Snow Leopard: Great news for Windows 7, too

"where is winfs?" instant searching? that shipped in vista single-instance storage with redundancy? that shipped in whs database storage with both options? that shipped in sql server 2008 "where does windows show you what is 32-bit and what is 64-bit?" it's called the processes tab of task manager.

Very interesting. All the Mac fans rushing to defend Apple. Daring to say that Paul lied, he's a jerk, or arguing semantics. False outrage, anyone? However, I hate to say it but the Mac defenders are completely wrong and Paul is correct. I'll walk you guys through the answer as to why Paul is correct. 1. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10320314-37.html?tag=rtcol;pop "For the most part, everything that they experience on the Mac, from the 64-bit point of view, the applications, the operating system, is all going to be 64-bit," Stuart Harris, software product marketing manager at Apple Australia said Curious that Mr. Harris said "for the most part." Most meaning the vast majority but not entirely. If it was 100% fully 64 bit, there would be no need for the word "most." 2. a) Harris said that at this stage there were very few things, such as device drivers, that required 64-bit mode at the kernel level but the option is available. "But we're trying to make it as smooth as possible, so people don't end up finding that 'oh, that doesn't work' because it's not available yet," he said. Same article. Not everything is 100% 64 bit within Snow Leopard. Lets go through a small list shall we? b) http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/snow_leopard_mac_os_x_is_64-bit_a... iTunes, Front Row, Grapher and DVD Player are applications which has not been rewritten to fully utilize 64 bit addressing space. 3. Further proof can be found on Apple's website. http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit Nearly all system applications — including the Finder, Mail, Safari, iCal, and iChat — are now built with 64-bit code. Nearly just like the words for the most part doesn't translate to 100%. Which means some of the internal applications in Snow Leopard even running in 64 bit mode, are 32 bit programs. I believe that Apple and Mr. Harris had to add this precise language to their website and his interview to avoid legal reprocussions. Since there are 32 bit applications in OS-X even when running a 64 bit kernel, that would be misrepresentation. That bit of legalese of using the words "most" and "nearly" because Apple would be misrepresenting the capabilities of Snow Leopard if they said "fully", "completely", or "100%" 64 bit. Unlike Windows 7, that is fully 100% 64 bit down to drivers, processes, services, and native applications. 4. Also, suites such as iWork and iLife have not been made fully 64 bit yet either. However, when Office 2010 is released, there will be a fully 64-bit version. In conclusion, Paul is right on this one. Or else why would Apple use such curious language if every single bit of Snow Leopard was 64 bit? Not even Apple says that in any interview or on their website. So for you guys to come on a website and lie when the answers are out there, just isn't smart. On a side note, there are several incompatible applications in Snow Leopard. I'll list them. http://gizmodo.com/5347769/the-mac-os-x-snow-leopard-applications-blacklist Applications that won't open in Mac OS X Snow Leopard • Aperture ver. 2.1.1 and earlier • Keynote ver. 2.0.2 and earlier • AirPort Admin Utility for Graphite and Snow ver. 4.2.5 • Parallels Desktop ver. 3.0 • VirusBarrier X4 ver. 10.4.4 and earlier • SPSS 17 ver. 17.1 • Director MX 2004 ver. 10.2 • EyeTV ver. 3.0.0 to 3.1.0 • Ratatouille ver. 1.1 Applications moved to an "Incompatible Software" folder during the installation of Mac OS X Snow Leopard • Parallels Desktop, ver. 2.5 and earlier • McAfee VirusScan, ver. 8.6 • Norton AntiVirus ver. 11.0 • Internet Cleanup 5 ver. 5.0.4 • Application Enhancer ver. 2.0.1 and earlier • Unsanity • AT&T Laptop Connect Card ver. 1.0.4, 1.0.5, 1.10.0 • launch2net ver, 2.13.0 • iWOW plug-in for iTunes ver. 2.0 • Missing Sync for Palm Sony CLIE Driver ver. 6.0.4 • TonePort UX8 Driver ver. 4.1.0 • ioHD Driver ver. 6.0.3 • Silicon Image SiI3132 Drivers ver. 1.5.16.0 Not so seemless as we are lead to believe. I'm not saying anything bad about OS-X. Its a modern, easy to use, and colorful OS. Better than Windows? No. Windows better than OS-X? No. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. But lets be honest here. OS-X 10.6 Snow Leopard is NOT 100% fully 64 bit. For that honor, everything within the OS including the applications must be able to run natively in 64 bits. As hard as it maybe to hear, Windows has been there at least since 2001 with Intel Itanium processors. Apple didn't start upgrading OS-X for partial 64 bits until 2003. Perhaps in version 10.7 maybe? We'll see.

