Killexams.com 9L0-060 brain dumps | Pass4sure 9L0-060 brain dumps | | jeepmansoffroad

Pass4sure 9L0-060 dumps | Killexams.com 9L0-060 real questions | http://www.jeepmansoffroad.com/

9L0-060 Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support

Study steer Prepared by Killexams.com Apple Dumps Experts


Killexams.com 9L0-060 Dumps and real Questions

100% real Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with tall Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



9L0-060 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support

Test Code : 9L0-060
Test denomination : Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support
Vendor denomination : Apple
brain dumps : 50 real Questions

Surprised to remark 9L0-060 dumps and study guide!
It is difficult to collect the study material which has everyone the necessary features to required to remove the 9L0-060 exam. Im so lucky in that manner, I used the killexams.com material which has everyone the required information and features and besides very helpful. The topics was something understandable in the provided Dumps. It really makes the preparation and learning in each topic, seamless process. I am urging my friends to walk through it.


Take a smart circulate, achieve these 9L0-060 questions and answers.
Hiya gents I exceeded my 9L0-060 examination the usage of killexams.Com brain dump remove a inspect at steer in most effectual 20 days of readiness. The dumps virtually modified my life once I allotting them. Presently im labored in a first ratebusiness organisation with a decent income. course to killexams.Com and the entire organization of the trutrainers. Tough subjects are correctly secured by means of them. Likewise they provide remarkable reference it truly is useful for the examine motive. I solved nearly everyone questions in only 225 minutes.


9L0-060 examination isn't always any greater tough to pass with these brain dumps.
I scored 88% marks. A first rate partner of mine endorsed the utilization of killexams.Com Questions & Answers, when you account that she had likewise surpassed her examination in view of them. everyone the fabric became excellent fine. Getting enlisted for the 9L0-060 exam was easy, however then got here the troublesome component. I had some alternatives, either enlists for customary training and surrenders my low maintenance profession, or study on my own and proceed with the employment.


simply utilize these actual question bank and fulfillment is yours.
I gave the 9L0-060 practice questions noteworthy as quickly as in further than I enrolled for turning into a member of the killexams.Com software. I did no longer maintain achievement even after giving my enough of time to my research. I did no longer realize wherein i lacked in getting achievement. But after joining killexams.Com i got my respond turned into lacking changed into 9L0-060 prep books. It positioned everyone the subjects inside the perquisite guidelines. Getting geared up for 9L0-060 with 9L0-060 instance questions is honestly convincing. 9L0-060 Prep Books of different education that i had did assist me as they had been not enough capable for clearing the 9L0-060 questions. They maintain been tough in truth they did now not cover the complete syllabus of 9L0-060. However killexams.Com designed books are really notable.


actual 9L0-060 examination inquiries to bypass exam in the ascend try.
I were given an first-rate cease result with this package. fabulous outstanding, questions are accurate and i had been given maximum of them at the examination. After ive exceeded it, I advocated killexams.com to my colleagues, and everyone and sundry exceeded their tests, too (some of them took Cisco assessments, others did Microsoft, VMware, and many others). I maintain not heard a Awful assessment of killexams.com, so this must exist the tremendous IT education you could currently find on line.


the ones 9L0-060 modern-day dumps works within the actual test.
ive cleared the 9L0-060 examination in the first attempt. I could garner this fulfillment because of killexams.com queryfinancial institution. It helped me to utilize my paintings ebook know-how within the question & solution layout. I solved those query papers with examination simulator and got complete understanding of the examination paper. So I would infatuation to thank killexams.


simply strive those actual remove a inspect at questions and success is yours.
I am no longer a fan of on-line intellect dumps, due to the fact they may exist often posted via irresponsible oldsters thatmisinform you into gaining erudition of belongings you dont want and lacking subjects that you really want to understand. Not killexams.Com. This agency affords truly sound questions answers that capitalize you collect via your examination schooling. That is how I surpassed 9L0-060 exam. First time, First I trusted slack on line stuff and i failed. I were given killexams.Com 9L0-060 exam simulator - and that i surpassed. That is the most effectual evidence I want. Thanks killexams.Com crew.


Unbelieveable overall performance of 9L0-060 exam bank and examine manual.
9L0-060 is the toughest examination ive ever encounter. I spent months reading for it, with everyone legitimate assets and the total lot one ought to determine - and failed it miserably. but I didnt give up! some months later, I delivered killexams.com to my preparation time table and saved practising at the checking out engine and the actual examination questions they offer. I believe that is precisely what helped me pass the second time around! I wish I hadnt wasted the time and money on everyone this needless stuff (their books arent terrible in general, however I confidence they dont provide you with the first-class exam instruction).


save your money and time, remove these 9L0-060 brain dumps and set together the examination.
In recent times i bought your certification package deal and studied it very well. Closing week I handed the 9L0-060 and received my certification. Killexams.Com on line checking out engine modified into a first rate device to set together the examination. That more my self-confidence and i resultseasily exceeded the certification exam! Quite encouraged!!!


birthday celebration is over! Time to keep and bypass the exam.
i maintain cleared 9L0-060 exam in a separate strive with 98% marks. killexams.com is the first-class medium to cleanly this exam. thanks, your case studies and material maintain been properly. I want the timer would sprint too whilst they provide the practice assessments. thank you again.


Apple Apple Mac OS X

Apple Brings Mac Mini back From the lifeless | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Apple’s shrimp desktop workstation isn't any longer just a punchline. nowadays the enterprise took the wraps off a revamped Mac Mini, changing its underpowered components with new, eighth era Intel quad- and 6-core processors alternate options, up to 64GB of memory, up to a 2TB SSD, a T2 safety chip, 10GB ethernet, and four Thunderbolt three ports. With the improvements, Apple is bumping its longstanding $500 starting expense as much as $800—however you received’t locate face-melting specs devoid of paying even more.

yes, you’ll soundless deserve to convey your own display, keyboard, and mouse. And yes which you can, uh, collect it in belt gray now. At $800, the groundwork mannequin will comprise 8GB of memory, a three.6GHz quad-core i3 processor, and 128GB of SSD storage.

The Mini become at the ascend designed to win over recent converts to OS X (now macOS) with the first sub-$500 Mac. ultimate revamped eons in the past, in October 2014, it grew to exist a husk for out of date guts that no one, fully nobody in their revise intellect had any company recommending to a family member. through the halt of its run, the newest incarnation appeared designed to push patrons during this price scope far from Apple, in opposition t more desirable offers from businesses infatuation Dell and HP.

Apple is billing the brand recent Mini as “5 instances faster” basic with “60 percent sooner images.” It’ll exist available on November 7.


Apple broadcasts free OS X Mavericks release, recent iPads, Mac professional | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

At Apple’s “an Awful lot to cover” special event today, the company paraded out an hour and a half’s worth of recent items and updates, including the release of OS X Mavericks, the brand recent iPad Air and iPad Mini, Mac professional, up to date 13 and 15-inch MacBooks, and an up to date suite of iLife apps.

OS X MavericksThe operating device is free, and it’s attainable nowadays. Apple senior vp of utility engineering Craig Federighi prefaced the liberate with, “This one is a doozy.”

accessible with a single-step upgrade from Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion or any MacBook relationship back to 2007, Mavericks has a slew of latest aspects. Its recent compressed reminiscence feature allocates graphics reminiscence in accordance with utilization to optimize performance. The potential permits 6GB of data to proper into 4GB of system RAM.

(Beta feedback and a complete listing of points: clients poke round OS X ‘Mavericks’)

Mavericks’ OpenCL uses reminiscence sharing to walk initiatives running on the CPU to the GPU, taking capabilities of the GPU’s more advantageous computing vigor to comprehensive initiatives 1.8x faster, and 2x quicker for image projects.

a recent finder window allows for initiatives and documents to exist labeled with multiple tags for effortless search and firm. click on the title bar of any doc so as to add one or greater tags, or opt for a tag from an inventory.

In Safari, Mavericks introduces superior notifications, enabling clients to respond in the pop-up bubble devoid of leaving an application. It additionally provides website notifications when recent content material is posted. the recent Safari genuine websites view generates a feed of shared hyperlinks from followed clients on convivial networks reminiscent of LinkedIn and Twitter.

There’s besides a brand recent reader view, permitting person-accelerated scrolling without retard from one article to the subsequent without clicking out.


a course to Revisit each edition of Mac OS X out of your Browser | killexams.com real Questions and Pass4sure dumps

The Aqua GUI in Apple’s operating systems has gone through a outstanding evolution seeing that March of 2000, when it discovered its course into OS X 10.0, and you might exist stunned at simply how diverse every thing appears now. because of the newly launched Aqua Screenshot Library, that you could revisit every version of OS X (and macOS) in the course of the years and inspect at the gradual evolution of Apple’s working gadget—all from your browser.

The huge gallery is the latest labor by 512 Pixels, an online library that makes an attempt to hold tabs on everyone issues Apple (together with the Mac’s many wallpapers). The Aqua Screenshot Library, as creator Stephen Hackett notes, gives a complete loom on the history of Apple’s working systems, which covers its leap to from bulkier CRTs to compact, LED-backlit shows; Apple’s various font alterations over the years; and Apple’s walk from disc-based working methods to (free) digital downloads.

Let’s remove a glance at some of these primary Mac milestones.

Mac OS X 10.0 (“Cheetah”)

March 24, 2001, marked the first respectable unlock of the Mac OS X operating equipment, following a public beta the yr before. Hackett notes that its 128MB reminiscence requirement become “greater than most Mac clients had in their programs at the time.” This occasions many complaints in regards to the OS’s late efficiency and tall useful resource demand. The Cheetah interface retained the pin-striped menu and window design from the beta, however it started the pussycat-based mostly naming mode which would closing as much as edition 10.8, “Mountain Lion.”

Mac OS X Leopard (10.5)

The final months of 2007 introduced some great changes to OS X. The unlock of Leopard noticed Aqua remove on a a noteworthy deal greater streamlined seem, with everyone windows now defaulting to a single, primary grey design, as neatly as the debut of a redesigned Finder device. in further of this, several apps—and diverse versions of OS X—had varied UI designs (for more suitable or worse). With Leopard’s liberate, OS X started to appear to exist more uniform. most importantly, it was the primary edition to comprise these rad, area-based backgrounds.

OS X Mountain Lion (10.eight)

Mountain Lion became the first edition of OS X to achieve after Steve Jobs’ death, and it concentrated on aligning Mac computer systems with the late CEO’s other main contribution to the tech trade: the iPhone. The 2011 OS X update, Mac OS X Lion (10.7), kicked off Apple’s merging of iOS aesthetics into OS X, and the business doubled down with Mountain Lion. tackle and purposes maintain been renamed after iOS points, and Apple added some petite visible and input alterations to bridge both working programs even nearer collectively—in vogue, as a minimum.

OS X Mavericks (10.9)

Mavericks become a gargantuan enterprise pivot for Apple, as it turned into the first edition of the OS the company launched for gratis, offered to users as an ameliorate via the App sustain in October 2013. Apple hasn’t long gone back to paid operating programs considering—luckily. Mavericks changed into additionally the first version of OS X to utilize non-feline nomenclature. It besides ditched the galactic inheritance theme for California landscapes, which they are able to everyone agree was a huge blunder. appropriate?

macOS Sierra (10.12)

version 10.12 of Apple’s working system for the Mac is most is super for its great rebranding. Apple dropped the “OS X” denomination completely during this unlock, as an alternative calling its operating gadget “macOS” to align it the business’s working methods on different structures: iOS, watchOS, and tvOS. 

shopping the Aqua Screenshot Library is a enjoyable system to inspect simply how some distance macOS has come, specifically to inspect how Apple’s design priorities exchange between the predominant releases. besides the fact that children, the Aqua Screenshot gallery is just one of 512 Pixels’ many projects to check out. exist sure to poke around the other Apple-themed collections Hackett has assembled through the years, too, including the astonishing 512 Pixels YouTube channel.


9L0-060 Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support

Study steer Prepared by Killexams.com Apple Dumps Experts


Killexams.com 9L0-060 Dumps and real Questions

100% real Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with tall Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



9L0-060 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support

Test Code : 9L0-060
Test denomination : Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support
Vendor denomination : Apple
brain dumps : 50 real Questions

Surprised to remark 9L0-060 dumps and study guide!
It is difficult to collect the study material which has everyone the necessary features to required to remove the 9L0-060 exam. Im so lucky in that manner, I used the killexams.com material which has everyone the required information and features and besides very helpful. The topics was something understandable in the provided Dumps. It really makes the preparation and learning in each topic, seamless process. I am urging my friends to walk through it.


Take a smart circulate, achieve these 9L0-060 questions and answers.
Hiya gents I exceeded my 9L0-060 examination the usage of killexams.Com brain dump remove a inspect at steer in most effectual 20 days of readiness. The dumps virtually modified my life once I allotting them. Presently im labored in a first ratebusiness organisation with a decent income. course to killexams.Com and the entire organization of the trutrainers. Tough subjects are correctly secured by means of them. Likewise they provide remarkable reference it truly is useful for the examine motive. I solved nearly everyone questions in only 225 minutes.


9L0-060 examination isn't always any greater tough to pass with these brain dumps.
I scored 88% marks. A first rate partner of mine endorsed the utilization of killexams.Com Questions & Answers, when you account that she had likewise surpassed her examination in view of them. everyone the fabric became excellent fine. Getting enlisted for the 9L0-060 exam was easy, however then got here the troublesome component. I had some alternatives, either enlists for customary training and surrenders my low maintenance profession, or study on my own and proceed with the employment.


simply utilize these actual question bank and fulfillment is yours.
I gave the 9L0-060 practice questions noteworthy as quickly as in further than I enrolled for turning into a member of the killexams.Com software. I did no longer maintain achievement even after giving my enough of time to my research. I did no longer realize wherein i lacked in getting achievement. But after joining killexams.Com i got my respond turned into lacking changed into 9L0-060 prep books. It positioned everyone the subjects inside the perquisite guidelines. Getting geared up for 9L0-060 with 9L0-060 instance questions is honestly convincing. 9L0-060 Prep Books of different education that i had did assist me as they had been not enough capable for clearing the 9L0-060 questions. They maintain been tough in truth they did now not cover the complete syllabus of 9L0-060. However killexams.Com designed books are really notable.


actual 9L0-060 examination inquiries to bypass exam in the ascend try.
I were given an first-rate cease result with this package. fabulous outstanding, questions are accurate and i had been given maximum of them at the examination. After ive exceeded it, I advocated killexams.com to my colleagues, and everyone and sundry exceeded their tests, too (some of them took Cisco assessments, others did Microsoft, VMware, and many others). I maintain not heard a Awful assessment of killexams.com, so this must exist the tremendous IT education you could currently find on line.


the ones 9L0-060 modern-day dumps works within the actual test.
ive cleared the 9L0-060 examination in the first attempt. I could garner this fulfillment because of killexams.com queryfinancial institution. It helped me to utilize my paintings ebook know-how within the question & solution layout. I solved those query papers with examination simulator and got complete understanding of the examination paper. So I would infatuation to thank killexams.


simply strive those actual remove a inspect at questions and success is yours.
I am no longer a fan of on-line intellect dumps, due to the fact they may exist often posted via irresponsible oldsters thatmisinform you into gaining erudition of belongings you dont want and lacking subjects that you really want to understand. Not killexams.Com. This agency affords truly sound questions answers that capitalize you collect via your examination schooling. That is how I surpassed 9L0-060 exam. First time, First I trusted slack on line stuff and i failed. I were given killexams.Com 9L0-060 exam simulator - and that i surpassed. That is the most effectual evidence I want. Thanks killexams.Com crew.


Unbelieveable overall performance of 9L0-060 exam bank and examine manual.
9L0-060 is the toughest examination ive ever encounter. I spent months reading for it, with everyone legitimate assets and the total lot one ought to determine - and failed it miserably. but I didnt give up! some months later, I delivered killexams.com to my preparation time table and saved practising at the checking out engine and the actual examination questions they offer. I believe that is precisely what helped me pass the second time around! I wish I hadnt wasted the time and money on everyone this needless stuff (their books arent terrible in general, however I confidence they dont provide you with the first-class exam instruction).


save your money and time, remove these 9L0-060 brain dumps and set together the examination.
In recent times i bought your certification package deal and studied it very well. Closing week I handed the 9L0-060 and received my certification. Killexams.Com on line checking out engine modified into a first rate device to set together the examination. That more my self-confidence and i resultseasily exceeded the certification exam! Quite encouraged!!!


birthday celebration is over! Time to keep and bypass the exam.
i maintain cleared 9L0-060 exam in a separate strive with 98% marks. killexams.com is the first-class medium to cleanly this exam. thanks, your case studies and material maintain been properly. I want the timer would sprint too whilst they provide the practice assessments. thank you again.


Unquestionably it is difficult assignment to pick dependable certification questions/answers assets regarding review, reputation and validity since individuals collect sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. Killexams.com ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report dissension customers achieve to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams joyfully and effortlessly. They never trade off on their review, reputation and property on the grounds that killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer conviction is imperative to us. Uniquely they deal with killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com sham report objection, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. On the off desultory that you remark any spurious report posted by their rivals with the denomination killexams sham report grievance web, killexams.com sham report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com protest or something infatuation this, simply recollect there are constantly Awful individuals harming reputation of genuine administrations because of their advantages. There are a huge number of fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.


Vk Profile
Vk Details
Tumbler
linkedin
Killexams Reddit
digg
Slashdot
Facebook
Twitter
dzone
Instagram
Google Album
Google About me
Youtube



C2180-275 VCE | HP3-C36 practice questions | HP0-S19 examcollection | 000-885 questions answers | S90-01 exam prep | LOT-822 braindumps | 000-M71 free pdf | C2140-056 questions and answers | HP3-C17 study guide | 1Z0-320 practice exam | 922-104 cheat sheets | 1Z0-550 test prep | 000-M79 questions and answers | HPE6-A42 mock exam | HP0-M49 exam questions | M2060-730 dumps | HP2-B86 real questions | A2040-988 brain dumps | 920-216 study guide | C2020-702 bootcamp |


9L0-060 exam questions | 9L0-060 free pdf | 9L0-060 pdf download | 9L0-060 test questions | 9L0-060 real questions | 9L0-060 practice questions

Here is the bests plot to collect capitalize pass 9L0-060 exam?
killexams.com helps a great number of applicants pass the exams and collect their confirmations. They maintain a great number of fruitful audits. Their dumps are dependable, moderate, refreshed and of really best property to beat the challenges of any IT confirmations. killexams.com exam dumps are latest refreshed in exceptionally clobber course on ordinary premise and material is discharged o

Are you searching out Apple 9L0-060 Dumps containing actual test questions and answers for the Mac OS X 10.4 Service and uphold Exam prep? killexams.com is here to provide you one most updated and fine source of 9L0-060 Dumps this is http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/9L0-060. They maintain compiled a database of 9L0-060 Dumps questions from actual test that allows you to set together and pass 9L0-060 exam on the first attempt. killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as underneath;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for everyone tests on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $ninety nine
OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for everyone Orders

If you are scanning for 9L0-060 practice Test containing real Test Questions, you are at adjust put. They maintain amassed database of inquiries from Actual Exams with a particular ultimate objective to empower you to plot and pass your exam on the primary endeavor. everyone readiness materials on the site are Up To Date and certified by their authorities.

killexams.com give latest and updated practice Test with Actual Exam Questions and Answers for recent syllabus of Apple 9L0-060 Exam. practice their real Questions and Answers to ameliorate your insight and pass your exam with tall Marks. They ensure your accomplishment in the Test Center, covering each one of the purposes of exam and develop your erudition of the 9L0-060 exam. walk with their genuine inquiries.

Our 9L0-060 Exam PDF contains Complete Pool of Questions and Answers and Brain dumps verified and certified including references and clarifications (where applicable). Their target to accumulate the Questions and Answers isn't just to pass the exam at first endeavor anyway Really ameliorate Your erudition about the 9L0-060 exam focuses.

9L0-060 exam Questions and Answers are Printable in tall property Study steer that you can download in your Computer or some other device and start setting up your 9L0-060 exam. Print Complete 9L0-060 Study Guide, pass on with you when you are at Vacations or Traveling and exist pleased your Exam Prep. You can collect to updated 9L0-060 Exam brain dumps from your online record at whatever point.

killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017: 60% Discount Coupon for everyone exams on website
PROF17: 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17: 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
OCTSPECIAL: 10% Special Discount Coupon for everyone Orders


Download your Mac OS X 10.4 Service and uphold Study steer in a glint ensuing to buying and Start Preparing Your Exam Prep perquisite Now!

