• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Snow Leopard First Impressions

2+ hours should be plenty of time, unless you have a ton of stuff on your drive, but it's generally done before the 2 hour mark.

Also considering Crossover was last updated in June, I'd say they're due to update it for the retail SL release...

Word has given me no issues at all, in fact any of the switching between windows while typing or selecting different formatting boxes from Leopard are gone for me in SL.

I just did a straight upgrade on top of Leopard, although I did take care to uninstall the applications listed as incompatible and made note to upgrade those that were marked as 'would not open' despite not ending up in the incompatible folder.

I've been accepted into the VMWare Fusion Private Beta which has support for SL's x64 kernel, going to give that a shot.
 
I'm only using 35GB on this computer, so I can't imagine it would take longer to index.

I know crossover is due for a SL update, but it is saying online that 8.x versions should work. I'm running 8.0. I'm a law student, so I take a tremendous amount of notes on OneNote through crossover.

I guess I'll give it another shot for my next class, maybe it will be more settled by then.
 
Upgraded my fathers Macbook last night. I know upgrades take awhile but a whole hour? I guess I'm just spoiled by all the 10 minute Windows 7 installs I have been doing.

Anyway, after updating a few of his critical applications, mainly Marketcircle's Daylite, all seems to be well. The extra HDD space was great as he only had 10GB left with Leopard and now he has almost 20GB free.
 
I have to say I'm surprised to hear about hour long install times as mine took 36 minutes (made sure to take note to compare with others) from clicking on the install package off the DVD to finishing the initial startup user registration.

It is possible that the lesser amount of free space on your fathers MacBook is what made the install more lengthy, because it caches the whole installer on the HDD then runs from there, remembering it's position and everything.
 
mdworker is the name of the spotlight indexer in the Activity Monitor, if you want to check that out.
 
It's there, taking up no cpu and 12mb of ram. I'm getting the spinning wheel of death every 30-45sec. Going to be installing Leopard on this bad boy tonight. I've learned my lesson, and will be waiting until the end of the semester to upgrade. Hopefully everything is up to snuff by then. Looks like I'm on of the few to have problems, unfortunately I'm sunk if my laptop is running perfectly.
 
It is a well used Macbook (original black CoreDuo model) with alot of apps and data on it. Not to mention the 5400RPM drive. I just thought that was why it took so long.
 
criccio said:
It is a well used Macbook (original black CoreDuo model) with alot of apps and data on it. Not to mention the 5400RPM drive. I just thought that was why it took so long.
Click to expand...

Same machine as my first Mac when I went off to college heh. I've upgraded err, 3 times since then, heh.
 
Upgrading my 2006(I think) Macbook. As I type. Opted for the full reinstall. Hoping for the best
 
DeChache said:
Upgrading my 2006(I think) Macbook. As I type. Opted for the full reinstall. Hoping for the best
Click to expand...

Unless you have some weird apps that are known to be incompatible but aren't picked up by the installer/upgrade, or you have some weird interface tweaking apps, you shouldn't have any problems.
 
Clean install here, no real problems.. couple system panels I had to update (menumeters, etc) but just about all of them have SL compatible versions (albiet, 32-bit at the moment).

I'm in the Parallels 5.0 beta program, and its running fine in 32-bit SL as well.
 
Make sure to update your Boot Camp drivers if you have Windows installed. I know there are quite a few people with Windows 7 driver issues. (myself not included. 7 runs great on my iMac)
 
Up and running so far everything seems good. Just got to get VMware set back up and I should be good to go. So far I'm like it.


Hmm cool. SL sees the correct 3 gigs of ram not the 4 gigs that Leopard saw.

There is 4 gigs installed in this machine but It was bought just before Santa Rosa Chipset models came out.
 
Last edited:
I just used my Time Machine to recover back to the 28th of August. It broke too many things I use normally, I reinstall Snow Leopard when it hits 10.6.1 or 10.6.2
 
part of the reason why i greatly dislike this base10 ridiculousness.

base10vsbase2.png


not even Apple can keep it straight between their own apps. wut.
 
0ptional said:
not even Apple can keep it straight between their own apps. wut.
Click to expand...

iTunes wasn't updated for Snow Leopard. Of course it's not going to report counting in base 10 yet. When it's updated, it will.
 