I found this "review" by Mossy to be quite funny and accurate, hopefully no one has linked to it yet, since I'm not sure where I got it. http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/08/mossbergs-official-snow-leopard-review....

"Mac to Windows switcher guide"? yeah... that ought to be a big seller.

@DRWAM a method had to be created. Apple chose the hybrid method. Microsoft chose the multiple version method. Both do the same thing, give the user of all 64bit supported hardware the ability to use a all 64bit OS. Users with some 32bit hardware can use a 32bit OS. The only advantage is that on Snow Leopard if you are forced to use a 32bit Kernel, because you have a printer/scanner/whatever that does not have 32bit drivers, but your CPU is 64bit, you can use 64bit applications in the OS. Again I ask which is better for the end user. Better as in less confusing, easier to use etc.

According to my Mac zealot cousin he "foolishly" upgraded one of hos production machines and it breaks "everything". His words not mine. When I used Macs I waited until the .4 upgrade to switch, seems like solid advise still. That said I know I'll install Win 7 the day I get it on most my machines, do what I say, not what I do. Oh and more thing you've all been waiting for, Opera 10 is now available.

Anyone that upgrades any OS over the top is a fool. Anyone that upgrades an OS without verifying that their hardware/software is supported before upgrading their OS is a fool.....on any platform. OS upgrading should be... 1. Verify all hardware and software is compatible with new OS. 2. Perform a clean install of new OS after you have backed up everything. @Wae I agree with you. If I wanted the OS upgrade bad enough I would replace the old hardware. That of course does not go well with Mike G he goes out of his way to moan about the PPC Mac's that are nearing 4 or more years old every chance he gets. There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade.

"That of course does not go well with Mike G he goes out of his way to moan about the PPC Mac's that are nearing 4 or more years old every chance he gets." Actually, they're less than 3 years old. Windows Vista was out almost 3 years ago too (November 2006), and yet there is tonnes of hardware that is older than that that was also 64-bit compatible and fully certified. Apple cut their product support too early, or else embraced Intel too late. In either case, which is better for the consumer???

Waethorn "Actually, they're less than 3 years old" To be fair, the last line to switch to Intel at Apple was their very, very expensive desktops (not the laptop with a stand iMacs, the real desktop PowerMacs). That was 3 years and 1 month ago. But the reality isn't just the 3 year old computers that are now abandonware (and that's about 40% of the Macs out there). The problem is that the only Macs that fully support Snow Leopard's new architecture bits are some of those made in the last year, even some made in 2009 are architecturally blocked. A three year lifespan between "hottest computer we make" and "our latest system sofware doesn't support that architecture" is pathetic but less than one year? That's not just insane, that's counting on your customers being insane, too.

One other deceptive point that hasn't been brought up is the benefits of the "Family Pack" upgrade pricing. Yes, it's a great deal if you bought several Macs in the last 3 years. It's not so good a deal if you buy it expecting to upgrade your older Macs as well as your latest. It'll be interesting to see just how many of the Mac faithful really have bought five new Macs in the last three years to fully get the pricing benefits. Maybe Apple should admit they're not in the "Home Computing" market anymore but offer discount solutions for "Mansion Computing"?

rr0de I'd suggest you might want to revise your claim that "... how many of the computers in store you could buy today can run SL in 64bit mode? All of them." Even Apple doesn't make that claim and the chart on Ed Bott's site shows that Apple is right in being quiet about that. And even your exuberant claim says that you could have bought a brand new computer direct from Apple six months ago (and many months after Snow Leopard was announced) and it wouldn't ever be compatible or even be able to be made compatible with upgrades. Really, you don't need to help me point out how badly Apple has screwed over their customers but feel free to continue if you like.

" I bought a Black Macbook a month later [September 2007] for my wife and it has a 64bit EFI." Did Christopher Lloyd drive his Delorean to pick that up for you? Macbooks didn't add 64-bit EFI's until this year's models, so I know you're lying. iMac's didn't have 64-bit EFI until last year. There are absolutely NO 2007 models with a 64-bit EFI.