9L0-060 Practice Test | 9L0-060 examcollection | 9L0-060 VCE | 9L0-060 study guide | 9L0-060 practice exam | 9L0-060 cram


Killexams 000-M44 test prep | Killexams HP2-H38 real questions | Killexams FN0-103 practice exam | Killexams 000-427 real questions | Killexams 9L0-620 mock exam | Killexams HP2-Z29 exam prep | Killexams 200-101 test prep | Killexams 000-081 examcollection | Killexams EE0-071 practice questions | Killexams DP-002W practice test | Killexams 300-360 free pdf | Killexams M2140-648 braindumps | Killexams NCMA-CMA braindumps | Killexams 1Z0-877 test questions | Killexams HP2-E56 dumps questions | Killexams 1Z0-477 free pdf | Killexams MB2-710 study guide | Killexams FCNSA braindumps | Killexams 000-580 questions and answers | Killexams HP2-Z16 braindumps |


Exam Simulator : Pass4sure 9L0-060 VCE Exam Simulator

View Complete list of Killexams.com Brain dumps


Killexams 920-807 exam prep | Killexams HP2-B111 free pdf download | Killexams 1Z0-330 brain dumps | Killexams 1D0-610 mock exam | Killexams M2050-243 real questions | Killexams HH0-050 test questions | Killexams 000-610 real questions | Killexams MB2-718 test prep | Killexams C8 VCE | Killexams E20-665 practice questions | Killexams 1Z0-228 sample test | Killexams 1Y1-456 brain dumps | Killexams SD0-302 study guide | Killexams 200-309 braindumps | Killexams SCP-500 examcollection | Killexams 2D00056A cram | Killexams M2040-669 practice questions | Killexams 000-992 practice test | Killexams 000-919 dump | Killexams 000-652 braindumps |


Mac OS X 10.4 Service and Support

Pass 4 sure 9L0-060 dumps | Killexams.com 9L0-060 real questions | http://www.jeepmansoffroad.com/

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review | killexams.com real questions and Pass4sure dumps

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review reader comments 454 Share this story
  • Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger: 150+  recent featuresMac OS X 10.4 Tiger: 150+ recent features

    In June of 2004, during the WWDC keynote address, Steve Jobs revealed Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger to developers and the public for the first time. When the finished product arrived in April of 2005, Tiger was the biggest, most important, most feature-packed release in the history of Mac OS X by a wide margin. Apple's marketing campaign reflected this, touting "over 150 recent features."

    All those recent features took time. Since its introduction in 2001, there had been at least one major release of Mac OS X each year. Tiger took over a year and a half to arrive. At the time, it definitely seemed worth the wait. Tiger was a hit with users and developers. Apple took the lesson to heart and quickly set expectations for the next major release of Mac OS X, Leopard. Through various channels, Apple communicated its objective to walk from a 12-month to an 18-month release cycle for Mac OS X. Leopard was officially scheduled for "spring 2007."

    As the date approached, Apple's marketing machine trod a predictable path.

    Steve Jobs at WWDC 2007, touting 300  recent features in Mac OS X 10.5 LeopardSteve Jobs at WWDC 2007, touting 300 recent features in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

    Apple even went so far as to list everyone 300 recent features on its website. As it turns out, "spring" was a bit optimistic. Leopard actually shipped at the halt of October 2007, nearly two and a half years after Tiger. Did Leopard really maintain twice as many recent features as Tiger? That's debatable. What's unavoidable is that Leopard included a solid crop of recent features and technologies, many of which they now remove for granted. (For example, maintain you had a discussion with a potential Mac user since the release of Leopard without mentioning Time Machine? I certainly haven't.)

    Mac OS X appeared to exist maturing. The progression was clear: longer release cycles, more features. What would Mac OS X 10.6 exist like? Would it arrive three and a half years after Leopard? Would it and comprise 500 recent features? A thousand?

    At WWDC 2009, Bertrand Serlet announced a walk that he described as "unprecedented" in the PC industry.

    Mac OS X 10.6 - Read Bertrand's lips: No  recent Features!Mac OS X 10.6 - Read Bertrand's lips: No recent Features!

    That's right, the next major release of Mac OS X would maintain no recent features. The product denomination reflected this: "Snow Leopard." Mac OS X 10.6 would merely exist a variant of Leopard. Better, faster, more refined, more... uh... snowy.

    This was a risky strategy for Apple. After the rapid-fire updates of 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 followed by the riot of recent features and APIs in 10.4 and 10.5, could Apple really collect away with calling a "time out?" I imagine Bertrand was really sweating this announcement up on the stage at WWDC in front of a live audience of Mac developers. Their reaction? spontaneous applause. There were even a few hoots and whistles.

    Many of these same developers applauded the "150+ recent features" in Tiger and the "300 recent features" in Leopard at past WWDCs. Now they were applauding zero recent features for Snow Leopard? What explains this?

    It probably helps to know that the "0 recent Features" slip came at the halt of an hour-long presentation detailing the major recent APIs and technologies in Snow Leopard. It was besides quickly followed by a back-pedaling ("well, there is one recent feature...") slip describing the addition of Microsoft Exchange support. In isolation, "no recent features" may appear to imply stagnation. In context, however, it served as a developer-friendly affirmation.

    The overall message from Apple to developers was something infatuation this: "We're adding a ton of recent things to Mac OS X that will capitalize you write better applications and get your existing code sprint faster, and we're going to get sure that everyone this recent stuff is rock-solid and as bug-free as possible. We're not going to overextend ourselves adding a raft of recent customer-facing, marketing-friendly features. Instead, we're going to concentrate 100% on the things that impress you, the developers."

    But if Snow Leopard is a infatuation letter to developers, is it a Dear John letter to users? You know, those people that the marketing department might so crudely advert to as "customers." What's in it for them? Believe it or not, the sales pitch to users is actually quite similar. As exhausting as it has been for developers to sustain up with Apple's seemingly never-ending stream of recent APIs, it can exist just as taxing for customers to sojourn on top of Mac OS X's features. Exposé, a recent Finder, Spotlight, a recent Dock, Time Machine, a recent Finder again, a recent iLife and iWork almost every year, and on and on. And as much as developers loathe bugs in Apple's APIs, users who undergo those bugs as application crashes maintain just as much judgement to exist annoyed.

    Enter Snow Leopard: the release where they everyone collect a split from the new-features/new-bugs treadmill of Mac OS X development. That's the pitch.

    Uncomfortable realities

    But wait a second, didn't I just mention an "hour-long presentation" about Snow Leopard featuring "major recent APIs and technologies?" When speaking to developers, Apple's message of "no recent features" is another course of maxim "no recent bugs." Snow Leopard is supposititious to fix ragged bugs without introducing recent ones. But nothing says "new bugs, coming perquisite up" quite infatuation major recent APIs. So which is it?

    Similarly, for users, "no recent features" connotes stability and reliability. But if Snow Leopard includes enough changes to the core OS to fill an hour-long overview session at WWDC more than a year before its release, can Apple really get genuine on this promise? Or will users halt up with everyone the disadvantages of a feature-packed release infatuation Tiger or Leopard—the inevitable 10.x.0 bugs, the unfamiliar, untried recent functionality—but without any of the actual recent features?

    Yes, it's enough to get one quite cynical about Apple's real motivations. To sling some more fuel on the fire, maintain a inspect at the Mac OS X release timeline below. Next to each release, I've included a list of its most significant features.

    Mac OS X release timelineMac OS X release timeline

    That curve is taking on a decidedly droopy shape, as if it's being weighed down by the ever-increasing number of recent features. (The releases are distributed uniformly on the Y axis.) Maybe you judge it's reasonable for the time between releases to stretch out as each one brings a heavier load of goodies than the last, but sustain in intellect the logical consequence of such a curve over the longhorn haul.

    And yeah, there's a shrimp upwards kick at the halt for 10.6, but remember, this is supposititious to exist the "no recent features" release. Version 10.1 had a similar no-frills focus but took a heck of a lot less time to arrive.

    Looking at this graph, it's difficult not to marvel if there's something siphoning resources from the Mac OS X evolution effort. Maybe, say, some project that's in the first two or three major releases of its life, soundless in that steep, early section of its own timeline graph. Yes, I'm talking about the iPhone, specifically iPhone OS. The iPhone business has exploded onto Apple's poise sheets infatuation no other product before, even the iPod. It's besides accruing developers at an alarming rate.

    It's not a stretch to imagine that many of the artists and developers who piled on the user-visible features in Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 maintain been reassigned to iPhone OS (temporarily or otherwise). After all, Mac OS X and iPhone OS participate the same core operating system, the same language for GUI development, and many of the same APIs. Some workforce migration seems inevitable.

    And let's not forget the "Mac OS X" technologies that they later scholarly were developed for the iPhone and just happened to exist announced for the Mac first (because the iPhone was soundless a secret), infatuation Core Animation and code signing. Such intrigue theories certainly aren't helped by WWDC keynote snubs and other indignities suffered by Mac OS X and the Mac in generic since the iPhone arrived on the scene. And so, on top of everything else, Snow Leopard is tasked with restoring some luster to Mac OS X.

    Got everyone that? A nearly two-year evolution cycle, but no recent features. Major recent frameworks for developers, but few recent bugs. Significant changes to the core OS, but more reliability. And a franchise rejuvenation with few user-visible changes.

    It's enough to gyrate a leopard white.

    The price of entry

    Snow Leopard's opening overture to consumers is its price: $29 for those upgrading from Leopard. The debut release of Mac OS X 10.0 and the final four major releases maintain everyone been $129, with no special pricing for upgrades. After eight years of this benign of fiscal disciplining, Leopard users may well exist tempted to desist reading perquisite now and just walk pick up a copy. Snow Leopard's upgrade price is well under the impulse purchase threshold for many people. Twenty-nine dollars plus some minimal even of faith in Apple's capacity to ameliorate the OS with each release, and boom, instant purchase.

    Still here? Good, because there's something else you requisite to know about Snow Leopard. It's an overture of a different sort, less of a come-on and more of a spur. Snow Leopard will only sprint on Macs with Intel CPUs. Sorry (again), PowerPC fans, but this is the halt of the line for you. The transition to Intel was announced over four years ago, and the final recent PowerPC Mac was released in October 2005. It's time.

    But if Snow Leopard is meant to prod the PowerPC holdouts into the Intel age, its "no recent features" stance (and the accompanying lack of added visual flair) is working against it. For those running Leopard on a PowerPC-based Mac, there's precious shrimp in Snow Leopard to capitalize push them over the (likely) four-digit price wall of a recent Mac. For PowerPC Mac owners, the threshold for a recent Mac purchase remains mostly unchanged. When their ragged Mac breaks or seems too slow, they'll walk out and buy a recent one, and it'll achieve with Snow Leopard pre-installed.

    If Snow Leopard does halt up motivating recent Mac purchases by PowerPC owners, it will probably exist the result of resignation rather than inspiration. An Intel-only Snow Leopard is most significant for what it isn't: a further extension of PowerPC life uphold on the Mac platform.

    The final arresting group is owners of Intel-based Macs that are soundless running Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Apple shipped Intel Macs with Tiger installed for a shrimp over one year and nine months. Owners of these machines who never upgraded to Leopard are not eligible for the $29 upgrade to Snow Leopard. They're besides apparently not eligible to purchase Snow Leopard for the traditional $129 price. Here's what Apple has to train about Snow Leopard's pricing (emphasis added).

    Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard will exist available as an upgrade to Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard in September 2009 [...] The Snow Leopard separate user license will exist available for a suggested retail price of $29 (US) and the Snow Leopard Family Pack, a separate household, five-user license, will exist available for a suggested price of $49 (US). For Tiger® users with an Intel-based Mac, the Mac Box Set includes Mac OS X Snow Leopard, iLife® '09 and iWork® '09 and will exist available for a suggested price of $169 (US) and a Family Pack is available for a suggested price of $229 (US).

    Ignoring the family packs for a moment, this means that Snow Leopard will either exist free with your recent Mac, $29 if you're already running Leopard, or $169 if you maintain an Intel Mac running Tiger. People upgrading from Tiger will collect the latest version of iLife and iWork in the contract (if that's the appropriate term), whether they want them or not. It sure seems infatuation there's an obvious plot in this lineup for a $129 offering of Snow Leopard on its own. Then again, perhaps it everyone comes down to how, exactly, Apple enforces the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade policy.

    (As an aside to non-Mac users, note that the non-server version of Mac OS X has no per-user serial number and no activation scheme of any kind, and never has. "Registration" with Apple during the Mac OS X install process is entirely optional and is only used to collect demographic information. Failing to register (or entering entirely bogus registration information) has no consequence on your capacity to sprint the OS. This is considered a genuine edge of Mac OS X, but it besides means that Apple has no dependable record of who, exactly, is a "legitimate" owner of Leopard.)

    One possibility was that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade DVD would only install on top of an existing installation of Leopard. Apple has done this character of thing before, and it bypasses any proof-of-purchase annoyances. It would, however, interlard a recent problem. In the event of a difficult drive failure or simple decision to reinstall from scratch, owners of the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade would exist forced to first install Leopard and then install Snow Leopard on top of it, perhaps more than doubling the installation time—and quintupling the annoyance.

    Given Apple's history in this area, no one should maintain been surprised to find out that Apple chose the much simpler option: the $29 "upgrade" DVD of Snow Leopard will, in fact, install on any supported Mac, whether or not it has Leopard installed. It will even install onto an entirely empty difficult drive.

    To exist clear, installing the $29 upgrade to Snow Leopard on a system not already running a properly licensed copy of Leopard is a violation of the end-user license agreement that comes with the product. But Apple's decision is a refreshing change: rewarding honest people with a hassle-free product rather than trying to chastise dishonest people by treating everyone infatuation a criminal. This "honor system" upgrade enforcement policy partially explains the gargantuan jump to $169 for the Mac Box Set, which ends up re-framed as an honest person's course to collect iLife and iWork at their habitual prices, plus Snow Leopard for $11 more.

    And yes, speaking of installing, let's finally collect on with it.

    Installation

    Apple claims that Snow Leopard's installation process is "up to 45% faster." Installation times vary wildly depending on the speed, contents, and fragmentation of the target disk, the accelerate of the optical drive, and so on. Installation besides only happens once, and it's not really an arresting process unless something goes terribly wrong. Still, if Apple's going to get such a claim, it's worth checking out.

    To eradicate as many variables as possible, I installed both Leopard and Snow Leopard from one difficult disk onto another (empty) one. It should exist eminent that this change negates some of Snow Leopard's most principal installation optimizations, which are focused on reducing random data access from the optical disc.

    Even with this disadvantage, the Snow Leopard installation took about 20% less time than the Leopard installation. That's well short of Apple's "up to 45%" claim, but remark above (and don't forget the "up to" weasel words). Both versions installed in less than 30 minutes.

    What is striking about Snow Leopard's installation is how quickly the initial Spotlight indexing process completed. Here, Snow Leopard was 74% faster in my testing. Again, the times are petite (5:49 vs. 3:20) and again, recent installations on empty disks are not the norm. But the shorter wait for Spotlight indexing is worth noting because it's the first indication most users will collect that Snow Leopard means business when it comes to performance.

    Another notable thing about installation is what's not installed by default: Rosetta, the facility that allows PowerPC binaries to sprint on Intel Macs. Okay Apple, they collect it. PowerPC is a stiff, bereft of life. It rests in peace. It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. As far as Apple is concerned, PowerPC is an ex-ISA.

    But not installing Rosetta by default? That seems a shrimp harsh, even foolhardy. What's going to befall when everyone those users upgrade to Snow Leopard and then double-click what they've probably long since forgotten is a PowerPC application? Perhaps surprisingly, this is what happens:

    Rosetta: auto-installed for your convenienceRosetta: auto-installed for your convenience

    That's what I saw when I tried to launch Disk Inventory X on Snow Leopard, an application that, yes, I had long since forgotten was PowerPC-only. After I clicked the "Install" button, I actually expected to exist prompted to insert the installer DVD. Instead, Snow Leopard reached out over the network, pulled down Rosetta from an Apple server, and installed it.

    Rosetta auto-install

    No reboot was required, and Disk Inventory X launched successfully after the Rosetta installation completed. Mac OS X has not historically made much utilize of the install-on-demand approach to system software components, but the facility used to install Rosetta appears quite robust. Upon clicking "Install," an XML property list containing a vast catalog of available Mac OS X packages was downloaded. Snow Leopard uses the same facility to download and install printer drivers on demand, saving another trip to the installer DVD. I hope this technique gains even wider utilize in the future.

    Installation footprint

    Rosetta aside, Snow Leopard simply puts fewer bits on your disk. Apple claims it "takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version," and that's no lie. A clean, default install (including fully-generated Spotlight indexes) is 16.8 GB for Leopard and 5.9 GB for Snow Leopard. (Incidentally, these numbers are both powers-of-two measurements; remark sidebar.)

    A gigabyte by any other name

    Snow Leopard has another trick up its sleeve when it comes to disk usage. The Snow Leopard Finder considers 1 GB to exist equal to 109 (1,000,000,000) bytes, whereas the Leopard Finder—and, it should exist noted, every version of the Finder before it—equates 1 GB to 230 (1,073,741,824) bytes. This has the consequence of making your difficult disk suddenly loom larger after installing Snow Leopard. For example, my "1 TB" difficult drive shows up in the Leopard Finder as having a capacity of 931.19 GB. In Snow Leopard, it's 999.86 GB. As you might maintain guessed, difficult disk manufacturers utilize the powers-of-ten system. It's everyone quite a mess, really. Though I achieve down pretty firmly on the powers-of-two side of the fence, I can't foible Apple too much for wanting to match up nicely with the long-established (but soundless dumb, intellect you) difficult disk vendors' capacity measurement standard.

    Snow Leopard has several weight loss secrets. The first is obvious: no PowerPC uphold means no PowerPC code in executables. Recall the maximum feasible binary payload in a Leopard executable: 32-bit PowerPC, 64-bit PowerPC, x86, and x86_64. Now cross half of those architectures off the list. Granted, very few applications in Leopard included 64-bit code of any kind, but it's a 50% reduction in size for executables no matter how you slice it.

    Of course, not everyone the files in the operating system are executables. There are data files, images, audio files, even a shrimp video. But most of those non-executable files maintain one thing in common: they're usually stored in compressed file formats. Images are PNGs or JPEGs, audio is AAC, video is MPEG-4, even preference files and other property lists now default to a compact binary format rather than XML.

    In Snow Leopard, other kinds of files climb on board the compression bandwagon. To give just one example, ninety-seven percent of the executable files in Snow Leopard are compressed. How compressed? Let's look:

    % cd Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS % ls -l Mail -rwxr-xr-x@ 1 root wheel 0 Jun 18 19:35 Mail

    Boy, that's, uh, pretty small, huh? Is this really an executable or what? Let's check their assumptions.

    % file Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail: empty

    Yikes! What's going on here? Well, what I didn't reveal you is that the commands shown above were sprint from a Leopard system looking at a Snow Leopard disk. In fact, everyone compressed Snow Leopard files loom to accommodate zero bytes when viewed from a pre-Snow Leopard version of Mac OS X. (They inspect and act perfectly ordinary when booted into Snow Leopard, of course.)

    So, where's the data? The shrimp "@" at the halt of the permissions string in the ls output above (a feature introduced in Leopard) provides a clue. Though the Mail executable has a zero file size, it does maintain some extended attributes:

    % xattr -l Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail com.apple.ResourceFork: 0000 00 00 01 00 00 2C F5 F2 00 2C F4 F2 00 00 00 32 .....,...,.....2 0010 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ (184,159 lines snipped) 2CF610 63 6D 70 66 00 00 00 0A 00 01 FF FF 00 00 00 00 cmpf............ 2CF620 00 00 00 00 .... com.apple.decmpfs: 0000 66 70 6D 63 04 00 00 00 A0 82 72 00 00 00 00 00 fpmc......r.....

    Ah, there's everyone the data. But wait, it's in the resource fork? Weren't those deprecated about eight years ago? Indeed they were. What you're witnessing here is yet another addition to Apple's favorite file system hobbyhorse, HFS+.

    At the dawn of Mac OS X, Apple added journaling, symbolic links, and difficult links. In Tiger, extended attributes and access control lists were incorporated. In Leopard, HFS+ gained uphold for difficult links to directories. In Snow Leopard, HFS+ learns another recent trick: per-file compression.

    The presence of the com.apple.decmpfs attribute is the first hint that this file is compressed. This attribute is actually hidden from the xattr command when booted into Snow Leopard. But from a Leopard system, which has no erudition of its special significance, it shows up as unpretentious as day.

    Even more information is revealed with the capitalize of Mac OS X Internals guru Amit Singh's hfsdebug program, which has quietly been updated for Snow Leopard.

    % hfsdebug /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail ... compression magic = cmpf compression character = 4 (resource fork has compressed data) uncompressed size = 7500336 bytes

    And sure enough, as they saw, the resource fork does indeed accommodate the compressed data. Still, why the resource fork? It's everyone piece of Apple's usual, clever backward-compatibility gymnastics. A recent instance is the course that difficult links to directories exhibit up—and function—as aliases when viewed from a pre-Leopard version of Mac OS X.

    In the case of a HFS+ compression, Apple was (understandably) unable to get pre-Snow Leopard systems read and interpret the compressed data, which is stored in ways that did not exist at the time those earlier operating systems were written. But rather than letting applications (and users) running on pre-10.6 systems choke on—or worse, pervert through modification—the unexpectedly compressed file contents, Apple has chosen to cover the compressed data instead.

    And where can the complete contents of a potentially great file exist hidden in such a course that pre-Snow Leopard systems can soundless copy that file without the loss of data? Why, in the resource fork, of course. The Finder has always correctly preserved Mac-specific metadata and both the resource and data forks when stirring or duplicating files. In Leopard, even the lowly cp and rsync commands will carry out the same. So while it may exist a shrimp bit spooky to remark everyone those "empty" 0 KB files when looking at a Snow Leopard disk from a pre-Snow Leopard OS, the desultory of data loss is small, even if you walk or copy one of the files.

