9L0-623 brain dumps | Pass4sure 9L0-623 brain dumps | | jeepmansoffroad

Pass4sure 9L0-623 dumps | 9L0-623 actual questions |

9L0-623 Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Study lead Prepared by Apple Dumps Experts 9L0-623 Dumps and actual Questions

100% actual Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with elevated Marks - Just Memorize the Answers

9L0-623 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Test Code : 9L0-623
Test denomination : Mac OS X Deployment 10.6
Vendor denomination : Apple
brain dumps : 64 actual Questions

Exactly same questions in actual test, WTF!
Hurrah! I absorb exceeded my 9L0-623 this week. And that i were given flying coloration and for total this im so grateful to killexams. Theyve got give you so appropriate and properly-engineered software program. Their simulations are very similar to the ones in actual tests. Simulations are the primary thing of 9L0-623 examination and certainly worth greater weight age then different questions. After making geared up from their program it turned into very smooth for me to treatment total of the ones simulations. I used them for total 9L0-623 exam and positioned them trustful each time.

the artery to do together for 9L0-623 examination in shortest time?
properly I used to spent maximum of my time surfing the net but it become now not total in useless because it become my surfing that introduced me to this perquisite earlier than my 9L0-623 exam. Coming here become the Great thing that befell to me since it were given me absorb a sight at properly and therefore placed up an excellent performance in my assessments.

those 9L0-623 actual capture a sight at questions travail superb inside the actual test.
This is the nice 9L0-623 useful resource on net. Killexams.Com is one I consider. What they gave to me is greater treasured than money, they gave me training. I changed into analyzing for my 9L0-623 test once I made an account on here and what I got in recrudesce labored merely like magic for me and I was very amazed at how tremendous it felt. My 9L0-623 check appeared like a unmarried exceeded thing to me and I achieved success.

Passing 9L0-623 exam is simply click away!
The killexams.Com is the awesome web page where my goals near real. With the aid of manner of the usage of the brain dumps fabric for the practise certainly introduced the actual spark to the studies and severely ended up by artery of the usage of acquiring the qualityrating within the 9L0-623 exam. Its miles pretty effortless to stand any examination with the assist of your absorb a study material. Thank youplenty for all. hold up the first-rate craft travail guys.

wherein am i able to locate 9L0-623 trendy dumps questions?
I used to exist operating as an administrator and changed into making prepared for the 9L0-623 exam as well. Referring to detailedbooks changed into making my training tough for me. However after I cited, i discovered out that i used to bewithout difficulty memorizing the applicable solutions of the questions. Killexams.Com made me confident and helped me in trying 60 questions in 80 minutes without trouble. I surpassed this exam efficaciously. I pleasant proposekillexams.Com to my friends and co-workers for effortless coaching. Thank you killexams.

What study manual accomplish I need to pass 9L0-623 examination?
It was very encourging experience with team. They told me to try their 9L0-623 exam questions once and forget failing the 9L0-623 exam. First I hesitated to expend the material because I fearful of failing the 9L0-623 exam. But when I told by my friends that they used the exam simulator for thier 9L0-623 certification exam, i bought the preparation pack. It was very cheap. That was the first time that I convinced to expend preparation material when I got 100% marks in my 9L0-623 exam. I really value you team.

Get proper learning and study with the 9L0-623 brain dumps and Dumps!
I passed the 9L0-623 exam thanks to, too. advantageous to understand Im not alone! that is a exotic artery to prepare for IT assessments. i was concerned identification fail, so I ordered this package. The checking out engine runs very smoothly, so I ought to exercise inside the examination surroundings for hours, using actual exam questions and checking my solutions. As a result, I knew pretty tons the entire lot at the exam, which become the property Christmas and current yr present I may want to supply myself!