Thanks for all the reports, I think I might wait for the first round of updates
 
I don't know about you guys, but I really miss my Safari AdBlock... Hopefully soon.

inb4 use Firefail, er, fox. Sorry.
 
LithiumRage158 said:
I don't know about you guys, but I really miss my Safari AdBlock... Hopefully soon.

inb4 use Firefail, er, fox. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Use Glimmerblocker. It's a local proxy that filters Safari based on downloadable rules. The only downside is that the rules aren't as good as Rick's Easyfilters for Adblock Plus.
 
Terpfen said:
iTunes wasn't updated for Snow Leopard. Of course it's not going to report counting in base 10 yet. When it's updated, it will.
Click to expand...

It should pull it's file size info from the finder, to ensure compatibility, this base10 conversion is stupid and annoying. There is no excuse for this, it's ridiculous, Apple, a company so obsessed with usability and design should have noticed something like this in arguably their most used application. You've been defending them this whole thread, can Apple do no evil in your mind? What about *downgrading* ADOBE FLASH to a vulnerable version in the SL installer? WHAT?! Why would Apple even touch flash? It's not even their product!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
0ptional said:
It should pull it's file size info from the finder, to ensure compatibility, this base10 conversion is stupid and annoying.
Click to expand...

iTunes pulls its metadata from its internal database, not Finder. There are plenty of good reasons for this: performance, ease of cross-platform porting, minimizing incompatibilities (Finder is now 64-bit Cocoa, iTunes is still 32-bit Carbon), etc.

There is no excuse for this, it's ridiculous, Apple, a company so obsessed with usability and design should have noticed something like this in arguably their most used application. You've been defending them this whole thread, can Apple do no evil in your mind?
Click to expand...

Correcting isn't defending. And you're overreacting. Seriously, "1,000 megabytes = 1 gigabyte" is now standard, whether we like it or not. The average person is going to see that Snow Leopard gives them nearly all of the space on their brand new 500GB hard drive and they're going to be happy with it. They won't notice that their files are slightly larger.

1,024 mebibytes now equals 1 gibibyte. 1,000 megabytes now equals 1 gigabyte. And so the industry marches on.

What about *downgrading* ADOBE FLASH to a vulnerable version in the SL installer? WHAT?! Why would Apple even touch flash? It's not even their product!
Click to expand...

Another overreaction. The version of Flash in SL is one version behind. Easily correctable, just go install the update. As for why it's one version behind, probably because Apple was more concerned with squashing bugs in preparation for Gold Master than they were in making sure the included Flash plugin was up to date. Nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Miyagi said:
I've noticed the colors are a lot darker on my MacBook now after the upgrade.
Click to expand...

Snow Leopard's default gamma setting is now 2.2, changed from Leopard's default of 1.8. I'm not too wild about that, but I loaded an old color profile and now all is well.
 
I just realized that the CoreDuo Macbook that I installed SL on for my father is a 32bit only CPU (no 64bit instruction set). How does that go about affecting the heavily 64bit SL?

Obviously you can't install Vista/7 x64 or any x64 *nix distro on a CoreDuo CPU so how does SL work?
 
criccio said:
I just realized that the CoreDuo Macbook that I installed SL on for my father is a 32bit only CPU (no 64bit instruction set). How does that go about affecting the heavily 64bit SL?
Click to expand...

Snow Leopard runs 64-bit apps using a 32-bit kernel. If it installs, you can use it. Should be fine.

Though if Apple finishes the 64-bit transition in 10.7, it's likely that Core Duo will have to go.
 
Well obviously its fine, Its up and running. I was just looking for a "why", lol. Thanks.
 
criccio said:
I just realized that the CoreDuo Macbook that I installed SL on for my father is a 32bit only CPU (no 64bit instruction set). How does that go about affecting the heavily 64bit SL?

Obviously you can't install Vista/7 x64 or any x64 *nix distro on a CoreDuo CPU so how does SL work?
Click to expand...

This was the case with my wifes Macbook too. Even despite this, she is claiming to notice a significant speed increase.
 