    The resource fork isn't the only plot where Apple has decided to smuggle compressed data. For smaller files, hfsdebug shows the following:

    % hfsdebug /etc/asl.conf ... compression magic = cmpf compression character = 3 (xattr has compressed data) uncompressed size = 860 bytes

    Here, the data is petite enough to exist stored entirely within an extended attribute, albeit in compressed form. And then, the final frontier:

    % hfsdebug /Volumes/Snow Time/Applications/Mail.app/Contents/PkgInfo ... compression magic = cmpf compression character = 3 (xattr has inline data) uncompressed size = 8 bytes

    That's right, an entire file's contents stored uncompressed in an extended attribute. In the case of a measure PkgInfo file infatuation this one, those contents are the four-byte classic Mac OS character and creator codes.

    % xattr -l Applications/Mail.app/Contents/PkgInfo com.apple.decmpfs: 0000 66 70 6D 63 03 00 00 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 fpmc............ 0010 FF 41 50 50 4C 65 6D 61 6C .APPLemal

    There's soundless the same "fpmc..." preamble seen in everyone the earlier examples of the com.apple.decmpfs attribute, but at the halt of the value, the expected data appears as unpretentious as day: character code "APPL" (application) and creator code "emal" (for the Mail application—cute, as per classic Mac OS tradition).

    You may exist wondering, if this is everyone about data compression, how does storing eight uncompressed bytes plus a 17-byte preamble in an extended attribute redeem any disk space? The respond to that lies in how HFS+ allocates disk space. When storing information in a data or resource fork, HFS+ allocates space in multiples of the file system's allocation block size (4 KB, by default). So those eight bytes will remove up a minimum of 4,096 bytes if stored in the traditional way. When allocating disk space for extended attributes, however, the allocation block size is not a factor; the data is packed in much more tightly. In the end, the actual space saved by storing those 25 bytes of data in an extended attribute is over 4,000 bytes.

    But compression isn't just about saving disk space. It's besides a classic instance of trading CPU cycles for decreased I/O latency and bandwidth. Over the past few decades, CPU performance has gotten better (and computing resources more plentiful—more on that later) at a much faster rate than disk performance has increased. Modern difficult disk seek times and rotational delays are soundless measured in milliseconds. In one millisecond, a 2 GHz CPU goes through two million cycles. And then, of course, there's soundless the actual data transfer time to consider.

    Granted, several levels of caching throughout the OS and hardware labor mightily to cover these delays. But those bits maintain to achieve off the disk at some point to fill those caches. Compression means that fewer bits maintain to exist transferred. Given the almost comical glut of CPU resources on a modern multi-core Mac under ordinary use, the total time needed to transfer a compressed payload from the disk and utilize the CPU to decompress its contents into reminiscence will soundless usually exist far less than the time it'd remove to transfer the data in uncompressed form.

    That explains the potential performance benefits of transferring less data, but the utilize of extended attributes to store file contents can actually get things faster, as well. It everyone has to carry out with data locality.

    If there's one thing that slows down a difficult disk more than transferring a great amount of data, it's stirring its heads from one piece of the disk to another. Every walk means time for the head to start moving, then stop, then ensure that it's correctly positioned over the desired location, then wait for the spinning disk to set the desired bits beneath it. These are everyone real, physical, stirring parts, and it's fabulous that they carry out their dance as quickly and efficiently as they do, but physics has its limits. These motions are the real performance killers for rotational storage infatuation difficult disks.

    The HFS+ volume format stores everyone its information about files—metadata—in two primary locations on disk: the Catalog File, which stores file dates, permissions, ownership, and a host of other things, and the Attributes File, which stores "named forks."

    Extended attributes in HFS+ are implemented as named forks in the Attributes File. But unlike resource forks, which can exist very great (up to the maximum file size supported by the file system), extended attributes in HFS+ are stored "inline" in the Attributes File. In practice, this means a restrict of about 128 bytes per attribute. But it besides means that the disk head doesn't requisite to remove a trip to another piece of the disk to collect the actual data.

    As you can imagine, the disk blocks that get up the Catalog and Attributes files are frequently accessed, and therefore more likely than most to exist in a cache somewhere. everyone of this conspires to get the complete storage of a file, including both its metadata in its data, within the B-tree-structured Catalog and Attributes files an overall performance win. Even an eight-byte payload that balloons to 25 bytes is not a concern, as long as it's soundless less than the allocation block size for ordinary data storage, and as long as it everyone fits within a B-tree node in the Attributes File that the OS has to read in its entirety anyway.

    There are other significant contributions to Snow Leopard's reduced disk footprint (e.g., the removal of unnecessary localizations and "designable.nib" files) but HFS+ compression is by far the most technically interesting.

    Installer intelligence

    Apple makes two other arresting promises about the installation process:

    Snow Leopard checks your applications to get sure they're compatible and sets aside any programs known to exist incompatible. In case a power outage interrupts your installation, it can start again without losing any data.

    The setting aside of "known incompatible" applications is undoubtedly a response to the "blue screen" problems some users encountered when upgrading from Tiger to Leopard two years ago, which was caused by the presence of incompatible—and some would train "illicit"—third-party system extensions. I maintain a decidedly pragmatic view of such software, and I'm lighthearted to remark Apple taking a similarly practical approach to minimizing its repercussion on users.

    Apple can't exist expected to detect and disable everyone potentially incompatible software, of course. I suspect only the most approved or highest profile risky software is detected. If you're a developer, this installer feature may exist a genuine course to find out if you're on Apple's sh*t list.

    As for continuing an installation after a power failure, I didn't maintain the guts to test this feature. (I besides maintain a UPS.) For long-running processes infatuation installation, this benign of added robustness is welcome, especially on battery-powered devices infatuation laptops.

    I mention these two details of the installation process mostly because they highlight the kinds of things that are feasible when developers at Apple are given time to polish their respective components of the OS. You might judge that the installer team would exist hard-pressed to achieve up with enough to carry out during a nearly two-year evolution cycle. That's clearly not the case, and customers will garner the benefits.

    Snow Leopard's recent looks

    I've long yearned for Apple to get a cleanly break, at least visually, from Mac OS X's Aqua past. Alas, I will exist waiting a bit longer, because Snow Leopard ushers in no such revolution. And yet here I am, beneath a familiar-looking section heading that seems to testify otherwise. The truth is, Snow Leopard actually changes the appearance of nearly every pixel on your screen—but not in the course you might imagine.

    Since the dawn of color on the Macintosh, the operating system has used a default output gamma correction value of 1.8. Meanwhile, Windows—aka the repose of the world—has used a value of 2.2. Though this may not appear significant to anyone but professional graphics artists, the variation is usually obvious to even a casual observer when viewing the same image on both kinds of displays side by side.

    Though Mac users will probably instinctively prefer the 1.8 gamma image that they're used to, Apple has decided that this historical variation is more pains than it's worth. The default output gamma correction value in Snow Leopard is now 2.2, just infatuation everyone else. Done and done.

    If they notice at all, users will likely undergo this change as a emotion that the Snow Leopard user interface has a bit more contrast than Leopard's. This is reinforced by the recent default desktop background, a re-drawn, more saturated version of Leopard's default desktop. (Note that these are two entirely different images and not an attempt to demonstrate the effects of different gamma correction settings.)

    LeopardLeopard Snow LeopardSnow Leopard Dock Exposé spotlight effectDock Exposé spotlight effect

    But even beyond color correction, objective to form, Apple could not resist adding a few graphical tweaks to the Snow Leopard interface. The most obvious changes are related to the Dock. First, there's the recent "spotlight" inspect triggered by a click-and-hold on an application icon in the Dock. (This activates Exposé, but only for the windows belonging to the application that was clicked. More later.)

    Furthermore, any and everyone pop-up menus on the Dock—and only on the Dock—have a unique inspect in Snow Leopard, complete with a custom selection appearance (which, for a change, does a passable job of matching the system-wide selection appearance setting).

    New Dock menu appearance. Mmmm… arbitrary.New Dock menu appearance. Mmmm… arbitrary.

    For Mac users of a unavoidable age, these menus may bring to intellect Apple's Hi-Tech appearance theme from the bad-old days of Copland. They're actually considerably more subtle, however. Note the translucent edges which accentuate the rounded corners. The gradient on the selection highlight is besides admirably restrained.

    Nevertheless, this is an entirely recent inspect for a separate (albeit commonly used) application, and it does clash a bit with the default "slanty, shiny shelf" appearance of the Dock. But I've already had my train about that, and more. If the oath of Snow Leopard's appearance was to "first, carry out no harm," then I judge I'm inclined to give it a passing grade—almost.

    If I had to characterize what's wrong with Snow Leopard's visual additions with just two words, it'd exist these: everything fades. Apple has sprinkled Core Animation fairy dust over seemingly every application in Snow Leopard. If any piece of the user interface appears, disappears, or changes in any significant way, it's accompanied by an animation and one or more fades.

    In moderation, such effects are fine. But in several instances, Snow Leopard crosses the line. Or rather, it crosses my line, which, it should exist noted, is located far inside the territories of Candy Land. Others with a much lower tolerance for animations who are already galled by the frippery in Leopard and earlier releases will find shrimp to infatuation in Snow Leopard's visual changes.

    The one that really drove me over the edge is the fussy shrimp dance of the filename belt that occurs in the Finder (surprise!) when renaming a file on the desktop. There's just something about so many cross-fades, color changes, and text offsets occurring so rapidly and concentrated into such a petite belt that makes me want to scream. And whether or not I'm actually waiting for these animations to finish before I can continue to utilize my computer, it certainly feels that course sometimes.

    Still, I must unenthusiastically forecast that most ordinary people (i.e., the ones who will not read this entire article) will either find these added visual touches delightful, or (much more likely) not notice them at all.

    Branding

    Animation aside, the visual sameness of Snow Leopard presents a bit of a marketing challenge for Apple. Even beyond the obvious problem of how to promote an operating system upgrade with "no recent features" to consumers, there's the issue of how to collect people to notice that this recent product exists at all.

    In the run-up to Snow Leopard's release, Apple stuck to a modified version of Leopard's outer space theme. It was in the keynote slideshows, on the WWDC banners, on the developer release DVDs, and everyone over the Mac OS X section of Apple's website. The header image from Apple's Mac OS X webpage as of a week before Snow Leopard's release appears below. It's pretty crop and dried: outer space, stars, rich purple nebula, lens flare.

    Snow. The final frontier.Snow. The final frontier.

    Then came the golden master of Snow Leopard, which, in a pleasant change from past releases, was distributed to developers a few weeks before Snow Leopard hit the shelves. Its installer introduced an entirely different inspect which, as it turns out, was carried over to the retail packaging. For a change, let's line up the discs instead of the packaging (which is rapidly shrinking to barely coop the disc anyway). Here's Mac OS X 10.0 through 10.6, top to bottom and left to right. (The 10.0 and 10.1 discs looked essentially identical and maintain been coalesced.)

    One of these things is not   infatuation the others…One of these things is not infatuation the others…

    Yep, it's a snow leopard. With actual snow on it. It's a bit on the nose for my taste, but it's not without its charms. And it does maintain one gargantuan thing going for it: it's immediately recognizable as something recent and different. "Unmistakable" is how I'd sum up the packaging. Eight years of the giant, centered, variously adorned "X" and then boom: a cat. There's shrimp desultory that anyone who's seen Leopard sitting on the shelf of their local Apple store for the past two years will fail to notice that this is a recent product.

    (If you'd infatuation your own picture of Snowy the snow leopard (that's right, I've named him), Apple was benign enough to comprise a desktop background image with the OS. Self-loathing Windows users may download it directly.)

    Warning: internals ahead

    We've arrived at the start of the customary "internals" section. Snow Leopard is everyone about internal changes, and this is reflected in the content of this review. If you're only interested in the user-visible changes, you can skip ahead, but you'll exist missing out on the meat of this review and the heart of Apple's recent OS.

    64-bit: the road leads ever on

    Mac OS X started its journey to 64-bit back in 2003 with the release of Panther, which included the bare minimum uphold for the then-new PowerPC G5 64-bit CPU. In 2005, Tiger brought with it the capacity to create objective 64-bit processes—as long as they didn't link with any of the GUI libraries. Finally, Leopard in 2007 included uphold for 64-bit GUI applications. But again, there was a caveat: 64-bit uphold extended to Cocoa applications only. It was, effectively, the halt of the road for Carbon.

    Despite Leopard's seemingly impressive 64-bit bona fides, there are a few more steps before Mac OS X can achieve complete 64-bit nirvana. The diagrams below illustrate.

    64-bit in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger 64-bit in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard 64-bit in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard

    As we'll see, everyone that yellow in the Snow Leopard diagram represents its capability, not necessarily its default mode of operation.

    K64

    Snow Leopard is the first version of Mac OS X to ship with a 64-bit kernel ("K64" in Apple's parlance), but it's not enabled by default on most systems. The judgement for this this is simple. Recall that there's no "mixed mode" in Mac OS X. At runtime, a process is either 32-bit or 64-bit, and can only load other code—libraries, plug-ins, etc.—of the same kind.

    An principal class of plug-ins loaded by the kernel is device drivers. Were Snow Leopard to default to the 64-bit kernel, only 64-bit device drivers would load. And seeing as Snow Leopard is the first version of Mac OS X to comprise a 64-bit kernel, there'd exist precious few of those on customers' systems on launch day.

    And so, by default, Snow Leopard boots with a 64-bit kernel only on Xserves from 2008 or later. I guess the assumption is that everyone of the devices commonly attached to an Xserve will exist supported by 64-bit drivers supplied by Apple in Snow Leopard itself.

    Perhaps surprisingly, not everyone Macs with 64-bit processors are even able to boot into the 64-bit kernel. Though this may change in subsequent point releases of Snow Leopard, the table below lists everyone the Macs that are either capable of or default to booting K64. (To find the "Model name" of your Mac, select "About This Mac" from the Apple menu, then click the "More info…" button and read the "Model Identifier" line in the window that appears.)

    Product Model name K64 status Early 2008 Mac Pro MacPro3,1 Capable Early 2008 Xserve Xserve2,1 Default MacBook Pro 15"/17" MacBookPro4,1 Capable iMac iMac8,1 Capable UniBody MacBook Pro 15" MacBookPro5,1 Capable UniBody MacBook Pro 17" MacBookPro5,2 Capable Mac Pro MacPro4,1 Capable iMac iMac9,1 Capable Early 2009 Xserve Xserve3,1 Default

    For everyone K64-capable Macs, boot while holding down "6" and "4" keys simultaneously to select the 64-bit kernel. For a more permanent solution, utilize the nvram command to add arch=x86_64 to your boot-args string, or edit the file /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/com.apple.Boot.plist and add arch=x86_64 to the Kernel Flags string:

    ... <key>Kernel</key> <string>mach_kernel</string> <key>Kernel Flags</key> <string>arch=x86_64</string> ...

    To switch back to the 32-bit kernel, hold down the "3" and "2" keys during boot, or utilize one of the techniques above, replacing "x86_64" with "i386".

    We've already discussed why, at least initially, you probably won't want to boot into K64. But as Snow Leopard adoption ramps up and 64-bit updates of existing kernel extensions become available, why might you actually want to utilize the 64-bit kernel?

    The first judgement has to carry out with RAM, and not in the course you might think. Though Leopard uses a 32-bit kernel, Macs running Leopard can accommodate and utilize far more RAM than the 4 GB restrict the "32-bit" qualifier might appear to imply. But as RAM sizes increase, there's another concern: address space depletion—not for applications, but for the kernel itself.

    As a 32-bit process, the kernel itself is limited to a 32-bit (i.e., 4GB) address space. That may not appear infatuation a problem; after all, should the kernel really requisite more than 4GB of reminiscence to carry out its job? But recollect that piece of the kernel's job is to track and manage system memory. The kernel uses a 64-byte structure to track the status of each 4KB page of RAM used on the system.

    That's 64 bytes, not kilobytes. It hardly seems infatuation a lot. But now account a Mac in the not-too-distant future containing 96GB of RAM. (If this sounds ridiculous to you, judge of how ridiculous the 8GB of RAM in the Mac I'm typing on perquisite now would maintain sounded to you five years ago.) Tracking 96GB of RAM requires 1.5GB of kernel address space. Using more than a third of the kernel's address space just to track reminiscence is a pretty uncomfortable situation.

    A 64-bit kernel, on the other hand, has a virtually unlimited kernel address space (16 exabytes). K64 is an inevitable necessity, given the rapidly increasing size of system memory. Though you may not requisite it today on the desktop, it's already common for servers to maintain double-digit gigabytes of RAM installed.

    The other thing K64 has going for it is speed. The x86 instruction set architecture has had a bit of a tortured history. When designing the x86-64 64-bit extension of the x86 architecture, AMD took the break to leave behind some of the ugliness of the past and comprise more modern features: more registers, recent addressing modes, non-stack-based floating point capabilities, etc. K64 reaps these benefits. Apple makes the following claims about its performance:

  • 250% faster system convoke entry point
  • 70% faster user/kernel reminiscence copy
  • Focused benchmarking would abide these out, I'm sure. But in daily use, you're unlikely to exist able to attribute any particular performance boost to the kernel. judge of K64 as removing bottlenecks from the few (usually server-based) applications that actually carry out exercise these aspects of the kernel heavily.

    If it makes you feel better to know that your kernel is operating more efficiently, and that, were you to actually maintain 96GB of RAM installed, you would not risk starving the kernel of address space, and if you don't maintain any 32-bit drivers that you absolutely requisite to use, then by everyone means, boot into the 64-bit kernel.

    For everyone else, my advice is to exist lighthearted that K64 will exist ready and waiting for you when you eventually carry out requisite it—and delight carry out cheer everyone the vendors that get kernel extensions that you confidence about to add K64 uphold as soon as possible.

    Finally, this is worth repeating: delight sustain in intellect that you carry out not requisite to sprint the 64-bit kernel in order to sprint 64-bit applications or install more than 4GB of RAM in your Mac. Applications sprint just fine in 64-bit mode on top of the 32-bit kernel, and even in earlier versions of Mac OS X it's been feasible to install and remove edge of much more than 4GB of RAM.

    64-bit applications

    While Leopard may maintain brought with it uphold for 64-bit GUI applications, it actually included very few of them. In fact, by my count, only two 64-bit GUI applications shipped with Leopard: Xcode (an optional install) and Chess. And though Leopard made it feasible for third-party developers to bear 64-bit (albeit Leopard-only) GUI applications, very few have—sometimes due to luckless realities, but most often because there's been no genuine judgement to carry out so, abandoning users of Mac OS X 10.4 or earlier in the process.

    Apple is now pushing the 64-bit transition much harder. This starts with leading by example. Snow Leopard ships with four end-user GUI applications that are not 64-bit: iTunes, Grapher, Front Row, and DVD Player. Everything else is 64-bit. The Finder, the Dock, Mail, TextEdit, Safari, iChat, Address Book, Dashboard, capitalize Viewer, Installer, Terminal, Calculator—you denomination it, it's 64-bit.

    The second gargantuan carrot (or stick, depending on how you inspect at it) is the continued lack of 32-bit uphold for recent APIs and technologies. Leopard started the trend, leaving deprecated APIs behind and only porting the recent ones to 64-bit. The improved Objective-C 2.0 runtime introduced in Leopard was besides 64-bit-only.

    Snow Leopard continues along similar lines. The Objective-C 2.1 runtime's non-fragile instance variables, exception model unified with C++, and faster vtable dispatch remain available only to 64-bit applications. But the most significant recent 64-bit-only API is QuickTime X—significant enough to exist addressed separately, so sojourn tuned.

    64-bits or bust

    All of this is Apple's not-so-subtle course of telling developers that the time to walk to 64-bit is now, and that 64-bit should exist the default for everyone recent applications, whether a developer thinks it's "needed" or not. In most cases, these recent APIs maintain no intrinsic connection to 64-bit. Apple has simply chosen to utilize them as additional forms of persuasion.

    Despite everyone of the above, I'd soundless convoke Snow Leopard merely the penultimate step in Mac OS X's journey to exist 64-bit from top to bottom. I fully hope Mac OS X 10.7 to boot into the 64-bit kernel by default, to ship with 64-bit versions of everyone applications, plug-ins, and kernel extensions, and to leave even more legacy and deprecated APIs to fade away in the land of 32-bit.

    QuickTime X

    Apple did something a bit odd in Leopard when it neglected to port the C-based QuickTime API to 64-bit. At the time, it didn't appear infatuation such a gargantuan deal. Mac OS X's transition to 64-bit had already spanned many years and several major versions. One could imagine that it just wasn't yet QuickTime's gyrate to walk 64-bit.

    As it turns out, my terse but pessimistic assessment of the situation at the time was accurate: QuickTime got the "Carbon treatment". infatuation Carbon, the venerable QuickTime API that they know and infatuation will not exist making the transition to 64-bit—ever.

    To exist clear, QuickTime the technology and QuickTime the brand will most definitely exist coming to 64-bit. What's being left behind in 32-bit-only form is the C-based API introduced in 1991 and built upon for 18 years thereafter. Its replacement in the world of 64-bit in Snow Leopard is the aptly named QuickTime X.

    The "X" in QuickTime X, infatuation the one in in Mac OS X, is pronounced "ten." This is but the first of many eerie parallels. infatuation Mac OS X before it, QuickTime X:

  • aims to get a cleanly split from its predecessor
  • is based on technology originally developed for another platform
  • includes transparent compatibility with its earlier incarnation
  • promises better performance and a more modern architecture
  • lacks many principal features in its initial release
  • Maximum available Mac CPU  accelerate (MHz)Maximum available Mac CPU accelerate (MHz)

    Let's remove these one at a time. First, why is a cleanly split needed? set simply, QuickTime is old—really old. The horribly blocky, postage-stamp-size video displayed by its initial release in 1991 was considered a technological tour de force.