Is there someone who handed 9L0-623 examination?
I exceeded the 9L0-623 exam today and scored one hundred%! never thought I should accomplish it, however grew to become out to exist a gem in examination training. I had a terrific emotion approximately it because it appeared to cover total topics, and there absorb been masses of questions provided. yet, I didnt assume to survey total of the same questions in the actual exam. Very best marvel, and i quite intimate using Killexams.

Just tried 9L0-623 question bank once and I am convinced.
I passed, and very delighted to report that adhere to the claims they make. They provide actual exam questions and the testing engine works perfectly. The bundle contains everything they promise, and their customer service works well (I had to congregate in finger with them since first my online payment would not Go through, but it turned out to exist my fault). Anyways, this is a very advantageous product, much better than I had expected. I passed 9L0-623 exam with nearly top score, something I never thought I was capable of. Thank you.

take delivery of as proper with it or no longer, simply try 9L0-623 sight at questions as soon as!
Being an underneath medium scholar, I were given terrified of the 9L0-623 exam as subjects seemed very tough to me. butpassing the capture a sight at was a need as I had to change the job badly. searched for an immaculate manual and got one with the dumps. It helped me retort total a couple of kind questions in 200 mins and bypass effectively. What an exquisitequery & solutions, judgement dumps! satisfied to congregate hold of two gives from well-known organizations with handsome bundle. I advise most efficacious

Apple Apple Mac OS X

Apple Brings Mac Mini back From the useless | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Apple’s petite computing device computer is not any longer only a punchline. today the commerce took the wraps off a revamped Mac Mini, changing its underpowered constituents with new, eighth technology Intel quad- and 6-core processors alternate options, up to 64GB of memory, as much as a 2TB SSD, a T2 protection chip, 10GB ethernet, and 4 Thunderbolt three ports. With the enhancements, Apple is bumping its longstanding $500 starting charge up to $800—but you received’t find face-melting specs with out paying much more.

sure, you’ll nevertheless need to carry your own monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And yes that you would exist able to, uh, congregate it in house grey now. At $800, the bottom model will near with 8GB of memory, a 3.6GHz quad-core i3 processor, and 128GB of SSD storage.

The Mini was firstly designed to win over current 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, completely no one in their perquisite judgement had any company recommending to a loved one. with the aid of the conclusion of its run, the newest incarnation seemed designed to thrust buyers in this funds faraway from Apple, towards better offers from corporations like Dell and HP.

Apple is billing the current Mini as “5 instances quicker” ordinary with “60 p.c faster pictures.” It’ll exist purchasable on November 7.

Apple announces free OS X Mavericks unlock, current iPads, Mac seasoned | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

At Apple’s “plenty to cowl” special adventure these days, the company paraded out an hour and a half’s value of current products and updates, together with the release of OS X Mavericks, the brand current iPad Air and iPad Mini, Mac pro, updated 13 and 15-inch MacBooks, and an up to date suite of iLife apps.

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

available with a single-step upgrade from Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion or any MacBook dating returned to 2007, Mavericks has a slew of current aspects. Its current compressed recollection feature allocates pictures recollection in response to usage to optimize performance. The ability enables 6GB of data to suitable into 4GB of tackle RAM.

(Beta remarks and an entire listing of aspects: users poke around OS X ‘Mavericks’)

Mavericks’ OpenCL uses reminiscence sharing to circulation initiatives operating on the CPU to the GPU, taking competencies of the GPU’s greater computing vigour to finished projects 1.8x faster, and 2x sooner for photograph projects.

a current finder window enables initiatives and files to exist labeled with multiple tags for handy search and firm. click on the title bar of any document so as to add one or extra tags, or choose a tag from a list.

In Safari, Mavericks introduces improved notifications, permitting users to reply within the pop-up bubble devoid of leaving an utility. It moreover provides site notifications when current content material is posted. the current Safari precise websites view generates a feed of shared hyperlinks from adopted clients on sociable networks comparable to LinkedIn and Twitter.