Terpfen said:
iTunes pulls its metadata from its internal database, not Finder. There are plenty of good reasons for this: performance, ease of cross-platform porting, minimizing incompatibilities (Finder is now 64-bit Cocoa, iTunes is still 32-bit Carbon), etc.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the above, it's simply sloppy and stupid, it's annoying and it's completely the opposite of what Apple stands for, they're meant for uniformity in the UI and the quality of the experience across the whole machine and all it's applications, any of the Apps that didn't ship with SL aren't showing SL's file sizes, which makes this change to base10 all the more annoying.

Apple's own services are advertised apparently using what SL is calling 'wrong' names/numbers, so what are they going to do? correct everything on their site now? Change all their product titles? Is it now the 120GiB iPod Classic or the 111.758708953...GB iPod Classic? It's stupid that they're doing this, it's confusing to their customer base, especially people like my sister who don't care or understand about any of this until it gets in her way of understanding something simple like why the "4GB" file from windows won't fit on what snow leopard tells her is a "4GiB" flash drive.

Correcting isn't defending. And you're overreacting. Seriously, "1,000 megabytes = 1 gigabyte" is now standard, whether we like it or not. The average person is going to see that Snow Leopard gives them nearly all of the space on their brand new 500GB hard drive and they're going to be happy with it. They won't notice that their files are slightly larger.

1,024 mebibytes now equals 1 gibibyte. 1,000 megabytes now equals 1 gigabyte. And so the industry marches on.
Click to expand...

Err, no, what apple *should* have done is replace GB with GiB for Gibibyte, INSTEAD of showing the base10 numbers, THAT would have been a correction of an error, the way computers have counted FOREVER is base2. Yes I understand that giga/mega/kilo are SI units, but that doesn't mean computers are counting in SI units, it just means we were calling the way computers count the wrong thing, and Apple went and corrected the wrong thing.

Another overreaction. The version of Flash in SL is one version behind. Easily correctable, just go install the update. As for why it's one version behind, probably because Apple was more concerned with squashing bugs in preparation for Gold Master than they were in making sure the included Flash plugin was up to date. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Yes something wrong with that, why is Apple updating and downgrading ADOBE's software in the first place? If it's such a non-issue why did they do it? It re-opens these machines to vulnerabilities and is downright stupid.
 
0ptional said:
Regardless of the above, it's simply sloppy and stupid, it's annoying and it's completely the opposite of what Apple stands for, they're meant for uniformity in the UI and the quality of the experience across the whole machine and all it's applications, any of the Apps that didn't ship with SL aren't showing SL's file sizes, which makes this change to base10 all the more annoying.
Click to expand...

iTunes is a cross-platform application. Its development occurs independently of OS X and Windows. Each have their own roadmaps that do not coincide at all. We'll likely get iTunes 9 on September 9 when Apple has their iPod event. There was no obligation or reason for Apple to update iTunes concurrently with Snow Leopard, especially when they scheduled their annual iPod event less than two weeks later.

And I don't know what iTunes calling or not calling Finder has to do with uniformity.

Apple's own services are advertised apparently using what SL is calling 'wrong' names/numbers, so what are they going to do? correct everything on their site now?
Click to expand...

I would imagine so.

It's stupid that they're doing this, it's confusing to their customer base
Click to expand...

No, base 2 counting is confusing to the consumer. Under base 2 counting, a hard drive advertised as 500 GB shows up as significantly smaller once installed and formatted. Under base 10 counting, the number on the box or bullet list is the number you get in the OS. That is less confusing, not more confusing.

Err, no, what apple *should* have done is replace GB with GiB for Gibibyte, INSTEAD of showing the base10 numbers, THAT would have been a correction of an error, the way computers have counted FOREVER is base2.
Click to expand...

The average consumer doesn't know what a GiB is, and since they can't even be educated to learn why their 500 GB hard drive isn't really 500 GB, it's unlikely that they would be bothered to learn why their hard drive is now 500 GiB instead of 500 GB. Instead they would just keep complaining that the computer stole their hard drive space.

Mebibytes and Gibibytes are now codified standards. Apple adopted them. End of story.

Yes something wrong with that, why is Apple updating and downgrading ADOBE's software in the first place?
Click to expand...