    At the time, the fastest Macintosh money could buy contained a 25 MHz CPU. The ridiculous chart to the perquisite is meant to hammer home this point. Forward-thinking design can only collect you so far. The shape of the world a technology is born into eventually, inevitably dictates its fate. This is especially objective for long-lived APIs infatuation QuickTime with a stalwart bent towards backward compatibility.

    As the first successful implementation of video on a personal computer, it's frankly fabulous that the QuickTime API has lasted as long as it has. But the world has moved on. Just as Mac OS organize itself mired in a ghetto of cooperative multitasking and unprotected memory, QuickTime limps into 2009 with antiquated notions of concurrency and subsystem layering baked into its design.

    When it came time to write the video-handling code for the iPhone, the latest version of QuickTime, QuickTime 7, simply wasn't up to the task. It had grown too bloated and inefficient during its life on the desktop, and it lacked genuine uphold for the GPU-accelerated video playback necessary to wield modern video codecs on a handheld (even with a CPU sixteen times the clock accelerate of any available in a Mac when QuickTime 1.0 was released). And so, Apple created a tight, modern, GPU-friendly video playback engine that could proper comfortably within the RAM and CPU constraints of the iPhone.

    Hmm. An aging desktop video API in requisite of a replacement. A fresh, recent video library with genuine performance even on (comparatively) anemic hardware. Apple connected the dots. But the trick is always in the transition. Happily, this is Apple's forte. QuickTime itself has already lived on three different CPU architectures and three entirely different operating systems.

    The switch to 64-bit is yet another (albeit less dramatic) inflection point, and Apple has chosen it to vestige the boundary between the ragged QuickTime 7 and the recent QuickTime X. It's done this in Snow Leopard by limiting everyone utilize of QuickTime by 64-bit applications to the QTKit Objective-C framework.

    QTKit's recent world order

    QTKit is not new; it began its life in 2005 as a more native-feeling interface to QuickTime 7 for Cocoa applications. This extra layer of abstraction is the key to the QuickTime X transition. QTKit now hides within its object-oriented walls both QuickTime 7 and QuickTime X. Applications utilize QTKit as before, and behind the scenes QTKit will pick whether to utilize QuickTime 7 or QuickTime X to fulfill each request.

    If QuickTime X is so much better, why doesn't QTKit utilize it for everything? The respond is that QuickTime X, infatuation its Mac OS X namesake, has very limited capabilities in its initial release. While QuickTime X supports playback, capture, and exporting, it does not uphold general-purpose video editing. It besides supports only "modern" video formats—basically, anything that can exist played by an iPod, iPhone, or Apple TV. As for other video codecs, well, you can forget about handling them with plug-ins because QuickTime X doesn't uphold those either.

    For every one of the cases where QuickTime X is not up to the job, QuickTime 7 will fill in. Cutting, copying, and pasting portions of a video? QuickTime 7. Extracting individual tracks from a movie? QuickTime 7. Playing any movie not natively supported by an existing Apple handheld device? QuickTime 7. Augmenting QuickTime's codec uphold using a plug-in of any kind? You guessed it: QuickTime 7.

    But wait a second. If QTKit is the only course for a 64-bit application to utilize QuickTime, and QTKit multiplexes between QuickTime 7 and QuickTime X behind the scenes, and QuickTime 7 is 32-bit-only, and Mac OS X does not uphold "mixed mode" processes that can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit code, then how the heck does a 64-bit process carry out anything that requires the QuickTime 7 back-end?

    To find out, fire up the recent 64-bit QuickTime Player application (which will exist addressed separately later) and open a movie that requires QuickTime 7. Let's say, one that uses the Sorenson video codec. (Remember that? genuine times.) sure enough, it plays just fine. But search for "QuickTime" in the Activity Monitor application and you'll remark this:

    Pretty sneaky, sis: 32-bit QTKitServer processPretty sneaky, sis: 32-bit QTKitServer process

    And the respond is revealed. When a 64-bit application using QTKit requires the services of the 32-bit-only QuickTime 7 back-end, QTKit spawns a sever 32-bit QTKitServer process to carry out the labor and communicate the results back to the originating 64-bit process. If you leave Activity Monitor open while using the recent QuickTime Player application, you can watch the QTKitServer processes achieve and walk as needed. This is everyone handled transparently by the QTKit framework; the application itself requisite not exist sensible of these machinations.

    Yes, it's going to exist a long, long time before QuickTime 7 disappears completely from Mac OS X (at least Apple was benign enough not to convoke it "QuickTime Classic"), but the path forward is clear. With each recent release of Mac OS X, hope the capabilities of QuickTime X to expand, and the number of things that soundless require QuickTime 7 to decrease. In Mac OS X 10.7, for example, I imagine that QuickTime X will gain uphold for plug-ins. And surely by Mac OS X 10.8, QuickTime X will maintain complete video editing support. everyone this will exist happening beneath the unifying facade of QTKit until, eventually, the QuickTime 7 back-end is no longer needed at all.

    Say what you mean

    In the meantime, perhaps surprisingly, many of the current limitations of QuickTime X actually highlight its unique advantages and inform the evolving QTKit API. Though there is no direct course for a developer to request that QTKit utilize the QuickTime X back-end, there are several circuitous means to influence the decision. The key is the QTKit API, which relies heavily on the concept of intent.

    QuickTime versions 1 through 7 utilize a separate representation of everyone media resources internally: a Movie object. This representation includes information about the individual tracks that get up the movie, the sample tables for each track, and so on—all the information QuickTime needs to understand and manipulate the media.

    This sounds noteworthy until you realize that to carry out anything with a media resource in QuickTime requires the construction of this comprehensive Movie object. account playing an MP3 file with QuickTime, for example. QuickTime must create its internal Movie object representation of the MP3 file before it can initiate playback. Unfortunately, the MP3 container format seldom contains comprehensive information about the structure of the audio. It's usually just a stream of packets. QuickTime must laboriously scan and parse the entire audio stream in order to complete the Movie object.

    QuickTime 7 and earlier versions get this process less painful by doing the scanning and parsing incrementally in the background. You can remark this in many QuickTime-based player applications in the form of a progress bar overlaid on the movie controller. The image below shows a 63MB MP3 podcast loading in the Leopard version of QuickTime Player. The shaded portion of the movie timeline slowly fills the dotted belt from left to right.

    QuickTime 7 doing more  labor than necessary

    QuickTime 7 doing more labor than necessary

    Though playback can initiate almost immediately (provided you play from the beginning, that is) it's worthwhile to remove a step back and account what's going on here. QuickTime is creating a Movie object suitable for any operation that QuickTime can perform: editing, track extraction or addition, exporting, you denomination it. But what if everyone I want to carry out is play the file?

    The pains is, the QuickTime 7 API lacks a course to express this benign of intent. There is no course to train to QuickTime 7, "Just open this file as quickly as feasible so that I can play it. Don't bother reading every separate byte of the file from the disk and parsing it to determine its structure just in case I determine to edit or export the content. That is not my intent. Please, just open it for playback."

    The QTKit API in Snow Leopard provides exactly this capability. In fact, the only course to exist eligible for the QuickTime X back-end at everyone is to explicitly express your intent not to carry out anything QuickTime X cannot handle. Furthermore, any attempt to effect an operation that lies outside your previously expressed intent will occasions QTKit to raise an exception.

    The intent mechanism is besides the course that the recent features of QuickTime X are exposed, such as the capacity to asynchronously load great or distantly located (e.g., over a late network link) movie files without blocking the UI running on the main thread of the application.

    Indeed, there are many reasons to carry out what it takes to collect on board the QuickTime X train. For the media formats it supports, QuickTime X is less taxing on the CPU during playback than QuickTime 7. (This is beyond the fact that QuickTime X does not consume time preparing its internal representation of the movie for editing and export when playback is everyone that's desired.) QuickTime X besides supports GPU-accelerated playback of H.264, but, in this initial release, only on Macs equipped with an NVIDIA 9400M GPU (i.e., some 2009 iMacs and several models of MacBooks from 2008 and 2009). Finally, QuickTime X includes comprehensive ColorSync uphold for video, which is long overdue.

    The X factor

    This is just the start of a long journey for QuickTime X, and seemingly not a very auspicious one, at that. A QuickTime engine with no editing support? No plug-ins? It seems ridiculous to release it at all. But this has been Apple's course in recent years: steady, deliberate progress. Apple aims to ship no features before their time.

    As anxious as developers may exist for a full-featured, 64-bit successor to the QuickTime 7 engine, Apple itself is sitting on top of one of the largest QuickTime-riddled (and Carbon-addled, to boot) code bases in the industry: Final crop Studio. Thus far, It remains stuck in 32-bit. To train that Apple is "highly motivated" to extend the capabilities of QuickTime X would exist an understatement.

    Nevertheless, don't hope Apple to rush forward foolishly. Duplicating the functionality of a continually developed, 18-year-old API will not befall overnight. It will remove years, and it will exist even longer before every principal Mac OS X application is updated to utilize QTKit exclusively. Transitions. Gotta infatuation 'em.

    File system API unification

    Mac OS X has historically supported many different ways of referring to files on disk from within an application. Plain-old paths (e.g., /Users/john/Documents/myfile) are supported at the lowest levels of the operating system. They're simple, predictable, but perhaps not such a noteworthy understanding to utilize as the only course an application tracks files. account what happens if an application opens a file based on a path string, then the user moves that file somewhere else while it's soundless being edited. When the application is instructed to redeem the file, if it only has the file path to labor with, it will halt up creating a recent file in the ragged location, which is almost certainly not what the user wanted.

    Classic Mac OS had a more sophisticated internal representation of files that enabled it to track files independent of their actual locations on disk. This was done with the capitalize of the unique file ids supported by HFS/HFS+. The Mac OS X incarnation of this concept is the FSRef data type.

    Finally, in the modern age, URLs maintain become the de facto representation for files that may exist located somewhere other than the local machine. URLs can besides advert to local files, but in that case they maintain everyone the same disadvantages as file paths.

    This diversity of data types is reflected in Mac OS X's file system APIs. Some functions remove file path as arguments, some hope opaque references to files, and soundless others labor only with URLs. Programs that utilize these APIs often disburse a lot of their time converting file references from one representation to another.

    The situation is similar when it comes to getting information about files. There are a huge number of file system metadata retrieval functions at everyone levels of the operating system, and no separate one of them is comprehensive. To collect everyone available information about a file on disk requires making several sever calls, each of which may hope a different character of file reference as an argument.

    Here's an instance Apple provided at WWDC. Opening a separate file in the Leopard version of the Preview image viewer application results in:

  • Four conversions of an FSRef to a file path
  • Ten conversions of a file path to an FSRef
  • Twenty-five calls to getattrlist()
  • Eight calls to stat()/lstat()
  • Four calls to open()/close()
  • In Snow Leopard, Apple has created a new, unified, comprehensive set of file system APIs built around a separate data type: URLs. But these are URL "objects"—namely, the opaque data types NSURL and CFURL, with a toll-free bridge between them—that maintain been imbued with everyone the desirable attributes of an FSRef.

    Apple settled on these data types because their opaque nature allowed this benign of enhancement, and because there are so many existing APIs that utilize them. URLs are besides the most future-proof of everyone the choices, with the scheme portion providing nearly unlimited flexibility for recent data types and access mechanisms. The recent file system APIs built around these opaque URL types uphold caching and metadata prefetching for a further performance boost.

    There's besides a recent on-disk representation called a Bookmark (not to exist confused with a browser bookmark) which is infatuation a more network-savvy replacement for classic Mac OS aliases. Bookmarks are the most robust course to create a reference to a file from within another file. It's besides feasible to attach arbitrary metadata to each Bookmark. For example, if an application wants to sustain a persistent list of "favorite" files plus some application-specific information about them, and it wants to exist resilient to any movement of these files behind its back, Bookmarks are the best instrument for the job.

    I mention everyone of this not because I hope file system APIs to exist everyone that arresting to people without my particular fascination with this piece of the operating system, but because, infatuation Core Text before it, it's an indication of exactly how green Mac OS X really is as a platform. Even after seven major releases, Mac OS X is soundless struggling to walk out from the shadow of its three ancestors: NeXTSTEP, classic Mac OS, and BSD Unix. Or perhaps it just goes to exhibit how ruthlessly Apple's core OS team is driven to supersede ragged and crusty APIs and data types with new, more modern versions.

    It will exist a long time before the benefits of these changes trickle down (or is it up?) to end-users in the form of Mac applications that are written or modified to utilize these recent APIs. Most well-written Mac applications already exhibit most of the desirable behavior. For example, the TextEdit application in Leopard will correctly detect when a file it's working on has moved.

    TextEdit: a  genuine Mac OS X citizenTextEdit: a genuine Mac OS X citizen

    Of course, the key modifier here is "well-written." Simplifying the file system APIs means that more developers will exist willing to expend the effort—now greatly reduced—to provide such user-friendly behaviors. The accompanying performance boost is just icing on the cake, and one more judgement that developers might pick to alter their existing, working application to utilize these recent APIs.

    Doing more with more

    Moore's Law is widely cited in technology circles—and besides widely misunderstood. It's most often used as shorthand for "computers double in accelerate every year or so," but that's not what Gordon Moore wrote at all. His 1965 article in Electronics magazine touched on many topics in the semiconductor industry, but if it had to exist summed up in a separate "law", it would be, roughly, that the number of transistors that proper onto a square inch of silicon doubles every 12 months.

    Moore later revised that to two years, but the time era is not what people collect wrong. The problem is confusing a doubling of transistor density with a doubling of "computer speed." (Even more problematic is declaring a "law" based on a separate paper from 1965, but we'll set that aside for now. For a more thorough discussion of Moore's Law, delight read this classic article by Jon Stokes.)

    For decades, each increase in transistor density was, in fact, accompanied by a comparable increase in computing accelerate thanks to ever-rising clock speeds and the dawn of superscalar execution. This worked great—existing code ran faster on each recent CPU—until the grim realities of power density set an halt to the fun.

    Moore's Law continues, at least for now, but their capacity to get code sprint faster with each recent increase in transistor density has slowed considerably. The free lunch is over. CPU clock speeds maintain stagnated for years, many times actually going backwards. (The latest top-of-the-line 2009 Mac Pro contains a 2.93 GHz CPU, whereas the 2008 model could exist equipped with a 3.2 GHz CPU.) Adding execution units to a CPU has besides long since reached the point of diminishing returns, given the limits of instruction-level parallelism in common application code.

    And yet we've soundless got everyone these recent transistors raining down on us, more every year. The challenge is to find recent ways to utilize them to actually get computers faster.

    Thus far, the semiconductor industry's respond has been to give us more of what they already have. Where once a CPU contained a separate logical processing unit, now CPUs in even the lowliest desktop computers accommodate two processor cores, with high-end models sporting two chips with eight logical cores each. Granted, the cores themselves are besides getting faster, usually by doing more at the same clock accelerate as their predecessors, but that's not happening at nearly the rate that the cores are multiplying.

    Unfortunately, generally speaking, a dual-core CPU will not sprint your application twice as speedy as a single-core CPU. In fact, your application probably won't sprint any faster at everyone unless it was written to remove edge of more than just a separate logical CPU. Presented with a glut of transistors, chipmakers maintain turned around and provided more computing resources than programmers know what to carry out with, transferring much of the responsibility for making computers faster to the software guys.

    We're with the operating system and we're here to help

    It's into this environment that Snow Leopard is born. If there's one responsibility (aside from security) that an operating system vendor should feel in the year 2009, it's finding a course for applications—and the OS itself—to utilize the ever-growing wealth of computing resources at their disposal. If I had to pick separate technological "theme" for Snow Leopard, this would exist it: helping developers utilize everyone this newfound silicon; helping them carry out more with more.

    To that end, Snow Leopard includes two significant recent APIs backed by several smaller, but equally principal infrastructure improvements. We'll start at the bottom with, believe it or not, the compiler.

    LLVM and Clang

    Apple made a strategic investment in the LLVM open source project several years ago. I covered the fundamentals of LLVM in my Leopard review. (If you're not up to speed, delight ensnare up on the topic before continuing.) In it, I described how Leopard used LLVM to provide dramatically more efficient JIT-compiled software implementations of OpenGL functions. I ended with the following admonition:

    Don't exist misled by its humble utilize in Leopard; Apple has majestic plans for LLVM. How grand? How about swapping out the guts of the gcc compiler Mac OS X uses now and replacing them with the LLVM equivalents? That project is well underway. Not ambitious enough? How about ditching gcc entirely, replacing it with a completely recent LLVM-based (but gcc-compatible) compiler system? That project is called Clang, and it's already yielded some impressive performance results.

    With the introduction of Snow Leopard, it's official: Clang and LLVM are the Apple compiler strategy going forward. LLVM even has a snazzy recent logo, a not-so-subtle homage to a well-known compiler design textbook:

    LLVM! Clang! Rawr!

    LLVM! Clang! Rawr!

    Apple now offers a total of four compilers for Mac OS X: GCC 4.0, GCC 4.2, LLVM-GCC 4.2 (the GCC 4.2 front-end combined with an LLVM back-end), and Clang, in order of increasing LLVM-ness. Here's a diagram:

    Mac OS X compilers

    Mac OS X compilers

    All of these compilers are binary-compatible on Mac OS X, which means you can, for example, build a library with one compiler and link it into an executable built with another. They're besides everyone command-line and source-compatible—in theory, anyway. Clang does not yet uphold some of the more esoteric features of GCC. Clang besides only supports C, Objective-C, and a shrimp bit of C++ (Clang(uage), collect it?) whereas GCC supports many more. Apple is committed to plenary C++ uphold for Clang, and hopes to labor out the remaining GCC incompatibilities during Snow Leopard's lifetime.

    Clang brings with it the two headline attributes you hope in a hot, recent compiler: shorter compile times and faster executables. In Apple's testing with its own applications such as iCal, Address Book, and Xcode itself, plus third-party applications infatuation Adium and Growl, Clang compiles nearly three times faster than GCC 4.2. As for the accelerate of the finished product, the LLVM back-end, whether used in Clang or in LLVM-GCC, produces executables that are 5-25% faster than those generated by GCC 4.2.

    Clang is besides more developer-friendly than its GCC predecessors. I concede that this topic doesn't maintain much to carry out with taking edge of multiple CPU cores and so on, but it's sure to exist the first thing that a developer actually notices when using Clang. Indulge me.

    For starters, Clang is embeddable, so Xcode can utilize the same compiler infrastructure for interactive features within the IDE (symbol look-up, code completion, etc.) as it uses to compile the final executable. Clang besides creates and preserves more extensive metadata while compiling, resulting in much better mistake reporting. For example, when GCC tells you this:

    GCC  mistake message for an unknown type

    It's not exactly clear what the problem is, especially if you're recent to C programming. Yes, everyone you hotshots already know what the problem is (especially if you saw this instance at WWDC), but I judge everyone can agree that this error, generated by Clang, is a lot more helpful:

    Clang  mistake message for an unknown type

    Maybe a novice soundless wouldn't know what to do, but at least it's clear where the problem lies. Figuring out why the compiler doesn't know about NSString is a much more focused stint than can exist derived from GCC's cryptic error.

    Even when the message is clear, the context may not be. remove this mistake from GCC:

    GCC  mistake message for  contaminated operands

    Sure, but there are four "+" operators on that separate line. Which one has the problematic operands? Thanks to its more extensive metadata, Clang can pinpoint the problem:

    Clang  mistake message for  contaminated operands

    Sometimes the mistake is perfectly clear, but it just seems a bit off, infatuation this situation where jumping to the mistake as reported by GCC puts you on the line below where you actually want to add the missing semicolon:

    GCC  mistake message for missing semicolon

    The shrimp things count, you know? Clang goes that extra mile:

    Clang  mistake message for missing semicolon

    Believe it or not, stuff infatuation this means a lot to developers. And then there are the not-so-little things that spell even more, infatuation the LLVM-powered static analyzer. The image below shows how the static analyzer displays its discovery of a feasible bug.

    OH HAI I  organize UR BUGOH HAI I organize UR BUG

    Aside from the whimsy of the shrimp arrows (which, admit it, are adorable), the actual bug it's highlighting is something that every programmer can imagine creating (say, through some hasty editing). The static analyzer has determined that there's at least one path through this set of nested conditionals that leaves the myName variable uninitialized, thus making the attempt to transmit the mutableCopy message in the final line potentially dangerous.

    I'm sure Apple is going hog-wild running the static analyzer on everyone of its applications and the operating system itself. The prospect of an automated course to determine bugs that may maintain existed for years in the depths of a huge codebase is almost pornographic to developers—platform owners in particular. To the degree that Mac OS X 10.6.0 is more bug-free than the previous 10.x.0 releases, LLVM surely deserves some significant piece of the credit.

    Master of the house

    By committing to a Clang/LLVM-powered future, Apple has finally taken complete control of its evolution platform. The CodeWarrior undergo apparently convinced Apple that it's unwise to depend on a third party for its platform's evolution tools. Though it's taken many years, I judge even the most diehard Metrowerks fan would maintain to agree that Xcode in Snow Leopard is now a pretty damn genuine IDE.

    After years of struggling with the disconnect between the goals of the GCC project and its own compiler needs, Apple has finally crop the apron strings. OK, granted, GCC 4.2 is soundless the default compiler in Snow Leopard, but this is a transitional phase. Clang is the recommended compiler, and the focus of everyone of Apple's future efforts.

