The zip at the bottom has the actual GeekBench .geekbench files

Here is my Install info

Ok I finally took the plunge (Sorta) and upgraded my 10.5.8 to SL

I made a Carbon Copy Cloner bootable backup and upgraded that on an external drive.

The custom options i chose in the OS X installer were to remove languages and extra fonts, i allowed it to install printer drivers for devices used by my Mac (a lexmark x75 AIO)

I installed Rosetta, Quicktime 7 (it actually copied my PRO key of QT correctly sweet!) and X11

The only difference from when i Installed 10.5 is that i was able to not install languages and fonts and ALL printer drivers (I wonder if all languages/fonts and drivers still exists from my previous instal?)

Installer Said it needed to use an additional 3.89gb more than what was used currently. but when comparing the before and after drive size in SL it was 3.47gb

Im not sure why it didn't save me any space, unless Apples claim is only for the Fresh install footprint, Xslimmer 1.7 said i could get another 186mb (had previously used it on 1.5)

Clean install with no printers/languages/fonts/x11 - minimal install was 4.61gb in this same system, Xslimmer 1.7 says it can get 124mb from this clean install, CleanMyMac says it can get 299.5mb in language files from the system apps and 22.9mb stripping the binaries

And for anyone interested LCC 3.0 does work

GeekBench_results.zip

post-24918-1251639282_thumb.png

Edited by Phantom Helix
Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
I love the fact Microsoft openly declared that Microsoft Office 2008 is fully ready for Snow Leopard, yet they failed to mention this little detail.

No idea why the installer is still PPC-only.

Because installing Rosetta (a few MB) will install Office 2008, which then works fine on Snow Leopard.

I'm sure no one would have a problem if some of Apple's software still needed Rosetta on Snow Leopard.

Grand Master

PyX

Posted
Posted
Office 2008 still works on PPC mac's, so that's probably why.

Instead of clicking "compile for PPC", I'm pretty sure Microsoft could have clicked "compile Universal Binary" and it would have worked on both Intel and PPC, natively.

Can someone tell me who the hell they hired to work on Mac products at Microsoft? It's so freaking ridiculous at times... :pinch:

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
Instead of clicking "compile for PPC", I'm pretty sure Microsoft could have clicked "compile Universal Binary" and it would have worked on both Intel and PPC, natively.

Can someone tell me who the hell they hired to work on Mac products at Microsoft? It's so freaking ridiculous at times... :pinch:

Again, if you need Office 2008, I'm sure you can spare a few MB or w/e to install Rosetta.

Grand Master

.Neo

Posted
Posted
Because installing Rosetta (a few MB) will install Office 2008, which then works fine on Snow Leopard.

Why would I possibly want to do that? The Microsoft Office 2008 installer is the only aspect of the entire application suite that requires Rosetta. All the main applications are fully Universal and run perfectly fine without it. There's no reason for them, except laziness or it being a stupid oversight, to include a PPC-only installer.

If certain parts of Office 2008 still required Rosetta, they should have corrected that by now.

I'm sure no one would have a problem if some of Apple's software still needed Rosetta on Snow Leopard.

Actualy I'm pretty sure people would have a problem with Apple.

Office 2008 still works on PPC mac's, so that's probably why.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Grand Master

the evn show

Posted
Posted
+evn

GeekBench results

The zip at the bottom has the actual GeekBench .geekbench files

Here is my Install info

Thanks a lot, that's exactly what we're looking for.

From these results I believe you can all stop freaking out for not having the kernel boot in 64bit mode.

I wouldn't go that far just yet. There might be other configurations where it does matter: systems with 8gb of ram, notebooks, etc.

It could also be that there are improvements (or penalties) in application launch speed, real-world application performance differences, etc. This piece of evidence is helpful though: it shows that in at least one case (and probably a very common one) it doesn't make a difference for synthetic benchmarks.

Veteran

Phantom Helix

Posted
Posted (edited)

I do have to say that that when running my "upgraded" version of SL in 64bit kernel mode it genuinely feels faster, the dock has quite a bit less lag during mouse over with magnification enabled.

apps seem to launch faster either from stacks, dock or directly from folders, the "system" part of it of the experience appears more in sync with itself.

Of course it is annoying as hell when the things that are not compatible with a 64bit kernel don't work.

and I don't believe it's in my head, aside from the synthetic bench's i wish there was some evidence we could show to prove it.

Edited by Phantom Helix
Veteran

Phantom Helix

Posted
Posted
In a clean install the 32bit kernel version feels a lot faster. I cant wait to try the 64bit one, however I will wait as I use many apps that will break in 64bit

You won't actually break anything, when i ran my geekbench test i started in 32 kernel, then switched to 64 and then back again

and vie been running vanilla installs since the WWDC build, my comparison of the system being faster was of itself 32 Vs. 64

Grand Master

Xero

Posted
Posted

Anyone else have bugs with opening multiple files in the new Finder. I thought it was just related to CS4 but I'm getting it with iTunes as well. If I select say 10+ files, drag to the dock icon, it will only one 1 file, not even the selected one when dragging just one at random in the list.

Real annoying, even if I right click, open with. It will only open 1 at a time. Same for just double clicking.

Grand Master

sanctified Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
You won't actually break anything, when i ran my geekbench test i started in 32 kernel, then switched to 64 and then back again

and vie been running vanilla installs since the WWDC build, my comparison of the system being faster was of itself 32 Vs. 64

Paralells 4 breaks in 64bit mode, Carrara 5 as well.

Veteran

Phantom Helix

Posted
Posted
Anyone else have bugs with opening multiple files in the new Finder. I thought it was just related to CS4 but I'm getting it with iTunes as well. If I select say 10+ files, drag to the dock icon, it will only one 1 file, not even the selected one when dragging just one at random in the list.

Real annoying, even if I right click, open with. It will only open 1 at a time. Same for just double clicking.

I never knew itunes could play more than one file at a time?

Paralells 4 breaks in 64bit mode, Carrara 5 as well.

What i was getting at is you can still try 64bit and then go back to 32 when you need to use those apps

Grand Master

sanctified Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
What i was getting at is you can still try 64bit and then go back to 32 when you need to you those apps

I can be patient, I dont like the idea of rebooting just for an app. 32bit mode is already faster that leopard for me and I know is not a placebo effect, some apps, like safari, beachballed on me on start every time, in SL safari starts immediately.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted
Given I'm opposed to that concept? ;) Hehe, might not be easy. ;)

Cara, you are opposed to a *beige-box* OS X (Snow Leopard in particular) *why*?

Does it have to do with one thing Apple is insisting on - control of the hardware platform?

Or are there other reasons? (I'm not asking about Apple's opinion, or that of the company you woirk for, but your own.)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.