There’s additionally a brand current reader view, enabling consumer-accelerated scrolling directly from one article to the next with out clicking out.

the artery to Revisit each edition of Mac OS X from your Browser | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

The Aqua GUI in Apple’s working systems has gone through a wonderful evolution in view that March of 2000, when it discovered its approach into OS X 10.0, and you could exist stunned at simply how discrete every petite thing appears now. because of the newly launched Aqua Screenshot Library, you can revisit every edition of OS X (and macOS) throughout the years and examine the gradual evolution of Apple’s working system—all out of your browser.

The huge gallery is the latest travail via 512 Pixels, an internet library that attempts to hold tabs on total things Apple (including the Mac’s many wallpapers). The Aqua Screenshot Library, as creator Stephen Hackett notes, gives a comprehensive loom on the heritage of Apple’s operating techniques, which covers its soar to from bulkier CRTs to compact, LED-backlit displays; Apple’s quite a few font adjustments over the years; and Apple’s circulate from disc-based mostly operating systems to (free) digital downloads.

Let’s capture a sight at some of those major Mac milestones.

Mac OS X 10.0 (“Cheetah”)

March 24, 2001, marked the first amenable unencumber of the Mac OS X operating gadget, following a public beta the 12 months before. Hackett notes that its 128MB reminiscence requirement was “more than most Mac users had in their techniques on the time.” This result in many complaints about the OS’s gradual performance and excessive aid demand. The Cheetah interface retained the pin-striped menu and window design from the beta, but it surely began the feline-primarily based naming mode which would final up to edition 10.8, “Mountain Lion.”

Mac OS X Leopard (10.5)

The ultimate months of 2007 introduced some huge adjustments to OS X. The free up of Leopard noticed Aqua tackle a a lot extra streamlined look, with total home windows now defaulting to a single, fundamental gray design, as smartly as the debut of a redesigned Finder device. in further of this, distinctive apps—and distinctive models of OS X—had assorted UI designs (for improved or worse). With Leopard’s free up, OS X total started to appear extra uniform. most importantly, it was the primary edition to comprise those rad, house-based mostly backgrounds.

OS X Mountain Lion (10.8)

Mountain Lion changed into the first edition of OS X to arrive after Steve Jobs’ demise, and it concentrated on aligning Mac computer systems with the late CEO’s different primary contribution to the tech industry: the iPhone. The 2011 OS X replace, Mac OS X Lion (10.7), kicked off Apple’s merging of iOS aesthetics into OS X, and the commerce doubled down with Mountain Lion. tackle and functions had been renamed after iOS points, and Apple introduced some diminutive visual and input alterations to bridge the two working programs even nearer together—in trend, at least.

OS X Mavericks (10.9)

Mavericks become an vast commerce pivot for Apple, because it was the primary edition of the OS the commerce released for gratis, provided to users as an improve via the App hold in October 2013. Apple hasn’t long past lower back to paid operating systems due to the fact—luckily. Mavericks changed into moreover the primary version of OS X to expend non-tom cat nomenclature. It additionally ditched the galactic background theme for California landscapes, which they can total conform was a massive blunder. appropriate?

macOS Sierra (10.12)

edition 10.12 of Apple’s working tackle for the Mac is most is Great for its vast rebranding. Apple dropped the “OS X” denomination wholly during this unlock, instead calling its operating system “macOS” to align it the business’s operating techniques on other structures: iOS, watchOS, and tvOS. 

shopping the Aqua Screenshot Library is a enjoyable artery to survey just how some distance macOS has come, primarily to survey how Apple’s design priorities alternate between the primary releases. however, the Aqua Screenshot gallery is just one of 512 Pixels’ many projects to check out. exist confident to poke across the other Apple-themed collections Hackett has assembled through the years, too, together with the spectacular 512 Pixels YouTube channel.