Because the Flash plugin is included with OS X as a convenience. Apple occasionally plucked a Flash plugin from Adobe and baked it into the beta Snow Leopard builds. Eventually they decided that cleaning up showstopper bugs and getting Snow Leopard ready to go out the door was more important than updating the Flash plugin that was currently baked in. This is normal during the course of software development. It's called crunch time.

Take a happy pill, man.
 
It is very clear to me that we completely disagree on the base2 to base10 issue, but why does Apple's installer install OVER an already updated version of Flash? Why doesn't it have a version check at the least?

You claim to know an awful lot about the software development cycle of iTunes and OS X, unless you work on it yourself, I wouldn't bother saying anything more about that, since neither of us know the real answer, the truth is that it's annoying that the counting is different and is confusing to customers new and old.

If Apple's counting was correct, why does it say 319.73GB for my HDD instead of just 320GB like it apparently should be (Yeah I know, EFI, but still, it's not helping anything), that's just as confusing!

You also totally skipped over my perfect example of why this is confusing to consumers.

Of course maybe they were just sick of lawsuits from people saying they didn't get an actual 16GB from their new iPhone and this was the easiest solution.

Apple doesn't include Rosetta, also a convenience feature, but they pull it from the internet if you need it for an Application and it recognizes that fact, why not do the same with Flash? Or just leave it up to the user as it always has been...

Just for the sake of saying it: I'm with the camp that things HDD manufacturers should have begun advertising differently, not software makers bowing to them. All this "*1000bytes etc... blah blah" fine print over the years with hardware and OSs is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I don't think its confusing at all. Hell, I didn't even notice and I bet the vast majority of OS X users don't notice/care either. I mean... seriously?

I just asked my father and sister (both of who's Macbooks I upgraded to SL yesterday) about it and they both said they couldn't care less and told me to go away. They are the quitesential "Mac" user and they, in their own words, couldn't care less.

Consumers don't care as your argument states, just geeks like us. (a very small percentage of an already small market).

IMO you should find a more useful argument. ;)
 
tnt3k said:
so 10.6 SL runs on base 10 method now?
Click to expand...

Correct. Disk space is counted in base 10, so 1,000 megabytes = 1 gigabyte, rather than 1,024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte. Base 2 counting has been renamed, and now 1,024 mebibytes = 1 gibibyte.

0ptional said:
It is very clear to me that we completely disagree on the base2 to base10 issue, but why does Apple's installer install OVER an already updated version of Flash? Why doesn't it have a version check at the least?
Click to expand...

Again: the plugin is baked into the OS. Could Apple have included the absolute latest version of Flash? Sure. Would it have been worth it at crunch time to upgrade the included plugin and potentially introduce regression bugs? Probably not.

You claim to know an awful lot about the software development cycle of iTunes and OS X, unless you work on it yourself, I wouldn't bother saying anything more about that, since neither of us know the real answer, the truth is that it's annoying that the counting is different and is confusing to customers new and old.
Click to expand...

No, we do know the real answer, and your agreement is not required for this to be true. iTunes' development occurs independently of OS X and Windows. It's worked on by a separate, independent team with their own roadmap. If iTunes' development happened concurrently with OS X, then we would have a new version included in Snow Leopard. We don't. Why not? Because they aren't concurrently developed. Release dates of iTunes versions are totally independent of release dates of OS X and Windows versions.

I'm not exactly coming off the mountain with the tablets on this one.

If Apple's counting was correct, why does it say 319.73GB for my HDD instead of just 320GB like it apparently should be (Yeah I know, EFI, but still, it's not helping anything), that's just as confusing!
Click to expand...

Apple's counting is correct according to new standards, and most people are going to look at that and say "Hey, it's almost 320! I got all that space back!" Besides, you know full well why there's 0.3 gigabytes of space filled in your example: overhead.

You also totally skipped over my perfect example of why this is confusing to consumers.
Click to expand...

Where? I'm pretty sure I refuted it multiple times. Your citation of your sister does not trump the fact that most people are going to see that Snow Leopard's reported hard drive sizes match what's on the box or bullet list of their computer.

You don't like the base 10 counting, we get it. But it's not going away. Blame the IEC, IEEE, and CIPM, not Apple.