    I know what you're thinking. This is swell and all, but how are these compilers helping developers better leverage the expanding swarm of transistors at their disposal? As you'll remark in the following sections, LLVM's scaly, metallic head pops up in a few key places.

    Blocks

    In Snow Leopard, Apple has introduced a C language extension called "blocks." Blocks add closures and anonymous functions to C and the C-derived languages C++, Objective-C, and Objective C++.

    These features maintain been available in dynamic programming languages such as Lisp, Smalltalk, Perl, Python, Ruby, and even the unassuming JavaScript for a long time (decades, in the case of Lisp—a fact gladly offered by its practitioners). While dynamic-language programmers remove closures and anonymous functions for granted, those who labor with more traditional, statically compiled languages such as C and its derivatives may find them quite exotic. As for non-programmers, they likely maintain no interest in this topic at all. But I'm going to attempt an explanation nonetheless, as blocks form the foundation of some other arresting technologies to exist discussed later.

    Perhaps the simplest course to account for blocks is that they get functions another form of data. C-derived languages already maintain duty pointers, which can exist passed around infatuation data, but these can only point to functions created at compile time. The only course to influence the behavior of such a duty is by passing different arguments to the duty or by setting global variables which are then accessed from within the function. Both of these approaches maintain gargantuan disadvantages

    Passing arguments becomes cumbersome as their number and complexity grows. Also, it may exist that you maintain limited control over the arguments that will exist passed to your function, as is often the case with callbacks. To compensate, you may maintain to bundle up everyone of your arresting status into a context object of some kind. But when, how, and by whom that context data will exist disposed of can exist difficult to pin down. Often, a second callback is required for this. It's everyone quite a pain.

    As for the utilize of global variables, in addition to being a well-known anti-pattern, it's besides not thread-safe. To get it so requires locks or some other form of mutual exclusion to avert multiple invocations of the same duty from stepping on each other's toes. And if there's anything worse than navigating a sea of callback-based APIs, it's manually dealing with thread safety issues.

    Blocks bypass everyone of these problems by allowing functional blobs of code—blocks—to exist defined at runtime. It's easiest to understand with an example. I'm going to start by using JavaScript, which has a bit friendlier syntax, but the concepts are the same.

    b = get_number_from_user(); multiplier = function(a) { recur a * b };

    Here I've created a duty named multiplier that takes a separate argument, a, and multiplies it by a second value, b, that's provided by the user at runtime. If the user supplied the number 2, then a convoke to multiplier(5) would recur the value 10.

    b = get_number_from_user(); // assume it's 2 multiplier = function(a) { recur a * b }; r = multiplier(5); // 5 * 2 = 10

    Here's the instance above done with blocks in C.

    b = get_number_from_user(); // assume it's 2 multiplier = ^ int (int a) { recur a * b; }; r = multiplier(5); // 5 * 2 = 10

    By comparing the JavaScript code to the C version, I hope you can remark how it works. In the C example, that shrimp caret ^ is the key to the syntax for blocks. It's benign of ugly, but it's very C-like in that it parallels the existing C syntax for duty pointers, with ^ in plot of *, as this instance illustrates:

    /* A duty that takes a separate integer controversy and returns a pointer to a duty that takes two integer arguments and returns a floating-point number. */ float (*func2(int a))(int, int); /* A duty that takes a separate integer controversy and returns a block that takes two integer arguments and returns a floating-point number. */ float (^func1(int a))(int, int);

    You'll just maintain to confidence me when I reveal you that this syntax actually makes sense to seasoned C programmers.

    Now then, does this spell that C is suddenly a dynamic, high-level language infatuation JavaScript or Lisp? Hardly. The existing distinction between the stack and the heap, the rules governing automatic and static variables, and so on are everyone soundless in plenary effect. Plus, now there's a total recent set of rules for how blocks interact with each of these things. There's even a recent __block storage character attribute to further control the scope and lifetime of values used in blocks.

    All of that said, blocks are soundless a huge win in C. Thanks to blocks, the friendlier APIs long enjoyed by dynamic languages are now feasible in C-derived languages. For example, suppose you want to apply some operation to every line in a file. To carry out so in a low-level language infatuation C requires some amount of boilerplate code to open and read from the file, wield any errors, read each line into a buffer, and cleanly up at the end.

    FILE *fp = fopen(filename, "r"); if (fp == NULL) { perror("Unable to open file"); } else { char line[MAX_LINE]; while (fgets(line, MAX_LINE, fp)) { work; work; work; } fclose(fp); }

    The piece in bold is an abstract representation of what you're planning to carry out to each line of the file. The repose is the literal boilerplate code. If you find yourself having to apply varying operations to every line of many different files, this boilerplate code gets tedious.

    What you'd infatuation to exist able to carry out is factor it out into a duty that you can call. But then you're faced with the problem of how to express the operation you'd infatuation to effect on each line of the file. In the middle of each block of boilerplate may exist many lines of code expressing the operation to exist applied. This code may reference or modify local variables which are affected by the runtime behavior of the program, so traditional duty pointers won't work. What to do?

    Thanks to blocks, you can define a duty that takes a filename and a block as arguments. This gets everyone the uninteresting code out of your face.

    foreach_line(filename, ^ (char *line) { work; work; work; });

    What's left is a much clearer expression of your intent, with less surrounding noise. The controversy after filename is a literal block that takes a line of text as an argument.

    Even when the volume of boilerplate is small, the simplicity and clarity bounty is soundless worthwhile. account the simplest feasible loop that executes a fixed number of times. In C-based languages, even that basic construct offers a surprising number of opportunities for bugs. Let's do_something() 10 times:

    for (int i = 0; i <= 10; i++) { do_something(); }

    Oops, I've got a shrimp bug there, don't I? It happens to the best of us. But why should this code exist more complicated than the sentence describing it. carry out something 10 times! I never want to screw that up again. Blocks can help. If they just invest a shrimp application up front to define a helper function:

    typedef void (^work_t)(void); void repeat(int n, work_t block) { for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) block(); }

    We can transport the bug for good. Now, repeating any arbitrary block of code a specific number of times is everyone but idiot-proof:

    repeat(10, ^{ do_something() }); repeat(20, ^{ do_other_thing() });

    And remember, the block controversy to repeat() can accommodate exactly the same benign of code, literally copied and pasted, that would maintain appeared within a traditional for loop.

    All these possibilities and more maintain been well explored by dynamic languages: map, reduce, collect, etc. Welcome, C programmers, to a higher order.

    Apple has taken these lessons to heart, adding over 100 recent APIs that utilize blocks in Snow Leopard. Many of these APIs would not exist feasible at everyone without blocks, and everyone of them are more elegant and concise than they would exist otherwise.

    It's Apple objective to submit blocks as an official extension to one or more of the C-based languages, though it's not yet clear which standards bodies are receptive to the proposal. For now, blocks are supported by everyone four of Apple's compilers in Mac OS X.

    Concurrency in the real world: a prelude

    The struggle to get efficient utilize of a great number of independent computing devices is not new. For decades, the field of high-performance computing has tackled this problem. The challenges faced by people writing software for supercomputers many years ago maintain now trickled down to desktop and even mobile computing platforms.

    In the PC industry, some people saw this coming earlier than others. Almost 20 years ago, exist Inc. was formed around the understanding of creating a PC platform unconstrained by legacy limitations and entirely prepared for the coming abundance of independent computing units on the desktop. To that end, exist created the BeBox, a dual-CPU desktop computer, and BeOS, a brand-new operating system.

    The signature ensnare phrase for BeOS was "pervasive multithreading." The BeBox and other machines running BeOS leveraged every ounce of the diminutive (by today's standards, anyway) computing resources at their disposal. The demos were impressive. A dual 66 MHz machine (don't get me exhibit another graph) could play multiple videos simultaneously while besides playing several audio tracks from a CD—some backwards— and everyone the while, the user interface remained completely responsive.

    Let me reveal you, having lived through this era myself, the undergo was mind-blowing at the time. BeOS created instant converts out of hundreds of technology enthusiasts, many of whom maintain that today's desktop computing undergo soundless doesn't match the responsiveness of BeOS. This is certainly objective emotionally, if not necessarily literally.

    After nearly purchasing exist in the late 1990s, Apple bought NeXT instead, and the repose is history. But had Apple gone with plot exist instead, Mac developers might maintain had a rough road ahead. While everyone that pervasive multithreading made for impressive technology demos and a noteworthy user experience, it could exist extremely demanding on the programmer. BeOS was everyone about threads, going so far as to maintain a sever thread for each window. Whether you liked it or not, your BeOS program was going to exist multithreaded.

    Parallel programming is notoriously hard, with the manual management of POSIX-style threads representing the deep halt of that pool. The best programmers in the world are hard-pressed to create great multithreaded programs in low-level languages infatuation C or C++ without finding themselves impaled on the spikes of deadlock, race conditions, and other perils inherent in the utilize of in multiple simultaneous threads of execution that participate the same reminiscence space. Extremely heedful application of locking primitives is required to avoid performance-robbing levels of contention for shared data—and the bugs, oh the bugs! The term "Heisenbug" may as well maintain been invented for multithreaded programming.

    Nineteen years after exist tilted at the windmill of the widening swath of silicon in desktop PCs, the challenge has only grown. Those transistors are out there, man—more than ever before. Single-threaded programs on today's high-end desktop Macs, even when using "100%" CPU, extend but a separate glowing tower in a sea of sixteen otherwise empty lanes on a CPU monitor window.

    A wide-open  unpretentious of transistorsA wide-open unpretentious of transistors

    And woe exist unto the user if that pegged CPU core is running the main thread of a GUI application on Mac OS X. A CPU-saturated main thread means no recent user inputs are being pulled off the event queue by the application. A few seconds of that and an ragged friend makes its appearance: the spinning beach ball of death.

    Nooooooooo!!!

    Nooooooooo!!! Image from The Iconfactory

    This is the enemy: hardware with more computing resources than programmers know what to carry out with, most of it completely idle, and everyone the while the user is utterly blocked in his attempts to utilize the current application. What's Snow Leopard's answer? Read on…

    Grand Central Dispatch Apple's GCD branding: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foamer">Railfan</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_service">service</a>Apple's GCD branding: Railfan service

    Snow Leopard's respond to the concurrency conundrum is called majestic Central Dispatch (GCD). As with QuickTime X, the denomination is extremely apt, though this is not entirely clear until you understand the technology.

    The first thing to know about GCD is that it's not a recent Cocoa framework or similar special-purpose frill off to the side. It's a unpretentious C library baked into the lowest levels of Mac OS X. (It's in libSystem, which incorporates libc and the other code that sits at the very bottom of userspace.)

    There's no requisite to link in a recent library to utilize GCD in your program. Just #include <dispatch/dispatch.h> and you're off to the races. The fact that GCD is a C library means that it can exist used from everyone of the C-derived languages supported on Mac OS X: Objective-C, C++, and Objective-C++.

    Queues and threads

    GCD is built on a few simple entities. Let's start with queues. A queue in GCD is just what it sounds like. Tasks are enqueued, and then dequeued in FIFO order. (That's "First In, First Out," just infatuation the checkout line at the supermarket, for those who don't know and don't want to follow the link.) Dequeuing the stint means handing it off to a thread where it will execute and carry out its actual work.

    Though GCD queues will hand tasks off to threads in FIFO order, several tasks from the same queue may exist running in parallel at any given time. This animation demonstrates.

    A majestic Central Dispatch queue in action

    You'll notice that stint B completed before stint A. Though dequeuing is FIFO, stint completion is not. besides note that even though there were three tasks enqueued, only two threads were used. This is an principal feature of GCD which we'll contend shortly.

    But first, let's inspect at the other benign of queue. A serial queue works just infatuation a ordinary queue, except that it only executes one stint at a time. That means stint completion in a serial queue is besides FIFO. Serial queues can exist created explicitly, just infatuation ordinary queues, but each application besides has an implicit "main queue" which is a serial queue that runs on the main thread.

    The animation above shows threads appearing as labor needs to exist done, and disappearing as they're no longer needed. Where carry out these threads achieve from and where carry out they walk when they're done? GCD maintains a global pool of threads which it hands out to queues as they're needed. When a queue has no more pending tasks to sprint on a thread, the thread goes back into the pool.

    This is an extremely principal aspect of GCD's design. Perhaps surprisingly, one of the most difficult parts of extracting maximum performance using traditional, manually managed threads is figuring out exactly how many threads to create. Too few, and you risk leaving hardware idle. Too many, and you start to disburse a significant amount of time simply shuffling threads in and out of the available processor cores.

    Let's train a program has a problem that can exist split into eight separate, independent units of work. If this program then creates four threads on an eight-core machine, is this an instance of creating too many or too few threads? Trick question! The respond is that it depends on what else is happening on the system.

    If six of the eight cores are totally saturated doing some other work, then creating four threads will just require the OS to consume time rotating those four threads through the two available cores. But wait, what if the process that was saturating those six cores finishes? Now there are eight available cores but only four threads, leaving half the cores idle.

    With the exception of programs that can reasonably hope to maintain the entire machine to themselves when they run, there's no course for a programmer to know ahead of time exactly how many threads he should create. Of the available cores on a particular machine, how many are in use? If more become available, how will my program know?

    The bottom line is that the optimal number of threads to set in flight at any given time is best determined by a single, globally sensible entity. In Snow Leopard, that entity is GCD. It will sustain zero threads in its pool if there are no queues that maintain tasks to run. As tasks are dequeued, GCD will create and dole out threads in a course that optimizes the utilize of the available hardware. GCD knows how many cores the system has, and it knows how many threads are currently executing tasks. When a queue no longer needs a thread, it's returned to the pool where GCD can hand it out to another queue that has a stint ready to exist dequeued.

    There are further optimizations inherent in this scheme. In Mac OS X, threads are relatively heavyweight. Each thread maintains its own set of register values, stack pointer, and program counter, plus kernel data structures tracking its security credentials, scheduling priority, set of pending signals and signal masks, etc. It everyone adds up to over 512 KB of overhead per thread. Create a thousand threads and you've just burned about a half a gigabyte of reminiscence and kernel resources on overhead alone, before even considering the actual data within each thread.

    Compare a thread's 512 KB of baggage with GCD queues which maintain a mere 256 bytes of overhead. Queues are very lightweight, and developers are encouraged to create as many of them as they need—thousands, even. In the earlier animation, when the queue was given two threads to process its three tasks, it executed two tasks on one of the threads. Not only are threads heavyweight in terms of reminiscence overhead, they're besides relatively costly to create. Creating a recent thread for each stint would exist the worst feasible scenario. Every time GCD can utilize a thread to execute more than one task, it's a win for overall system efficiency.

    Remember the problem of the programmer trying to pattern out how many threads to create? Using GCD, he doesn't maintain to worry about that at all. Instead, he can concentrate entirely on the optimal concurrency of his algorithm in the abstract. If the best-case scenario for his problem would utilize 500 concurrent tasks, then he can walk ahead and create 500 GCD queues and divide his labor among them. GCD will pattern out how many actual threads to create to carry out the work. Furthermore it will adjust the number of threads dynamically as the conditions on the system change.

    But perhaps most importantly, as recent hardware is released with more and more CPU cores, the programmer does not requisite to change his application at all. Thanks to GCD, it will transparently remove edge of any and everyone available computing resources, up to—but not past!—the optimal amount of concurrency as originally defined by the programmer when he chose how many queues to create.

    But wait, there's more! GCD queues can actually exist arranged in arbitrarily involved directed acyclic graphs. (Actually, they can exist cyclic too, but then the behavior is undefined. Don't carry out that.) Queue hierarchies can exist used to funnel tasks from disparate subsystems into a narrower set of centrally controlled queues, or to force a set of ordinary queues to delegate to a serial queue, effectively serializing them everyone indirectly.

    There are besides several levels of priority for queues, dictating how often and with what urgency threads are distributed to them from the pool. Queues can exist suspended, resumed, and cancelled. Queues can besides exist grouped, allowing everyone tasks distributed to the group to exist tracked and accounted for as a unit.

    Overall, GCD's utilize of queues and threads forms a simple, elegant, but besides extremely pragmatic architecture.

    Asynchronicity

    Okay, so GCD is a noteworthy course to get efficient utilize of the available hardware. But is it really any better than BeOS's approach to multithreading? We've already seen a few ways that GCD avoids the pitfalls of BeOS (e.g., the reuse of threads and the maintenance of a global pool of threads that's correctly sized for the available hardware). But what about the problem of overwhelming the programmer by requiring threads in places where they complicate, rather than enhance the application?

    GCD embodies a philosophy that is at the antithetical halt of the spectrum from BeOS's "pervasive multithreading" design. Rather than achieving responsiveness by getting every feasible component of an application running concurrently on its own thread (and paying a massive price in terms of involved data sharing and locking concerns), GCD encourages a much more limited, hierarchical approach: a main application thread where everyone the user events are processed and the interface is updated, and worker threads doing specific jobs as needed.

    In other words, GCD doesn't require developers to judge about how best to split the labor of their application into multiple concurrent threads (though when they're ready to carry out that, GCD will exist willing and able to help). At its most basic level, GCD aims to cheer developers to walk from thinking synchronously to thinking asynchronous. Something infatuation this: "Write your application as usual, but if there's any piece of its operation that can reasonably exist expected to remove more than a few seconds to complete, then for the infatuation of Zarzycki, collect it off the main thread!"

    That's it; no more, no less. Beach ball banishment is the cornerstone of user interface responsiveness. In some respects, everything else is gravy. But most developers know this intuitively, so why carry out they soundless remark the beach ball in Mac OS X applications? Why don't everyone applications already execute everyone of their potentially long-running tasks on background threads?

    A few reasons maintain been mentioned already (e.g., the difficulty of knowing how many threads to create) but the gargantuan one is much more pragmatic. Spinning off a thread and collecting its result has always been a bit of a pain. It's not so much that it's technically difficult, it's just that it's such an specific split from coding the actual labor of your application to coding everyone this task-management plumbing. And so, especially in borderline cases, infatuation an operation that may remove 3 to 5 seconds, developers just carry out it synchronously and walk onto the next thing.

    Unfortunately, there's a surprising number of very common things that an application can carry out that execute quickly most of the time, but maintain the potential to remove much longer than a few seconds when something goes wrong. Anything that touches the file system may stall at the lowest levels of the OS (e.g., within blocking read() and write() calls) and exist theme to a very long (or at least an "unexamined-by-the-application-developer") timeout. The same goes for denomination lookups (e.g., DNS or LDAP), which almost always execute instantly, but ensnare many applications completely off-guard when they start taking their sweet time to recur a result. Thus, even the most meticulously constructed Mac OS X applications can halt up throwing the beach ball in their pan from time to time.

    With GCD, Apple is maxim it doesn't maintain to exist this way. For example, suppose a document-based application has a button that, when clicked, will analyze the current document and pomp some arresting statistics about it. In the common case, this analysis should execute in under a second, so the following code is used to connect the button with an action:

    - (IBAction)analyzeDocument:(NSButton *)sender { NSDictionary *stats = [myDoc analyze]; [myModel setDict:stats]; [myStatsView setNeedsDisplay:YES]; [stats release]; }

    The first line of the duty body analyzes the document, the second line updates the application's internal state, and the third line tells the application that the statistics view needs to exist updated to reflect this recent state. It everyone follows a very common pattern, and it works noteworthy as long as not a soul of these steps—which are everyone running on the main thread, remember—takes too long. Because after the user presses the button, the main thread of the application needs to wield that user input as speedy as feasible so it can collect back to the main event loop to process the next user action.

    The code above works noteworthy until a user opens a very great or very involved document. Suddenly, the "analyze" step doesn't remove one or two seconds, but 15 or 30 seconds instead. Hello, beach ball. And still, the developer is likely to hem and haw: "This is really an exceptional situation. Most of my users will never open such a great file. And anyway, I really don't want to start reading documentation about threads and adding everyone that extra code to this simple, four-line function. The plumbing would dwarf the code that does the actual work!"

    Well, what if I told you that you could walk the document analysis to the background by adding just two lines of code (okay, and two lines of closing braces), everyone located within the existing function? No application-global objects, no thread management, no callbacks, no controversy marshalling, no context objects, not even any additional variables. Behold, majestic Central Dispatch:

    - (IBAction)analyzeDocument:(NSButton *)sender { dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(0, 0), ^{ NSDictionary *stats = [myDoc analyze]; dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ [myModel setDict:stats]; [myStatsView setNeedsDisplay:YES]; [stats release]; }); }); }

    There's a hell of a lot of packed into those two lines of code. everyone of the functions in GCD initiate with dispatch_, and you can remark four such calls in the blue lines of code above. The key to the minimal invasiveness of this code is revealed in the second controversy to the two dispatch_async() calls. Thus far, I've been discussing "units of work" without specifying how, exactly, GCD models such a thing. The answer, now revealed, should appear obvious in retrospect: blocks! The capacity of blocks to capture the surrounding context is what allows these GCD calls to exist dropped perquisite into some existing code without requiring any additional setup or re-factoring or other contortions in service of the API.

    But the best piece of this code is how it deals with the problem of detecting when the background stint completes and then showing the result. In the synchronous code, the analyze system convoke and the code to update the application pomp simply loom in the desired sequence within the function. In the asynchronous code, miraculously, this is soundless the case. Here's how it works.

    The outer dispatch_async() convoke puts a stint on a global concurrent GCD queue. That task, represented by the block passed as the second argument, contains the potentially time-consuming analyze system call, plus another convoke to dispatch_async() that puts a stint onto the main queue—a serial queue that runs on the main thread, remember—to update the application's user interface.