"Had I spent more at the time I would have got a Core 2 Duo, but then it would not show off the Apple Tax now would it?" LOL! Apple tax. The biggest laugh in the industry is that you have to pay $2900(CDN) to get a Mac with a quad-core CPU. Just LOL!

@mike: This time with Apple's "only "new" is hip" mantra is a double laugh, because Apple rode in on the EFI horse waaaay too early (the same custom EFI that keeps OS X exclusively on Macs), only to support 32-bit EFI and lock customers out of true 64-bit native processing (even though those processors are fully compatible) by not providing enough storage space to upgrade those [as Apple would call it...] "legacy" EFI firmwares to 64-bit. Meanwhile, PC's are running native 64-bit CPU threads with what Apple apologists would like to point out is a platform firmware that dates back to the IBM XT - the BIOS. PC's are moving ahead (slowly, but much more confidently) towards the already established EFI standard called UEFI, which is designed to be 64-bit from the get-go. I have yet to see very many systems support UEFI, aside from Intel's own boards, but it now works, and it's nowhere close to replacing the BIOS - it is merely an extension firmware to the BIOS. The only supposed "benefit" I could see is the support for GPT disks, but that's not even an option that any knowledgeable user cares about. MBR is still the defacto standard in desktops. In servers, GPT might make more sense, but it's only something that you'd need on a very complicated storage system. It certainly isn't necessary on any personal computer, and probably won't be for the near future.

Technologically, it is game over for Apple, if one is to insist on comparing OS X to Windows. Windows is so far ahead of OS X in every technical context that comparisons between the two are simply inappropriate. Any notion that Apple’s OS X is not and has not been desperately trying to copy features now long since common in Windows and the tools used on the platform is ridiculous. When Paul and others say things like: “Don’t get me wrong, OS X is a solid OS….” they are wrong, and in my opinion, they are being kind (at best) or pandering to the broader community that might otherwise be offended when facing the facts that OS X is not a solid operating system and it is not by any means, “great.” The facts are, OS X is in real trouble and while the developers at Apple and throughout the industry “may” ( and I say “may” with a huge amount of caution ) be able to save the platform, Apple’s OS will never catch up to Windows. At every fundamental level, Windows is perhaps as much as a decade ahead of any other platform. The reality is that since about March of 2008, Windows Vista ( especially x64 ) was already years ahead of OS X Snow Leopard in every technical context. x64 Windows is only one part of the complete story. DirectCompute on CUDA, under Nvidia’s framework (by the way, the exact same dependency that OS X’s lie of an open source project OpenCL (Kronos, manufactured to be seen as open source, but practically bound to the gills and a tiny number of as yet to be developed for GPU’s from Nvidia)), works now for all 8xx series GPU’s running on both Vista and Windows 7 – and is actually used by developers of software and games today. Adobe, Pinnacle/Avid and a large number of games devs, not to mention Microsoft itself, are among shipping examples. Native hardware NX (zero execute) support, parallel to effective ASLR+DEP in Windows Vista/7 is only the start of the superior and existing security model that make Windows safer than OS X SL. This is most especially so for x64 bit versions of Windows Vista/7 that ACTUALLY WORK! The aforementioned work pervasively and even for 32 bit based apps that do not invoke calls to the function that enables them – they are always on and native to Windows Vista /7 x64 (devs do not need to do a thing more!). I could go on and on and on… but as I said at the outset, it’s laughable. There is only one reason to use OS X and that is if you prefer it over Windows. That is fine, but please do not be confused into thinking it is in any way comparable to Windows Vista x64, or Windows 7. It isn’t. It isn’t even close. (MPIO, Virtualization of the entire name space, etc… - it’s just nuts…) One more thing… the UI and new task bar in Windows 7 is not some lame attempt to “copy” the OS X Dock. (who would want to….) The new Windows 7 Taskbar is about introducing system wide touch as part of moves into more natural computing interfaces – something Microsoft has been working on for more than a decade. Windows 7 features a systems wide ability to support a combination of touch and speech which alongside new hardware designs and screens most especially, provide targets large enough for human finger tips to more easily interact with (finger tips which are not square as Apple insists they are, but rounded as designed and when pressed against a hard surface).

Does any one know if a 32 bit EFI be flashed/updated to 64 bit, or is it entirely dependent upon the specific hardware [vs just not possible to upgrade to 64 bit]?