Performance wise 10.6 had a significant impact positive on my old MBP4,1 (the last non-unibody MacBook) and back then I was sure it mainly was because of GCD and Core Animation.
The myth of Snow Leopard
101–110 of 120 posts
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#102Oh, this again. I should put a website with this up... I was the person who personally ran 10.6 security updates at Apple (10.6.1+), the "DRI". My team in the Updates Program office and I reviewed every single bug to determine if it should go in a security and stability update or wait for the next major version. Seriously, every morning we group triaged all Mac OS X bugs, both incoming and those nominated internally…
I ran Leopard and upgraded to Snow Leopard on a 2006 Core Duo MB Pro as well. My memory is very hazy on details, but I had remember no issues at all with either one. It was a difficult time in my life, as I my employer essentially laid everyone off in late 2009 and I spent the next 18 months unemployed. During that time my Mac was an utterly reliable means of job hunting, studying for certifications, and applying for unemployment.
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#103Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#104I have great memories of Snow Leopard. It even gave you back a few GB of storage (IIRC) at a time when every GB really counted.
Yes. I was poking around all the different ways Apple was shaving storage and I found that the Leopard welcome animation (showing the word welcome in different languages in a galaxy) was stored in JPEGs, one for each frame; the Snow Leopard one was finally a video in H.264.
I miss those welcome videos!
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#105Oh, this again. I should put a website with this up... I was the person who personally ran 10.6 security updates at Apple (10.6.1+), the "DRI". My team in the Updates Program office and I reviewed every single bug to determine if it should go in a security and stability update or wait for the next major version. Seriously, every morning we group triaged all Mac OS X bugs, both incoming and those nominated internally…
Yeah as someone else that worked on Snow Leopard I found this article and ones like it a bit silly. They're a lot like the old "debug code" posts on Mac forums back in the day trying to explain why Puma was slow (no, you've got a G3 and an unaccelerated video card). Tiger and Leopard were sprawling releases. Tiger covered 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC, then 32-bit x86, then 64-bit x86 Macs. Tiger was also what I guess I'…
From the outside, Tiger always seemed insanely multifaceted. Supported the four architectures you mentioned AND was the only release to have both Rosetta and Classic mode. Despite all that, it seemed pretty stable.
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah as someone else that worked on Snow Leopard I found this article and ones like it a bit silly. They're a lot like the old "debug code" posts on Mac forums back in the day trying to explain why Puma was slow (no, you've got a G3 and an unaccelerated video card). Tiger and Leopard were sprawling releases. Tiger covered 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC, then 32-bit x86, then 64-bit x86 Macs. Tiger was also what I guess I'…
iOS killed the macOS star...
[deleted]
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, if you are comparing the most stable polished/fixed/stagnant last major version with the brand new 1.0 major version branch, the newer major is going to be buggier. That would be the case with every y.0 vs x.8. Thank you for admitting that. > Snow Leopard was the first release of this kind Also the last, apparently.
How about Mountain Lion vs Lion?
Also High Sierra vs Sierra. And probably most of the newer ones after that since they were all incremental up to Tahoe?
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#108Oh, this again. I should put a website with this up... I was the person who personally ran 10.6 security updates at Apple (10.6.1+), the "DRI". My team in the Updates Program office and I reviewed every single bug to determine if it should go in a security and stability update or wait for the next major version. Seriously, every morning we group triaged all Mac OS X bugs, both incoming and those nominated internally…
> If you wanted to ship a feature you had to get explicit approval from leadership and the bar was high. What was defined as a feature? The first new thing I noticed in Snow Leopard was that Quick Look could now preview Adobe Illustrator files (it was not the case in Leopard). I very much welcomed that, but it doesn’t seem like the kind of feature addition that would clear a high bar.
That also sounds like a very self-contained feature
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#109I Think Apple's latest OS versions are completely beyond snow leopard. Apple has destroyed their product with extreme security and sandboxing. It has become completely pay to play. I simply stopped upgrading since thing only get worse. As for other companies' 'snow leopard', that is their business. What I remember about snow leopard is that I could do with my Mac what I wanted, now I have to circumvent one security after another and eventually use Google to get a format that I need. Use Google, can you imagine? It's a complete disappointment
Re: The myth of Snow Leopard
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That would be the case with every y.0 vs x.8. There was something else going on during that time period though. Consumer operating systems in the 1990s were pretty bad. Windows 9x and MacOS Classic didn't even have protected memory. They crashed a lot. Microsoft fixed this with Windows NT (delivered to consumers as Windows XP), Apple with BSD/NeXT (delivered as OS X). It was the point when ordinary people first got…
The impression of XP being the best version of Windows came after at least two service packs (patch bundles / minor releases, for those unfamiliar) and the Vista shitshow. First Windows release that was good from the very beginning was 7.
I was young, but I remember people disliking XP until SP2