    User interface updates must everyone exist done from the main thread in a Cocoa application, so the code in the inner block could not exist executed anywhere else. But rather than having the background thread transmit some benign of special-purpose notification back to the main thread when the analyze system convoke completes (and then adding some code to the application to detect and wield this notification), the labor that needs to exist done on the main thread to update the pomp is encapsulated in yet another block within the larger one. When the analyze convoke is done, the inner block is set onto the main queue where it will (eventually) sprint on the main thread and carry out its labor of updating the display.

    Simple, elegant, and effective. And for developers, no more excuses.

    Believe it or not, it's just as effortless to remove a serial implementation of a succession of independent operations and parallelize it. The code below does labor on signify elements of data, one after the other, and then summarizes the results once everyone the elements maintain been processed.

    for (i = 0; i < count; i++) { results[i] = do_work(data, i); } total = summarize(results, count);

    Now here's the parallel version which puts a sever stint for each element onto a global concurrent queue. (Again, it's up to GCD to determine how many threads to actually utilize to execute the tasks.)

    dispatch_apply(count, dispatch_get_global_queue(0, 0), ^(size_t i) { results[i] = do_work(data, i); }); total = summarize(results, count);

    And there you maintain it: a for loop replaced with a concurrency-enabled equivalent with one line of code. No preparation, no additional variables, no impossible decisions about the optimal number of threads, no extra labor required to wait for everyone the independent tests to complete. (The dispatch_apply() convoke will not recur until everyone the tasks it has dispatched maintain completed.) Stunning.

    Grand Central Awesome

    Of everyone the APIs added in Snow Leopard, majestic Central Dispatch has the most far-reaching implications for the future of Mac OS X. Never before has it been so effortless to carry out labor asynchronously and to spread workloads across many CPUs.

    When I first heard about majestic Central Dispatch, I was extremely skeptical. The greatest minds in computer science maintain been working for decades on the problem of how best to extract parallelism from computing workloads. Now here was Apple apparently promising to unravel this problem. Ridiculous.

    But majestic Central Dispatch doesn't actually address this issue at all. It offers no capitalize whatsoever in deciding how to split your labor up into independently executable tasks—that is, deciding what pieces can or should exist executed asynchronously or in parallel. That's soundless entirely up to the developer (and soundless a tough problem). What GCD does instead is much more pragmatic. Once a developer has identified something that can exist split off into a sever task, GCD makes it as effortless and non-invasive as feasible to actually carry out so.

    The utilize of FIFO queues, and especially the existence of serialized queues, seems counter to the spirit of ubiquitous concurrency. But we've seen where the Platonic pattern of multithreading leads, and it's not a pleasant plot for developers.

    One of Apple's slogans for majestic Central Dispatch is "islands of serialization in a sea of concurrency." That does a noteworthy job of capturing the practical reality of adding more concurrency to run-of-the-mill desktop applications. Those islands are what seclude developers from the thorny problems of simultaneous data access, deadlock, and other pitfalls of multithreading. Developers are encouraged to identify functions of their applications that would exist better executed off the main thread, even if they're made up of several sequential or otherwise partially interdependent tasks. GCD makes it effortless to split off the entire unit of labor while maintaining the existing order and dependencies between subtasks.

    Those with some multithreaded programming undergo may exist unimpressed with the GCD. So Apple made a thread pool. gargantuan deal. They've been around forever. But the angels are in the details. Yes, the implementation of queues and threads has an elegant simplicity, and baking it into the lowest levels of the OS really helps to lower the perceived barrier to entry, but it's the API built around blocks that makes majestic Central Dispatch so attractive to developers. Just as Time Machine was "the first backup system people will actually use," majestic Central Dispatch is poised to finally spread the heretofore unlit craft of asynchronous application design to everyone Mac OS X developers. I can't wait.

    OpenCL Somehow, OpenCL got in on the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5/8/#core-spheres">"core" branding</a>Somehow, OpenCL got in on the "core" branding

    So far, we've seen a few examples of doing more with more: a new, more modern compiler infrastructure that supports an principal recent language feature, and a powerful, pragmatic concurrency API built on top of the recent compilers' uphold for said language feature. everyone this goes a long course towards helping developers and the OS itself get maximum utilize of the available hardware.

    But CPUs are not the only components experiencing a glut of transistors. When it comes to the proliferation of independent computation engines, another piece of silicon inside every Mac is the undisputed title holder: the GPU.

    The numbers reveal the tale. While Mac CPUs accommodate up to four cores (which may exhibit up as eight logical cores thanks to symmetric multithreading), high-end GPUs accommodate well over 200 processor cores. While CPUs are just now edging over 100 GFLOPS, the best GPUs are capable of over 1,000 GFLOPS. That's one trillion floating-point operations per second. And infatuation CPUs, GPUs now achieve more than one on a board.

    Writing for the GPU

    Unfortunately, the cores on a GPU are not general-purpose processors (at least not yet). They're much simpler computing engines that maintain evolved from the fixed-function silicon of their ancestors that could not exist programmed directly at all. They don't uphold the rich set of instructions available on CPUs, the maximum size of the programs that will sprint is often limited and very small, and not everyone of the features of the industry-standard IEEE floating-point computation specification are supported.

    Today's GPUs can exist programmed, but the most common forms of programmability are soundless firmly planted in the world of graphics programming: vertex shaders, geometry shaders, pixel shaders. Most of the languages used to program GPUs are similarly graphically focused: HLSL, GLSL, Cg.

    Nevertheless, there are computational tasks outside the realm of graphics that are a genuine proper for GPU hardware. It would exist nice if there were a non-graphics-oriented language to write them in. Creating such a thing is quite a challenge, however. GPU hardware varies wildly in every imaginable way: number and character of execution units, available data formats, instruction sets, reminiscence architecture, you denomination it. Programmers don't want to exist exposed to these differences, but it's difficult to labor around the complete lack of a feature or the unavailability of a particular data type.

    GPU vendor NVIDIA gave it a shot, however, and produced CUDA: a subset of the C language with extensions for vector data types, data storage specifiers that reflect typical GPU reminiscence hierarchy, and several bundled computational libraries. CUDA is but one entrant in the burgeoning GPGPU field (General-Purpose computing on Graphics Processing Units). But coming from a GPU vendor, it faces an uphill battle with developers who really want a vendor-agnostic solution.

    In the world of 3D programming, OpenGL fills that role. As you've surely guessed by now, OpenCL aims to carry out the same for general-purpose computation. In fact, OpenCL is supported by the same consortium as OpenGL: the ominously named Khronos Group. But get no mistake, OpenCL is Apple's baby.

    Apple understood that OpenCL's best desultory of success was to become an industry standard, not just an Apple technology. To get that happen, Apple needed the cooperation of the top GPU vendors, plus an agreement with an established, widely-recognized standards body. It took a while, but now it's everyone achieve together.

    OpenCL is a lot infatuation CUDA. It uses a C-like language with the vector extensions, it has a similar model of reminiscence hierarchy, and so on. This is no surprise, considering how closely Apple worked with NVIDIA during the evolution of OpenCL. There's besides no course any of the gargantuan GPU vendors would radically alter their hardware to uphold an as-yet-unproven standard, so OpenCL had to labor well with GPUs already designed to uphold CUDA, GLSL, and other existing GPU programming languages.

    The OpenCL difference

    This is everyone well and good, but to maintain any repercussion on the day-to-day life of Mac users, developers actually maintain to utilize OpenCL in their applications. Historically, GPGPU programming languages maintain not seen much utilize in traditional desktop applications. There are several reasons for this.

    Early on, writing programs for the GPU often required the utilize of vendor-specific assembly languages that were far removed from the undergo of writing a typical desktop application using a synchronous GUI API. The more C-like languages that came later remained either graphics-focused, vendor-specific, or both. Unless running code on the GPU would accelerate a core component of an application by an order of magnitude, most developers soundless could not exist bothered to navigate this exotic world.

    And even if the GPU did give a huge accelerate boost, relying on graphics hardware for general-purpose computation was very likely to narrow the potential audience for an application. Many older GPUs, especially those organize in laptops, cannot sprint languages infatuation CUDA at all.

    Apple's key decision in the design of OpenCL was to allow OpenCL programs to sprint not just on GPUs, but on CPUs as well. An OpenCL program can query the hardware it's running on and enumerate everyone eligible OpenCL devices, categorized as CPUs, GPUs, or dedicated OpenCL accelerators (the IBM Cell Blade server—yes, that Cell—is apparently one such device). The program can then dispatch its OpenCL tasks to any available device. It's besides feasible to create a separate logical device consisting of any combination of eligible computing resources: two GPUs, a GPU and two CPUs, etc.

    The advantages of being able to sprint OpenCL programs on both CPUs and GPUs are obvious. Every Mac running Snow Leopard, not just those with the recent-model GPUs, can sprint a program that contains OpenCL code. But there's more to it than that.

    Certain kinds of algorithms actually sprint faster on high-end multi-core CPUs than on even the very fastest available GPUs. At WWDC 2009, an engineer from Electronic Arts demonstrated an OpenCL port of a skinning engine from one of its games running over four times faster on a four-core Mac Pro than on an NVIDIA GeForce GTX285. Restructuring the algorithm and making many other changes to better suit the limitations (and strengths) of the GPU pushed it back ahead of the CPU by a wide margin, but sometimes you just want the system you maintain to sprint well as-is. Being able to target the CPU is extremely useful in those cases.

    Moreover, writing vector code for Intel CPUs "the old-fashioned way" can exist a real pain. There's MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4 to deal with, everyone with slightly different capabilities, and everyone of which force the programmer to write code infatuation this:

    r1 = _mm_mul_ps(m1, _mm_add_ps(x1, x2));

    OpenCL's native uphold for vector types de-clutters the code considerably:

    r1 = m1 * (x1 + x2);

    Similarly, OpenCL's uphold for implicit parallelism makes it much easier to remove edge of multiple CPU cores. Rather than writing everyone the logic to split your data into pieces and divide those pieces to the parallel-computing hardware, OpenCL lets you write just the code to operate on a separate piece of the data and then transmit it, along with the entire block of data and the desired even of parallelism, to the computing device.

    This arrangement is taken for granted in traditional graphics programming, where code implicitly works on everyone pixels in a texture or everyone vertices in a polygon; the programmer only needs to write code that will exist in the "inner loop," so to speak. An API with uphold for this benign of parallelism that runs on CPUs as well as GPUs fills an principal gap.

    Writing to OpenCL besides future-proofs task- or data-parallel code. Just as the same OpenGL code will collect faster and faster as newer, more powerful GPUs are released, so too will OpenCL code effect better as CPUs and GPUs collect faster. The extra layer of abstraction that OpenCL provides makes this possible. For example, though vector code written several years ago using MMX got faster as CPU clock speeds increased, a more significant performance boost likely requires porting the code to one of the newer SSE instruction sets.

    As newer, more powerful vector instruction sets and parallel hardware becomes available, Apple will update its OpenCL implementations to remove edge of them, just as video card makers and OS vendors update their OpenGL drivers to remove edge of faster GPUs. Meanwhile, the application developer's code remains unchanged. Not even a recompile is required.

    Here exist dragons (and trains)

    How, you may wonder, can the same compiled code halt up executing using SSE2 on one machine and SSE4 on another, or on an NVIDIA GPU on one machine and an ATI GPU on another? To carry out so would require translating the device-independent OpenCL code to the instruction set of the target computing device at runtime. When running on a GPU, OpenCL must besides ship the data and the newly translated code over to the video card and collect the results at the end. When running on the CPU, OpenCL must organize for the requested even of parallelism by creating and distributing threads appropriately to the available cores.

    Well, wouldn't you know it? Apple just happens to maintain two technologies that unravel these exact problems.

    Want to compile code "just in time" and ship it off to a computing device? That's what LLVM was born to do—and, indeed, what Apple did with it in Leopard, albeit on a more limited scale. OpenCL is a natural extension of that work. LLVM allows Apple to write a separate code generator for each target instruction set, and concentrate everyone of its application on a separate device-independent code optimizer. There's no longer any requisite to duplicate these tasks, using one compiler to create the static application executable and having to jury-rig another for just-in-time compilation.

    (Oh, and by the way, recollect Core Image? That's another API that needs to compile code just-in-time and ship it off to execute on parallel hardware infatuation GPUs and multi-core CPUs. In Snow Leopard, Core Image has been re-implemented using OpenCL, producing a hefty 25% overall performance boost.)

    To wield stint parallelism and provision threads, OpenCL is built on top of majestic Central Dispatch. This is such a natural proper that it's a bit surprising that the OpenCL API doesn't utilize blocks. I judge Apple decided that it shouldn't press its luck when it comes to getting its home-grown technologies adopted by other vendors. This decision already seems to exist paying off, as AMD has its own OpenCL implementation under way.

    The top of the pyramid

    Though the underlying technologies, Clang, blocks and majestic Central Dispatch, will undoubtedly exist more widely used by developers, OpenCL represents the culmination of that particular technological thread in Snow Leopard. This is the gold measure of software engineering: creating a recent public API by structure it on top of lower-level, but equally well-designed and implemented public APIs.

    A unified abstraction for the ever-growing heterogeneous collection of parallel computing silicon in desktop computers was sorely needed. We've got an increasing population of powerful CPU cores, but they soundless exist in numbers that are orders of magnitude lower than the hundreds of processing units in modern GPUs. On the other hand, GPUs soundless maintain a ways to walk to ensnare up with the power and flexibility of a full-fledged CPU core. But even with everyone the differences, writing code exclusively for either one of those worlds soundless smacks of leaving money on the table.

    With OpenCL in hand, there's no longer a requisite to set everyone your eggs in one silicon basket. And with the advent of hybrid CPU/GPU efforts infatuation Intel's Larabee, which utilize CPU-caliber processing engines, but in much higher numbers, OpenCL may prove even more principal in the coming years.

    Transistor harvest

    Collectively, the concurrency-enabling features introduced in Snow Leopard limn the biggest boost to asynchronous and parallel software evolution in any Mac OS X release—perhaps in any desktop operating system release ever. It may exist difficult for end-users to collect excited about "plumbing" technologies infatuation majestic Central Dispatch and OpenCL, let alone compilers and programming language features, but it's upon these foundations that developers will create ever-more-impressive edifices of software. And if those applications tower over their synchronous, serial predecessors, it will exist because they stand on the shoulders of giants.

    QuickTime Player's  recent icon (Not a fan)QuickTime Player's recent icon (Not a fan) QuickTime Player

    There's been some confusion surrounding QuickTime in Snow Leopard. The earlier section about QuickTime X explains what you requisite to know about the present and future of QuickTime as a technology and an API. But a few of Apple's decisions—and the extremely overloaded meaning of the word "QuickTime" in the minds of consumers—have blurred the picture somewhat.

    The first head-scratcher occurs during installation. If you befall to click on the "Customize…" button during installation, you'll remark the following options:

    QuickTime 7 is an optional install?QuickTime 7 is an optional install?

    We've already talked about Rosetta being an optional install, but QuickTime 7 too? Isn't QuickTime severely crippled without QuickTime 7? Why in the world would that exist an optional install?

    Well, there's no requisite to panic. That detail in the installer should actually read "QuickTime Player 7." QuickTime 7, the ragged but extremely capable media framework discussed earlier, is installed by default in Snow Leopard—in fact, it's mandatory. But the player application, the one with the ragged blue "Q" icon, the one that many casual users actually judge of as being "QuickTime," that's been replaced with a recent QuickTime-X-savvy version sporting a pudgy recent icon (see above right).

    The recent player application is a gargantuan departure from the old. Obviously, it leverages QuickTime X for more efficient video playback, but the user interface is besides completely new. Gone are the gray rim and bottom-mounted playback controls from the ragged QuickTime Player, replaced by a frameless window with a black title bar and a floating, moveable set of controls.

    The  recent QuickTime Player: boldly going where <a href="http://code.google.com/p/niceplayer/">NicePlayer</a> has gone before Enlarge / The recent QuickTime Player: boldly going where NicePlayer has gone before

    It's infatuation a combination of the window treatment of the excellent NicePlayer application and the full-screen playback controls from the ragged QuickTime Player. I'm a bit bothered by two things. First, the ever-so-slightly clipped corners appear infatuation a contaminated idea. Am I just supposititious to give up those dozen-or-so pixels? NicePlayer does it right, showing crisp, square corners.

    Second, the floating playback controls obscure the movie. What if I'm scrubbing around looking for something in that piece of the frame? Yes, you can walk the controls, but what if I'm looking for something in an unknown location in the frame? Also, the title bar obscures an entire swath of the top of the frame, and this can't exist moved. I esteem the compactness of this approach, but it'd exist nice if the title bar overlap could exist disabled and the controls could exist dragged off the movie entirely and docked to the bottom or something.

    (One blessing for people who participate my OCD tendencies: if you walk the floating controls, they don't recollect their position the next time you open a movie. Why is that a blessing? Because if it worked the other way, we'd everyone disburse course too much time fretting about their inability to restore the controller to its default, precisely centered position. Sad, but true.)

    The recent QuickTime Player presents a decidedly iMovie-like (or is it iPhone-like, nowadays?) interface for trimming video. Still-frame thumbnails are placed side-by-side to form a timeline, with adjustable stops at each halt for trimming.

    Trimming in the  recent QuickTime Player Enlarge / Trimming in the recent QuickTime Player

    Holding down the option key changes from a thumbnail timeline to an audio waveform display:

    Trimming with audio waveform view Enlarge / Trimming with audio waveform view

    In both the video and audio cases, I maintain to marvel exactly how useful the fancy timeline appearances are. The audio waveform is quite petite and compressed, and the limited horizontal space of the in-window pomp means a movie can only exhibit a handful of video frames in its timeline. Also, if there's any capacity to carry out fine adjustments using something other than extremely heedful mouse movements (which are necessarily theme to a limited resolution) then I couldn't find it. Final crop Pro this is not.

    QuickTime Player has scholarly another recent trick: screen recording. The controls are limited, so more demanding users will soundless maintain a requisite for a full-featured screen recorder, but QuickTime Player gets the job done.

    Screen recording in QuickTime PlayerScreen recording in QuickTime Player

    There's besides an audio-only option, with a similarly simplified collection of settings.

    Audio recordingAudio recording

    Finally, the recent QuickTime Player has the capacity to upload a movie directly to YouTube and MobileMe, transmit one via e-mail, or add it to your iTunes library. The export options are besides vastly simplified, with preset options for iPhone/iPod, Apple TV, and HD 480p and 720p.

    Unfortunately, the list of things you can't carry out with the recent QuickTime Player is quite long. You can't cut, copy, and paste arbitrary portions of a movie (trimming only affects the ends); you can't extract or delete individual tracks or overlay one track onto another (optionally scaling to fit); you can't export a movie by choosing from the plenary set of available QuickTime audio and video codecs. everyone of these things were feasible with the ragged QuickTime Player—if, that is, you paid the $30 for a QuickTime Pro license. In the past, I've described this extra fee as "criminally stupid", but the features it enabled in QuickTime Player were really useful.

    It's tempting to attribute their absence in the recent QuickTime Player to the previously discussed limitations of QuickTime X. But the recent QuickTime Player is built on top of QTKit, which serves as a front-end for both QuickTime X and QuickTime 7. And it does, after all, feature some limited editing features infatuation trimming, plus some previously "Pro"-only features infatuation full-screen playback. Also, the recent QuickTime Player can indeed play movies using third-party plug-ins—a feature clearly powered by QuickTime 7.

    Well, Snow Leopard has an extremely pleasant surprise waiting for you if you install the optional QuickTime Player 7. When I did so, what I got was the ragged QuickTime Player—somewhat insultingly installed in the "Utilities" folder—with everyone of its "Pro" features permanently unlocked. Yes, the tyranny of QuickTime Pro seems to exist at an end…

    QuickTime Pro: now free for everyone?QuickTime Pro: now free for everyone?

    …but perhaps the key word above is "seems," because QuickTime Player 7 does not maintain everyone "pro" features unlocked for everyone. I installed Snow Leopard onto an empty disk, and QuickTime 7 was not automatically installed (as it is when the installer detects an existing QuickTime Pro license on the target disk). After booting from my fresh Snow Leopard volume, I manually installed the "QuickTime 7" optional component using the Snow Leopard installer disk.

    The result for me was a QuickTime Player 7 application with everyone pro features unlocked and with no visible QuickTime Pro registration information. I did, however, maintain a QuickTime Pro license on one of the attached drives. Apparently, the installer detected this and gave me an unlocked QuickTime Player 7 application, even though the boot volume never had a QuickTime Pro license on it.

    The Dock

    The recent appearance of some aspects of the Dock are accompanied by some recent functionality as well. Clicking and holding on a running application's Dock icon now triggers Expos�, but only for the windows belonging to that application. Dragging a file onto a docked application icon and holding it there for a bit produces the same result. You can then continue that same drag onto one of the Exposé window thumbnails and hover there a bit to bring that window to the front and drop the file into it. It's a pretty handy technique, once you collect in the custom of doing it.

    The Exposé pomp itself is besides changed. Now, minimized windows are displayed in smaller form on the bottom of the screen below a thin line.

    Dock Exposé with  recent placement of minimized windows Enlarge / Dock Exposé with recent placement of minimized windows

    In the screenshot above, you'll notice that not a soul of the minimized windows loom in my Dock. That's thanks to another welcome addition: the capacity to minimize windows "into" the application icon. You'll find the setting for this in the Dock's preference pane.