Apple doesn't include Rosetta, also a convenience feature, but they pull it from the internet if you need it for an Application and it recognizes that fact, why not do the same with Flash?
Click to expand...

Because the Flash plugin is already present in Snow Leopard, therefore nothing needs to be downloaded. Rosetta is not present, therefore it needs to be downloaded when an application tries to call lit. You're asking that Snow Leopard continually poll Adobe for updates to the plugin (and jack up their bandwidth bill dramatically) over an update that can already be downloaded.

Sorry, to me it looks like you're just reaching for reasons to complain.
 
Terpfen said:
Correct. Disk space is counted in base 10, so 1,000 megabytes = 1 gigabyte, rather than 1,024 megabytes = 1 gigabyte. Base 2 counting has been renamed, and now 1,024 mebibytes = 1 gibibyte.



Again: the plugin is baked into the OS. Could Apple have included the absolute latest version of Flash? Sure. Would it have been worth it at crunch time to upgrade the included plugin and potentially introduce regression bugs? Probably not.



No, we do know the real answer, and your agreement is not required for this to be true. iTunes' development occurs independently of OS X and Windows. It's worked on by a separate, independent team with their own roadmap. If iTunes' development happened concurrently with OS X, then we would have a new version included in Snow Leopard. We don't. Why not? Because they aren't concurrently developed. Release dates of iTunes versions are totally independent of release dates of OS X and Windows versions.

I'm not exactly coming off the mountain with the tablets on this one.



Apple's counting is correct according to new standards, and most people are going to look at that and say "Hey, it's almost 320! I got all that space back!" Besides, you know full well why there's 0.3 gigabytes of space filled in your example: overhead.



Where? I'm pretty sure I refuted it multiple times. Your citation of your sister does not trump the fact that most people are going to see that Snow Leopard's reported hard drive sizes match what's on the box or bullet list of their computer.

You don't like the base 10 counting, we get it. But it's not going away. Blame the IEC, IEEE, and CIPM, not Apple.



Because the Flash plugin is already present in Snow Leopard, therefore nothing needs to be downloaded. Rosetta is not present, therefore it needs to be downloaded when an application tries to call lit. You're asking that Snow Leopard continually poll Adobe for updates to the plugin (and jack up their bandwidth bill dramatically) over an update that can already be downloaded.

Sorry, to me it looks like you're just reaching for reasons to complain.
Click to expand...

yea. AFAIK, windows doesn't even include flash when its installed. the end user has to go install it. I'd say an older version that works is better than a red x lol

just dont be lazy and update it! :eek:
sounds like you just wanna complain because apple didnt quite make it foolproof for your taste lol

as for flash vs rosetta: apples to oranges. flash is a media player that most end users will end up using. rosetta, at this point, is old tech, and is being phased out. thus, an optional install.
 
This is probably old news, but if you're not in a hurry and want to save a few bucks, get your copy on amazon for $25 shipped.

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-version-1..._1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1252084527&sr=8-1

Did a fresh install on a new drive, went smoothly. There's definitely a speed improvement, but its hard to say how much of it comes from the upgrade since this was a fresh install on a faster hard drive.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Terpfen said:
Use Glimmerblocker. It's a local proxy that filters Safari based on downloadable rules. The only downside is that the rules aren't as good as Rick's Easyfilters for Adblock Plus.
Click to expand...

Hey, as long as it blocks ads, I'm fine. I used adblockers for so long, I forgot what the internet looked like with ads, heh. Thanks alot Terpfen.
 
I found a cool new feature on OS X 10.6. The touchpad does pinch zooming exactly like the iPhone. Caught myself trying to do it, then my browser zoomed in. =o Pretty nice.
 
0ptional said:
If Apple's counting was correct, why does it say 319.73GB for my HDD instead of just 320GB like it apparently should be (Yeah I know, EFI, but still, it's not helping anything), that's just as confusing!
Click to expand...

Because your hdd manufacturer ripped you off...

Code: 
WDC WD3200BJKT-75F4T0:

  Capacity:	320.07 GB (320,072,933,376 bytes)
  Model:	WDC WD3200BJKT-75F4T0
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top