    New Dock preference: Minimize windows into application iconNew Dock preference: Minimize windows into application icon Minimized windows in a Dock application menuMinimized window denoted by a diamond

    Once set, minimized windows will slip behind the icon of their parent application and then disappear. To collect them back, either right-click the application icon (see right) or trigger Exposé.

    The Dock's grid view for folders now incorporates a scroll bar when there are too many items to proper comfortably. Clicking on a folder icon in the grid now shows that folder's contents within the grid, allowing you to navigate down several folders to find a buried item. A petite "back" navigation button appears once you descend.

    These are everyone useful recent behaviors, and quite a bounty considering the supposititious "no recent features" stance of Snow Leopard. But the fundamental nature of the Dock remains the same. Users who want a more supple or more powerful application launcher/folder organizer/window minimization system must soundless either sacrifice some functionality (e.g., Dock icon badges and bounce notifications) or continue to utilize the Dock in addition to a third-party application.

    The option to sustain minimized windows from cluttering up the Dock was long overdue. But my enthusiasm is tempered by my frustration at the continued inability to click on a docked folder and maintain it open in the Finder, while besides retaining the capacity to drag items into that folder. This was the default behavior for docked folders for the first six years of Mac OS X's life, but it changed in Leopard. Snow Leopard does not ameliorate matters.

    Docking an alias to a folder provides the single-click-open behavior, but items cannot exist dragged into a docked folder alias for some inexplicable reason. (Radar 5775786, closed in March 2008 with the terse explanation, "not currently supported.") Worse, dragging an detail to a docked folder alias looks infatuation it will labor (the icon highlights) but upon release, the dragged detail simply springs back to its original location. I really hoped this one would collect fixed in Snow Leopard. No such luck.

    Dock grid view's in-place navigation with back buttonDock grid view's in-place navigation with back button The Finder

    One of the earliest leaked screenshots of Snow Leopard included an innocuous-looking "Get Info…" window for the Finder, presumably to exhibit that its version number had been updated to 10.6. The more arresting tidbit of information it revealed was that the Finder in Snow Leopard was a 64-bit application.

    The Mac OS X Finder started its life as the designated "dog food" application for the Carbon backward-compatibility API for Mac OS X. Over the years, the Finder has been a frequent target of dissatisfaction and scorn. Those contaminated feelings frequently spilled over into the parallel debate over API supremacy: Carbon vs. Cocoa.

    "The Finder sucks because it's a Carbon app. What they requisite is a Cocoa Finder! Surely that will unravel everyone their woes." Well, Snow Leopard features a 64-bit Finder, and as they everyone know, Carbon was not ported to 64-bit. Et voila! A Cocoa Finder in Snow Leopard. (More on the woes in a bit.)

    The conversion to Cocoa followed the Snow Leopard formula: no recent features… except for maybe one or two. And so, the "new" Cocoa Finder looks and works almost exactly infatuation the ragged Carbon Finder. The biggest indicator of its "Cocoa-ness" is the extensive utilize of Core Animation transitions. For example, when a Finder window does its schizophrenic transformation from a sidebar-bedecked browser window to its minimally-adorned form, it no longer happens in a blink. Instead, the sidebar slides away and fades, the toolbar shrinks, and everything tucks in to form its recent shape.

    Despite crossing the line in a few cases, the Core Animation transitions carry out get the application feel more polished, and yes, "more Cocoa." And presumably the utilize of Cocoa made it so darn effortless to add features that the developers just couldn't resist throwing in a few.

    The number-one feature request from massive column-view users has finally been implemented: sortable columns. The sort order applies to everyone columns at once, which isn't as nice as per-column sorting, but it's much better than nothing at all. The sort order can exist set using a menu command (each of which has a keyboard shortcut) or by right-clicking in an unoccupied belt of a column and selecting from the resulting context menu.

    Column view sorting context menu Enlarge / Column view sorting context menu Column view sorting menu Enlarge / Column view sorting menu

    Even the lowly icon view has been enhanced in Snow Leopard. Every icon-view window now includes a petite slider to control the size of the icons.

    The Finder's icon view with its  recent slider controlThe Finder's icon view with its recent slider control

    This may appear a bit odd—how often carry out people change icon sizes?—but it makes much more sense in the context of previewing images in the Finder. This utilize case is made even more apposite by the recent expansion of the maximum icon size to 512x512 pixels.

    The icon previews themselves maintain been enhanced to better match the abilities available in Quick Look. set it everyone together and you can smoothly zoom a petite PDF icon, for example, into the impressively high-fidelity preview shown below, complete with the capacity to gyrate pages. One press of the space bar and you'll progress to the even larger and more supple Quick inspect view. It's a pretty smooth experience.

    Not your father's icon: 512x512 pixels of multi-page PDF previewingNot your father's icon: 512x512 pixels of multi-page PDF previewing

    QuickTime previews maintain been similarly enhanced. As you zoom in on the icon, it transforms into a miniature movie player, adorned with an odd circular progress indicator. Assuming users are willing to wrangle with the vagaries of the Finder's view settings successfully enough to collect icon view to stick for the windows where it's most useful, I judge that odd shrimp slider is actually going to collect a lot of use.

    The Finder's QuickTime preview. (The "glare" overlay is a bit much.)The Finder's QuickTime preview. (The "glare" overlay is a bit much.)

    List view besides has a few enhancements—accidental, incidental, or otherwise. The drag belt for each list view detail now spans the entire line. In Leopard, though the entire line was highlighted, only the file denomination or icon portion could exist dragged. Trying to drag anywhere else just extended the selection to other items in the list view as the cursor was moved. I'm not sure whether this change in behavior is intentional or if it's just an unexamined consequence of the underlying control used for list view in the recent Cocoa Finder. Either way, thumbs up.

    Double-clicking on the dividing line between two column headers in list view will "right-size" that column. For most columns, this means expanding or shrinking to minimally proper the widest value in the column. Date headers will progressively shrink to exhibit less verbose date formats. Supposedly, this worked intermittently in Leopard as well. But whether Cocoa is bringing this feature for the first time or is just making it labor correctly for the first time, it's a change for the better.

    Searching using the Finder's browser view is greatly improved by the implementation of one of those shrimp things that many users maintain been clamoring for year after year. There's now a preference to select the default scope of the search field in the Finder window toolbar. Can I collect an amen?

    Default Finder search location: configurable at last.Default Finder search location: configurable at last.

    Along similar lines, there are other long-desired enhancements that will walk a long course towards making the desktop environment feel more solid. A genuine instance is the improved handling of the dreaded "cannot eject, disk in use" error. The obvious follow-up question from the user is, "Okay, so what's using it?" Snow Leopard finally provides that information.

    No more guessingNo more guessing

    (Yes, Mac OS X will spurn to expel a disk if your current working directory in a command-line shell is on that disk. benign of cool, but besides benign of annoying.)

    Another feasible user response to a disk-in-use mistake is, "I don't care. I'm in a hurry. Just expel it!" That's an option now as well.

    Forcible ejection in progressForcible ejection in progress

    Hm, but why did I collect information about the offending application in one dialog, an option to force ejection in the other, but neither one presented both choices? It's a mystery to me, but presumably it's related to exactly what information the Finder has about the contention for the disk. (As always, the lsof command is available if you want to pattern it out the old-fashioned way.)

    Ummm…Ummm…

    So does the recent Cocoa Finder finally transport everyone of those embarrassing bugs from the bad-old days of Carbon? Not quite. This is essentially the "1.0" release of the Cocoa Finder, and it has its participate of 1.0 bugs. Here's one discovered by Glen Aspeslagh (see image right).

    Do you remark it? If not, inspect closer at the order of the dates in the supposedly sorted "Date Modified" column. So yeah, that ragged Finder magic has not been entirely extinguished.

    There besides remains some weirdness in the operation of the icon grid. In a view where grid snap is turned on (or is enabled transiently by holding down the command key during a drag) icons appear terrified of each other, leaving huge distances between themselves and their neighbors when they select which grid spot to snap to. It's as if the Finder lives in mortal apprehension that one of these files will someday collect a 200-character filename that will overlap with a neighboring file's name.

    The worst incarnation of this behavior happens along the perquisite edge of the screen where mounted volumes loom on the desktop. (Incidentally, this is not the default; if you want to remark disks on your desktop, you must enable this preference in the Finder.) When I mount a recent disk, I'm often surprised to remark where it ends up appearing. If there are any icons remotely proximate to the perquisite edge of the screen, the disk icon will spurn to loom there. Again, the Finder is not avoiding any actual denomination or icon overlapping. It appears to exist avoiding the mere possibility of overlapping at some unspecified point in the future. Silly.

    Finder report card

    Overall, the Snow Leopard Finder takes several significant steps forward—64-bit/Cocoa future-proofing, a few new, useful features, added polish—and only a few shuffles backwards with the slight overuse of animation and the continued presence of some puzzling bugs. Considering how long it took the Carbon Finder to collect to its pre-Snow-Leopard feature set and even of polish, it's quite an achievement for a Cocoa Finder to match or exceed its predecessor in its very first release. I'm sure the Carbon vs. Cocoa warriors would maintain had a field day with that statement, were Carbon not set out to pasture in Leopard. But it was, and to the victor walk the spoils.

    Exchange

    Snow Leopard's headline "one recent feature" is uphold for Microsoft Exchange. This appears to be, at least partially, yet another hand-me-down from the iPhone, which gained uphold for Exchange in its 2.0 release and expanded on it in 3.0. Snow Leopard's Exchange uphold is weaved throughout the expected crop of applications in Mac OS X: iCal, Mail, and Address Book.

    The gargantuan caveat is that it will only labor with a server running Exchange 2007 (Service Pack 1, Update Rollup 4) or later. While I'm sure Microsoft greatly appreciates any additional upgrade revenue this decision provides, it means that for users whose workplaces are soundless running older versions of Exchange, Snow Leopard's "Exchange support" might as well not exist.

    Those users are probably already running the only other viable Mac OS X Exchange client, Microsoft Entourage, so they'll likely just sit taut and wait for their IT departments to upgrade. Meanwhile, Microsoft is already making overtures to these users with the promised creation—finally—of an honest-to-goodness version of Outlook for Mac OS X.

    In my admittedly brief testing, Snow Leopard's Exchange uphold seems to labor as expected. I had to maintain one of the Microsoft mavens in the Ars Orbiting HQ spin up an Exchange 2007 server just for the purposes of this review. However it was configured, everyone I had to enter in the Mail application was my plenary name, e-mail address, and password, and it automatically discovered everyone apposite settings and configured iCal and Address bespeak for me.

    Exchange setup: surprisingly easyExchange setup: surprisingly easy

    Windows users are no doubt accustomed to this benign of Exchange integration, but it's the first time I've seen it on the Mac platform—and that includes my many years of using Entourage.

    Access to Exchange-related features is decidedly subdued, in keeping with the existing interfaces for Mail, iCal, and Address Book. If you're expecting the swarm of panels and toolbar buttons organize in Outlook on Windows, you're in for a bit of a shock. For example, here's the "detail" view of a meeting in iCal.

    iCal event detailiCal event detail

    Clicking the "edit" button hardly reveals more.

    Event editor: that's it?Event editor: that's it?

    The "availability" window besides includes the bare minimum number of controls and displays to collect the job done.

    Meeting availability checker Enlarge / Meeting availability checker

    The integration into Mail and Address bespeak is even more subtle—almost entirely transparent. This is to exist construed as a feature, I suppose. But though I don't know enough about Exchange to exist completely sure, I can't quake the emotion that there are Exchange features that remain inaccessible from Mac OS X clients. For example, how carry out I bespeak a "resource" in a meeting? If there's a course to carry out so, I couldn't determine it.

    Still, even basic Exchange integration out-of-the-box goes long course towards making Mac OS X more welcome in corporate environments. It remains to exist seen how convinced IT managers are of the "realness" of Snow Leopard's Exchange integration. But I've got to judge that being able to transmit and receive mail, create and respond to meeting invitations, and utilize the global corporate address bespeak is enough for any Mac user to collect along reasonably well in an Exchange-centric environment.

    Performance

    The thing is, there's not really much to train about performance in Snow Leopard. Dozens of benchmark graphs lead to the same simple conclusion: Snow Leopard is faster than Leopard. Not shockingly so, at least in the aggregate, but it's faster. And while isolating one particular subsystem with a micro-benchmark may reveal some impressive numbers, it's the course these petite changes combine to ameliorate the real-world undergo of using the system that really makes a difference.

    One instance Apple gave at WWDC was making an initial Time Machine backup over the network to a Time Capsule. Apple's approach to optimizing this operation was to address each and every subsystem involved.

    Time Machine itself was given uphold for overlapping i/o. Spotlight indexing, which happens on Time Machine volumes as well, was identified as another time-consuming stint involved in backups, so its performance was improved. The networking code was enhanced to remove edge of hardware-accelerated checksums where possible, and the software checksum code was hand-tuned for maximum performance. The performance of HFS+ journaling, which accompanies each file system metadata update, was besides improved. For Time Machine backups that write to disk images rather than native HFS+ file systems, Apple added uphold for concurrent access to disk images. The amount of network traffic produced by AFP during backups has besides been reduced.

    All of this adds up to a respectable 55% overall improvement in the accelerate of an initial Time Machine backup. And, of course, the performance improvements to the individual subsystems capitalize everyone applications that utilize them, not just Time Machine.

    This holistic approach to performance improvement is not likely to knock anyone's socks off, but every time you sprint across a piece of functionality in Snow Leopard that disproportionately benefits from one of these optimized subsystems, it's a pleasure.

    For example, Snow Leopard shuts down and restarts much faster than Leopard. I'm not talking about boot time; I spell the time between the selection of the Shutdown or Restart command and when the system turns off or begins its recent boot cycle. Leopard doesn't remove long at everyone to carry out this; only a few dozen of seconds when there are no applications open. But in Snow Leopard, it's so speedy that I often thought the operating system had crashed rather than shut down cleanly. (That's actually not too far from the truth.)

    The performance boosts offered by earlier major releases of Mac OS X soundless dwarf Snow Leopard's speedup, but that's mostly because Mac OS X was so excruciatingly sluggish in its early years. It's effortless to create a gargantuan performance delta when you're starting from something abysmally slow. The fact that Snow Leopard achieves consistent, measurable improvements over the already-speedy Leopard is everyone the more impressive.

    And yes, for the seventh consecutive time, a recent release of Mac OS X is faster on the same hardware than its predecessor. (And for the first time ever, it's smaller, too.) What more can you request for, really? Even that ragged performance bugaboo, window resizing, has been completely vanquished. Grab the corner of a fully-populated iCal window—the worst-case scenario for window resizing in the ragged days—and quake it as speedy as you can. Your cursor will never exist more than a few millimeters from the window's grab handle; it tracks your frantic motion perfectly. On most Macs, this is actually objective in Leopard as well. It just goes to exhibit how far Mac OS X has achieve on the performance front. These days, they everyone just remove it for granted, which is exactly the course it should be.

    Grab bag

    In the "grab bag" section, I usually examine smaller, mostly unrelated features that don't warrant full-blown sections of their own. But when it comes to user-visible features, Snow Leopard is benign of "all grab bag," if you know what I mean. Apple's even got its own incarnation in the form of a giant webpage of "refinements." I'll probably overlap with some of those, but there'll exist a few recent ones here as well.

    New columns in open/save dialogs

    The list view in open and redeem dialog boxed now supports more than just "Name" and "Date Modified" columns. Right-click on any column to collect a choice of additional columns to display. I've wanted this feature for a long time, and I'm lighthearted someone finally had time to implement it.

    Configurable columns in open/save dialogsConfigurable columns in open/save dialogs Improved scanner support

    The bundled Image Capture application now has the capacity to talk to a wide scope of scanners. I plugged in my Epson Stylus CX7800, a device that previously required the utilize of third-party software in order to utilize the scanning feature, and Image Capture detected it immediately.

    Epson scanner + Image Capture - Epson software Enlarge / Epson scanner + Image Capture - Epson software

    Image Capture is besides not a contaminated shrimp scanning application. It has pretty genuine automatic object detection, including uphold for multiple objects, obviating the requisite to manually crop items. Given the sometimes-questionable property of third-party printer and scanner drivers for Mac OS X, the capacity to utilize a bundled application is welcome.

    System Preferences bit wars

    System Preferences, infatuation virtually everyone other applications in Snow Leopard, is 64-bit. But since 64-bit applications can't load 32-bit plug-ins, that presents a problem for the existing crop of 32-bit third-party preference panes. System Preferences handles this situation with a reasonable amount of grace. On launch, it will pomp icons for everyone installed preference panes, 64-bit or 32-bit. But if you click on a 32-bit preference pane, you'll exist presented with a notification infatuation this:

    64-bit application vs. 32-bit plug-in: fight!64-bit application vs. 32-bit plug-in: fight!

    Click "OK" and System Preferences will relaunch in 32-bit mode, which is conveniently indicated in the title bar. Since everyone of the first-party preference panes are compiled for both 64-bit and 32-bit operation, System Preferences does not requisite to relaunch again for the duration of its use. This raises the question, why not maintain System Preferences launch in 32-bit mode everyone the time? I suspect it's just another course for Apple to "encourage" developers to build 64-bit-compatible binaries.

    Safari plug-ins

    The inability of of 64-bit applications load 32-bit plug-ins is a problem for Safari as well. Plug-ins are so principal to the Web undergo that relaunching in 32-bit mode is not really an option. You'd probably requisite to relaunch as soon as you visited your first webpage. But Apple does want Safari to sprint in 64-bit mode due to some significant performance enhancements in the JavaScript engine and other areas of the application that are not available in 32-bit mode.

    Apple's solution is similar to what it did with QuickTime X and 32-bit QuickTime 7 plug-ins. Safari will sprint 32-bit plug-ins in sever 32-bit processes as needed.

    Separate processes for 32-bit Safari plug-insSeparate processes for 32-bit Safari plug-ins

    This has the added, extremely significant capitalize of isolating potentially buggy plug-ins. According to the automated crash reporting built into Mac OS X, Apple has said that the number one occasions of crashes is Web browser plug-ins. That's not the number one occasions of crashes in Safari, intellect you, it's the number one occasions when considering everyone crashes of everyone applications in Mac OS X. (And though it was not mentioned by name, I judge they everyone know the primary culprit.)

    As you can remark above, the QuickTime browser plug-in gets the same treatment as glint and other third-party 32-bit Safari plug-ins. everyone of this means that when a plug-in crashes, Safari in Snow Leopard does not. The window or tab containing the crashing plug-in doesn't even close. You can simply click the reload button and give the problematic plug-in another desultory to duty correctly.

    While this is soundless far from the much more robust approach employed by Google Chrome, where each tab lives in its own independent process, if Apple's crash statistics are to exist believed, isolating plug-ins may generate most of the capitalize of truly sever processes with a significantly less radical change to the Safari application itself.

    Resolution independence

    When they final left Mac OS X in its seemingly interminable march towards a truly scalable user interface, it was almost ready for prime time. I'm sullen to train that resolution independence was obviously not a priority in Snow Leopard, because it hasn't gotten any better, and may maintain actually regressed a bit. Here's what TextEdit looks infatuation at a 2.0 scale factor in Leopard and Snow Leopard.

    TextEdit at scale factor 2.0 in LeopardTextEdit at scale factor 2.0 in Leopard TextEdit at scale factor 2.0 in Snow LeopardTextEdit at scale factor 2.0 in Snow Leopard

    Yep, it's a bummer. I soundless recollect Apple advising developers to maintain their applications ready for resolution independence by 2008. That's one of the few dates that the Jobs-II-era Apple has not been able to hit, and it's getting later everyone the time. On the other hand, it's not infatuation 200-DPI monitors are raining from the sky either. But I'd really infatuation to remark Apple collect going on this. It will undoubtedly remove a long time for everything to inspect and labor correctly, so let's collect started.

    Terminal splitters

    The Terminal application in Tiger and earlier versions of Mac OS X allowed each of its windows to exist split horizontally into two sever panes. This was invaluable for referencing some earlier text in the scrollback while besides typing commands at the prompt. Sadly, the splitter feature disappeared in Leopard. In Snow Leopard, it's back with a vengeance.

    Arbitrary splitters, baby!Arbitrary splitters, baby!

    (Now if only my favorite text editor would collect on board the train to splittersville.)

    Terminal in Snow Leopard besides defaults to the recent Menlo font. But perverse to earlier reports, the One objective Monospaced Font, Monaco, is most definitely soundless included in Snow Leopard (see screenshot above) and it works just fine.

    System Preferences shuffle

    The seemingly obligatory rearrangement of preference panes in the System Preferences application accompanying each release of Mac OS X continues in Snow Leopard.

    System Preferences: shuffled yet again Enlarge / System Preferences: shuffled yet again System Preferences (not running) with Dock menuSystem Preferences (not running) with Dock menu

    This time, the "Keyboard & Mouse" preference pane is split into sever "Keyboard" and "Mouse" panes, "International" becomes "Language & Text," and the "Internet & Network" section becomes "Internet & Wireless" and adopts the Bluetooth preference pane.

    Someday in the far future, perhaps Apple will finally arrive at the "ultimate" arrangement of preference panes and they can everyone finally walk more than two years without their muscle reminiscence being disrupted.

    Before stirring on, System Preferences has one natty trick. You can launch directly into a specific preference pane by right-clicking on System Preferences's Dock icon. This works even when System Preferences is not yet running. benign of creepy, but useful.

    Core location

    One more gift from the iPhone, Core Location, allows Macs to pattern out where in the world they are. The "Date & Time" preference pane offers to set your time zone automatically based on your current location using this newfound ability.

    Set your Mac's time zone automatically based on your current location, thanks to Core Location.Set your Mac's time zone automatically based on your current location, thanks to Core Location. Keyboard magic

    Snow Leopard includes a simple facility for system-wide text auto-correction and expansion, accessible from the "Language & Text" preference pane. It's not quite ready to give a dedicated third-party application a sprint for its money, but hey, it's free.

    Global text expansion and auto-correction Enlarge / Global text expansion and auto-correction

    The keyboard shortcuts preference pane has besides been rearranged. Now, instead of a single, long list of system-wide keyboard shortcuts, they're arranged into categories. This reduces clutter, but it besides makes it a bit more difficult to find the shortcut you're interested in.

    Keyboard shortcuts: now with categories Enlarge / Keyboard shortcuts: now with categories The sleeping Mac dilemma

    I don't infatuation to leave my Mac Pro turned on 24 hours a day, especially during the summer in my un-air-conditioned house. But I carry out want to maintain access to the files on my Mac when I'm elsewhere—at work, on the road, etc. It is feasible to wake a sleeping Mac remotely, but doing so requires being on the same local network.

    My solution has been to leave a smaller, more power-efficient laptop on at everyone times on the same network as my Mac Pro. To wake my Mac Pro remotely, I ssh into the laptop, then transmit the magic "wake up" packet to my Mac Pro. (For this to work, the "Wake for Ethernet network administrator access" checkbox must exist checked in the "Energy Saver" preference pane in System Preferences.)

    Snow Leopard provides a course to carry out this without leaving any of my computers running everyone day. When a Mac running Snow Leopard is set to sleep, it attempts to hand off ownership of its IP address to its router. (This only works with an AirPort Extreme groundwork station from 2007 or later, or a Time Capsule from 2008 or later with the latest (7.4.2) firmware installed.) The router then listens for any attempt to connect to the IP address. When one occurs, it wakes up the original owner, hands back the IP address, and forwards traffic appropriately.

    You can even wake some recent-model Macs over WiFi. Combined with MobileMe's "Back to My Mac" dynamic DNS thingamabob, it means I can leave everyone my Macs asleep and soundless maintain access to their contents anytime, anywhere.

    Back to my hack

    As has become traditional, this recent release of Mac OS X makes life a bit harder for developers whose software works by patching the in-memory representation of other running applications or the operating system itself. This includes Input Managers, SIMBL plug-ins, and of course the dreaded "Haxies."

    Input Managers collect the worst of it. They've actually been unsupported and non-functional in 64-bit applications since Leopard. That wasn't such a gargantuan deal when Mac OS X shipped with a whopping two 64-bit applications. But now, with almost every application in Snow Leopard going 64-bit, it's suddenly very significant.

    Thanks to Safari's lack of an officially sanctioned extension mechanism, developers looking to enhance its functionality maintain most often resorted to the utilize of Input Managers and SIMBL (which is an Input-Manager-based framework). A 64-bit Safari puts a damper on that entire market. Though it is feasible to manually set Safari to launch in 32-bit mode—Get Info on the application in the Finder and click a checkbox—ideally, this is not something developers want to force users to do.

    Happily, at least one commonly used Safari enhancement has the genuine fortune to exist built on top of the officially supported browser plug-in API used by Flash, QuickTime, etc. But that may not exist a feasible approach for Safari extensions that enhance functionality in ways not tied directly to the pomp of particular types of content within a webpage.

    Though I plot to sprint Safari in its default 64-bit mode, I'll really miss Saft, a Safari extension I utilize for session restoration (yes, I know Safari has this feature, but it's activated manually—the horror) and address bar shortcuts (e.g., "w noodles" to inspect up "noodles" in Wikipedia). I'm hoping that clever developers will find a course to overcome this recent challenge. They always appear to, in the end. (Or Apple could add a proper extension system to Safari, of course. But I'm not holding my breath.)

    As for the Haxies, those usually split with each major operating system update as a matter of course. And each time, those determined fellows at Unsanity, against everyone odds, manage to sustain their software working. I salute them for their effort. I delayed upgrading to Leopard for a long time based solely on the absence of my beloved WindowShade X. I hope I don't maintain to wait too long for a Snow-Leopard-compatible version.

    The generic trend in Mac OS X is away from any sort of involuntary reminiscence space sharing, and towards "external" plug-ins that live in their own, sever processes. Even contextual menu plug-ins in the Finder maintain been disabled, replaced by an enhanced, but soundless less-powerful Services API. Again, I maintain faith that developers will adapt. But the waiting is the hardest part.

    ZFS MIA

    It looks infatuation we'll everyone exist waiting a while longer for a file system in shining armor to supersede the venerable HFS+ (11 years young!) as the default file system in Mac OS X. Despite rumors, outright declarations, and much actual pre-release code, uphold for the impressive ZFS file system is not present in Snow Leopard.

    That's a shame because Time Machine veritably cries out for some ZFS magic. What's more, Apple seems to agree, as evidenced by a post from an Apple employee to a ZFS mailing list final year. When asked about a ZFS-savvy implementation of Time Machine, the reply was encouraging: "This one is principal and likely will achieve sometime, but not for SL." ("SL" is short for Snow Leopard.)

    There are many reasons why ZFS (or a file system with similar features) is a consummate proper for Time Machine, but the most principal is its capacity to transmit only the block-level changes during each backup. As Time Machine is currently implemented, if you get a petite change to a giant file, the entire giant file is copied to the Time Machine volume during the next backup. This is extremely wasteful and time consuming, especially for great files that are modified constantly during the day (e.g., Entourage's e-mail database). Time Machine running on top of ZFS could transfer just the changed disk blocks (a maximum of 128KB each in ZFS, and usually much smaller).

    ZFS would besides bring vastly increased robustness for data and metadata, a pooled storage model, constant-time snapshots and clones, and a pony. People sometimes request what, exactly, is wrong with HFS+. Aside from its obvious lack of the features just listed, HFS+ is limited in many ways by its dated design, which is based on HFS, a twenty-five year-old file system.

    To give just one example, the centrally located Catalog File, which must exist updated for each change to the file system's structure, is a frequent and inevitable source of contention. Modern file systems usually spread their metadata around, both for robustness (multiple copies are often kept in sever locations on the disk) and to allow for better concurrency.

    Practically speaking, judge about those times when you sprint Disk Utility on an HFS+ volume and it finds (and hopefully repairs) a bunch of errors. That's bad, okay? That's something that should not befall with a modern, thoroughly checksummed, always-consistent-on-disk file system unless there are hardware problems (and a ZFS storage pool can actually deal with that as well). And yet it happens everyone the time with HFS+ disks in Mac OS X when various bits of metadata collect corrupted or become out of date.

    Apple gets by year after year, tacking recent features onto HFS+ with duct tape and a prayer, but at a unavoidable point there simply has to exist a successor—whether it's ZFS, a home-grown Apple file system, or something else entirely. My fingers are crossed for Mac OS X 10.7.

    The future soon

    Creating an operating system is as much a convivial exercise as a technological one. Creating a platform, even more so. everyone of Snow Leopard's considerable technical achievements are not just designed to capitalize users; they're besides intended to goad, persuade, and otherwise herd developers in the direction that Apple feels will exist most beneficial for the future of the platform.

    For this to work, Snow Leopard has to actually find its course into the hands of customers. The pricing helps a lot there. But even if Snow Leopard were free, there's soundless some cost to the consumer—in time, worry, software updates, etc.—when performing a major operating system upgrade. The same goes for developers who must, at the very least, certify that their existing applications sprint correctly on the recent OS.

    The habitual course to overcome this benign of upgrade hesitation has been to pack the OS with recent features. recent features sell, and the more copies of the recent operating system in use, the more motivated developers are to update their applications to not just sprint on the recent OS, but besides remove edge of its recent abilities.

    A major operating system upgrade with "no recent features" must play by a different set of rules. Every party involved expects some counterbalance to the lack of recent features. In Snow Leopard, developers stand to garner the biggest benefits thanks to an impressive set of recent technologies, many of which cover areas previously unaddressed in Mac OS X. Apple clearly feels that the future of the platform depends on much better utilization of computing resources, and is doing everything it can to get it effortless for developers to walk in this direction.

    Though it's obvious that Snow Leopard includes fewer external features than its predecessor, I'd wager that it has just as many, if not more internal changes than Leopard. This, I fear, means that the initial release of Snow Leopard will likely suffer the typical 10.x.0 bugs. There maintain already been reports of recent bugs introduced to existing APIs in Snow Leopard. This is the exact antithetical of Snow Leopard's implied pledge to users and developers that it would concentrate on making existing features faster and more robust without introducing recent functionality and the accompanying recent bugs.

    On the other side of the coin, I imagine everyone the teams at Apple that worked on Snow Leopard absolutely reveled in the break to polish their particular subsystems without being burdened by supporting the marketing-driven feature-of-the-month. In any long-lived software product, there needs to exist this benign of release valve every few years, lest the entire code groundwork walk off into the weeds.

    There's been one other "no recent features" release of Mac OS X. Mac OS X 10.1, released a mere six months after version 10.0, was handed out for free by Apple at the 2001 Seybold publishing conference and, later, at Apple retail stores. It was besides available from Apple's online store for $19.95 (along with a copy of Mac OS 9.2.1 for utilize in the Classic environment). This was a different time for Mac OS X. Versions 10.0 and 10.1 were slow, incomplete, and extremely immature; the transition from classic Mac OS was far from over.

    Judged as a modern incarnation of the 10.1 release, Snow Leopard looks pretty darned good. The pricing is similar, and the benefits—to developers and to users—are greater. So is the risk. But again, that has more to carry out with how horrible Mac OS X 10.0 was. Choosing not to upgrade to 10.1 was unthinkable. Waiting a while to upgrade to Snow Leopard is reasonable if you want to exist sure that everyone the software you confidence about is compatible. But don't wait too long, because at $29 for the upgrade, I hope Snow Leopard adoption to exist quite rapid. Software that will sprint only on Snow Leopard may exist here before you know it.

    Should you buy Mac OS X Snow Leopard? If you're already running Leopard, then the respond is a resounding "yes." If you're soundless running Tiger, well, then it's probably time for a recent Mac anyway. When you buy one, it'll achieve with Snow Leopard.

    As for the future, it's tempting to view Snow Leopard as the "tick" in a recent Intel-style "tick-tock" release strategy for Mac OS X: radical recent features in version 10.7 followed by more Snow-Leopard-style refinements in 10.8, and so on, alternating between "feature" and "refinement" releases. Apple has not even hinted that they're considering this character of plan, but I judge there's a lot to recommend it.

    Snow Leopard is a unique and stunning release, unlike any that maintain achieve before it in both scope and intention. At some point, Mac OS X will surely requisite to collect back on the bullet-point-features bandwagon. But for now, I'm content with Snow Leopard. It's the Mac OS X I know and love, but with more of the things that get it infirm and queer engineered away.

    Snowy eyes Looking back

    This is the tenth review of a plenary Mac OS X release, public beta, or developer preview to sprint on Ars, dating back to December 1999 and Mac OS X DP2. If you want to jump into the Wayback Machine and remark how far Apple has achieve with Snow Leopard (or just want to bone up on everyone of the gargantuan cat monikers), we've gone through the archives and dug up some of their older Mac OS X articles. fortunate reading!

  • Five years of Mac OS X, March 24, 2006
  • Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, October 28, 2007
  • Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, April 28, 2005
  • Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, November 9, 2003
  • Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar, September 5, 2002
  • Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma), October 15, 2001
  • Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah), April 2, 2001
  • Mac OS X Public Beta, October 3, 2000
  • Mac OS X Q & A, June 20, 2000
  • Mac OS X DP4, May 24, 2000
  • Mac OS X DP3: crucible by Water, February 28, 2000
  • Mac OS X Update: Quartz & Aqua, January 17, 2000
  • Mac OS X DP2, December 14, 1999

  • Mozilla to Drop OS 10.4 Tiger Support? train It Isn’t So | killexams.com real questions and Pass4sure dumps

  • Post
  • Another nail in OS X 10.4 Tiger’s coffin was recently hammered in a post by Mozilla Foundation’s Josh Aas.

    Advertisement Support for Tiger Already Terminated

    Aas reveals that evolution uphold for OS X 10.4 Tiger was terminated as of September 2009, but much of the code required to uphold 10.4 was left in the tree in case the developers wanted to invert that decision. The point has arrived that a final decision to either restore 10.4 uphold or remove the (large) amount of 10.4-specific code from the next iteration of Mozilla’s Gecko browser engine must exist made.

    He presents the not unreasonable case that the developers want to remove edge of advanced technologies in later OS X versions and retaining OS 10.4 uphold has been a hindrance, as workarounds consume valuable time and effort.

    25% of Mac OS X Firefox Users soundless Running OS 10.4

    Aas concedes that approximately 25 percent of Firefox’s Mac OS X users (roughly 1.5 million) are soundless running OS 10.4, but would continue to exist supported by Firefox 3.6 until it reaches halt of service several months after the next major Firefox version release (built on Gecko 1.9.3) later this year. icy console and a mighty short time window for those of us soundless running Tiger, the final OS X version that supports G3 Macs and G4s slower than 867 MHz. I’m hoping to collect at least two or three more years of production service out of my two ragged Pismo PowerBooks running OS 10.4.

    Aas counters that in the past Mozilla hasn’t lost appreciable market participate after dropping uphold for a Mac (s aapl) OS X version, making the objective observation that they’re typically one of the final vendors supporting older Mac OS X releases. However I marvel if any of those previous abandonments represented a quarter of their user base.

    OS 10.4 a Special Case?

    I submit that Tiger represents a special case because of its straddling of the PPC/Intel (s intc) transition, and that there are more PPC diehards likely holding on to older Macs that only uphold up to Tiger for longer this time than would customarily maintain been.

    Some of us Tiger holdouts either don’t want to give up on computers performing superbly and reliably for us, as my Pismos are for me, or simply can’t afford to upgrade their systems during this economic period.

    I accede to the eventual inevitability of Tiger’s demise farewell, and Apple itself could terminate security update uphold for Tiger any day now. I just don’t welcome it and hoped it wouldn’t arrive quite this soon.

    How about you? If you’re soundless using Tiger, how gargantuan of a deal will Firefox uphold termination exist for you?


    Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2018 with macOS Mojave uphold | killexams.com real questions and Pass4sure dumps

    ← Press Releases

    We are excited to advertise a brand-new release of Tuxera NTFS for Mac with macOS Mojave support!

    Edit your files on Windows NTFS drives in macOS Mojave

    Tuxera NTFS for Mac is a file system driver giving you access and plenary read/write capability to Windows NTFS-formatted drives on your Mac. Their latest version supports macOS 10.14 Mojave and is besides backwards compatible everyone the course to Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. With Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2018, you can seamlessly utilize your drive between your Mac and Windows computers.

    Free upgrade for existing customers

    We always insinuate using the latest version of their software to collect the performance upgrades and recent features. However, if you`re using the older version of Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2018 with tall Sierra support, you carry out not requisite to update their software when you upgrade to Mojave at this time.

    But if you`re soundless using Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2016 or an earlier release, you`ll want to update to their latest version. Existing customers can upgrade Tuxera NTFS for Mac to newest version free of charge. To update, simply walk to System Preferences - Tuxera NTFS For Mac - Updates tab on your Mac (for Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2015 and above). Or you can always collect the latest version directly from their website.

    New to Mac?

    If you maintain just switched from Windows to Mac, you might exist having pains copying files to difficult drives used on Windows. This is because out of the box, Apple`s Macs only achieve with uphold for reading NTFS drives, the approved file system used in Windows. With Tuxera NTFS for 2018, you can read and write files to your NTFS-formatted USB drives, and utilize those drives on both your Mac and Windows computers.

    If you don`t maintain a license yet, you can buy one from their website. To test out Tuxera NTFS for Mac before purchase, you can download a 15-day crucible from their website. Here are some helpful videos and links to collect you started:

    How to install Tuxera NTFS for Mac 2018 with Mojave support: https://youtu.be/uv6NTED593Y

    Tuxera NTFS for Mac FAQ: https://www.tuxera.com/products/tuxera-ntfs-for-mac/faq/

    Formatting an NTFS drive using a Mac: https://www.tuxera.com/blog/formatting-an-ntfs-drive-using-a-mac/

    How to format drives in NTFS on a Mac - in 3 effortless steps: https://www.tuxera.com/blog/how-format-drives-in-ntfs-on-a-mac-in-3-easy-steps/

    Get Tuxera NTFS for Mac with Mojave uphold here: http://www.tuxera.com/products/tuxera-ntfs-for-mac/



    Direct Download of over 5500 Certification Exams

    3COM [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AccessData [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACFE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Acme-Packet [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACSM [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ACT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Admission-Tests [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ADOBE [93 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AFP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AICPA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AIIM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alcatel-Lucent [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Alfresco [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Altiris [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Amazon [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    American-College [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Android [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APICS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Apple [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AppSense [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    APTUSC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Arizona-Education [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ARM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Aruba [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASIS [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASQ [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ASTQB [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Autodesk [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Avaya [96 Certification Exam(s) ]
    AXELOS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Axis [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Banking [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BEA [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BICSI [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlackBerry [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    BlueCoat [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Brocade [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Objects [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Business-Tests [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CA-Technologies [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certification-Board [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Certiport [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CheckPoint [41 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIPS [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cisco [318 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Citrix [47 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CIW [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cloudera [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Cognos [19 Certification Exam(s) ]
    College-Board [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CompTIA [76 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ComputerAssociates [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Consultant [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Counselor [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institue [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CPP-Institute [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CSP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    CWNP [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Dassault [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DELL [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DMI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    DRI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECCouncil [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ECDL [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    EMC [129 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Enterasys [13 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Ericsson [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ESPA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Esri [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExamExpress [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Exin [40 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ExtremeNetworks [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    F5-Networks [20 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FCTC [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Filemaker [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Financial [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Food [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fortinet [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Foundry [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    FSMTB [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Fujitsu [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GAQM [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Genesys [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GIAC [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Google [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    GuidanceSoftware [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    H3C [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HDI [9 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Healthcare [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HIPAA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hitachi [30 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hortonworks [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hospitality [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HP [746 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HR [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    HRCI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Huawei [21 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Hyperion [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAAP [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IAHCSMM [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBM [1530 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IBQH [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ICDL [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IEEE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IELTS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IFPUG [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IIBA [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IISFA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Intel [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IQN [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    IRS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISACA [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISC2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISEB [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Isilon [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ISM [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    iSQI [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    ITEC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Juniper [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LEED [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Legato [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Liferay [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Logical-Operations [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Lotus [66 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LPI [24 Certification Exam(s) ]
    LSI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Magento [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Maintenance [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McAfee [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    McData [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Medical [69 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Microsoft [368 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Mile2 [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Military [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Misc [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Motorola [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    mySQL [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NBSTSA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCEES [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCIDQ [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NCLEX [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Network-General [12 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NetworkAppliance [36 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    NIELIT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nokia [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Nortel [130 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Novell [37 Certification Exam(s) ]
    OMG [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Oracle [269 Certification Exam(s) ]
    P&C [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Palo-Alto [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PARCC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PayPal [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Pegasystems [11 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PEOPLECERT [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PMI [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Polycom [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PostgreSQL-CE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Prince2 [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PRMIA [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PsychCorp [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    PTCB [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QAI [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    QlikView [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Quality-Assurance [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RACC [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Real-Estate [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RedHat [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RES [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Riverbed [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    RSA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sair [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Salesforce [5 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SANS [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAP [98 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SASInstitute [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SAT [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCO [10 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SCP [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SDI [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    See-Beyond [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Siemens [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Snia [7 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SOA [15 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Social-Work-Board [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SpringSource [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUN [63 Certification Exam(s) ]
    SUSE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Sybase [17 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Symantec [134 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Teacher-Certification [4 Certification Exam(s) ]
    The-Open-Group [8 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TIA [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Tibco [18 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trainers [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Trend [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    TruSecure [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    USMLE [1 Certification Exam(s) ]
    VCE [6 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veeam [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Veritas [33 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Vmware [58 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Wonderlic [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Worldatwork [2 Certification Exam(s) ]
    XML-Master [3 Certification Exam(s) ]
    Zend [6 Certification Exam(s) ]





    References :


    Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11514457
    Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-sO
    Scribd : https://www.scribd.com/document/358140011/Pass4sure-9L0-060-Braindumps-and-Practice-Tests-with-Real-Questions
    weSRCH : https://www.wesrch.com/business/prpdfBU1HWO000FSGN
    Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/9l0-060
    Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12072367
    Youtube : https://youtu.be/4cboa9WUoRY
    Blogspot : http://killexams-braindumps.blogspot.com/2017/10/pass4sure-9l0-060-practice-tests-with.html
    RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/DontMissTheseApple9l0-060Dumps
    Vimeo : https://vimeo.com/243594918
    Google+ : https://plus.google.com/112153555852933435691/posts/en6mPyzMHLx?hl=en
    publitas.com : https://view.publitas.com/trutrainers-inc/ensure-your-success-with-this-9l0-060-question-bank
    Calameo : http://en.calameo.com/account/book#
    Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/nd843u4l6jqq00ah3ow7wpgaq7tk4lr3
    zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/5kgmr69826c61d00d4b0e95b76c04843ce7f1






    Back to Main Page

    www.pass4surez.com | www.killcerts.com | www.search4exams.com | http://www.jeepmansoffroad.com/