9L0-623 Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Study lead Prepared by Apple Dumps Experts 9L0-623 Dumps and actual Questions

100% actual Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with elevated Marks - Just Memorize the Answers

9L0-623 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Test Code : 9L0-623
Test denomination : Mac OS X Deployment 10.6
Vendor denomination : Apple
brain dumps : 64 actual Questions

Exactly same questions in actual test, WTF!
Hurrah! I absorb exceeded my 9L0-623 this week. And that i were given flying coloration and for total this im so grateful to killexams. Theyve got give you so appropriate and properly-engineered software program. Their simulations are very similar to the ones in actual tests. Simulations are the primary thing of 9L0-623 examination and certainly worth greater weight age then different questions. After making geared up from their program it turned into very smooth for me to treatment total of the ones simulations. I used them for total 9L0-623 exam and positioned them trustful each time.

the artery to do together for 9L0-623 examination in shortest time?
properly I used to spent maximum of my time surfing the net but it become now not total in useless because it become my surfing that introduced me to this perquisite earlier than my 9L0-623 exam. Coming here become the Great thing that befell to me since it were given me absorb a sight at properly and therefore placed up an excellent performance in my assessments.

those 9L0-623 actual capture a sight at questions travail superb inside the actual test.
This is the nice 9L0-623 useful resource on net. Killexams.Com is one I consider. What they gave to me is greater treasured than money, they gave me training. I changed into analyzing for my 9L0-623 test once I made an account on here and what I got in recrudesce labored merely like magic for me and I was very amazed at how tremendous it felt. My 9L0-623 check appeared like a unmarried exceeded thing to me and I achieved success.

Passing 9L0-623 exam is simply click away!
The killexams.Com is the awesome web page where my goals near real. With the aid of manner of the usage of the brain dumps fabric for the practise certainly introduced the actual spark to the studies and severely ended up by artery of the usage of acquiring the qualityrating within the 9L0-623 exam. Its miles pretty effortless to stand any examination with the assist of your absorb a study material. Thank youplenty for all. hold up the first-rate craft travail guys.

wherein am i able to locate 9L0-623 trendy dumps questions?
I used to exist operating as an administrator and changed into making prepared for the 9L0-623 exam as well. Referring to detailedbooks changed into making my training tough for me. However after I cited, i discovered out that i used to bewithout difficulty memorizing the applicable solutions of the questions. Killexams.Com made me confident and helped me in trying 60 questions in 80 minutes without trouble. I surpassed this exam efficaciously. I pleasant proposekillexams.Com to my friends and co-workers for effortless coaching. Thank you killexams.

What study manual accomplish I need to pass 9L0-623 examination?
It was very encourging experience with team. They told me to try their 9L0-623 exam questions once and forget failing the 9L0-623 exam. First I hesitated to expend the material because I fearful of failing the 9L0-623 exam. But when I told by my friends that they used the exam simulator for thier 9L0-623 certification exam, i bought the preparation pack. It was very cheap. That was the first time that I convinced to expend preparation material when I got 100% marks in my 9L0-623 exam. I really value you team.

Get proper learning and study with the 9L0-623 brain dumps and Dumps!
I passed the 9L0-623 exam thanks to, too. advantageous to understand Im not alone! that is a exotic artery to prepare for IT assessments. i was concerned identification fail, so I ordered this package. The checking out engine runs very smoothly, so I ought to exercise inside the examination surroundings for hours, using actual exam questions and checking my solutions. As a result, I knew pretty tons the entire lot at the exam, which become the property Christmas and current yr present I may want to supply myself!

Is there someone who handed 9L0-623 examination?
I exceeded the 9L0-623 exam today and scored one hundred%! never thought I should accomplish it, however grew to become out to exist a gem in examination training. I had a terrific emotion approximately it because it appeared to cover total topics, and there absorb been masses of questions provided. yet, I didnt assume to survey total of the same questions in the actual exam. Very best marvel, and i quite intimate using Killexams.

Just tried 9L0-623 question bank once and I am convinced.
I passed, and very delighted to report that adhere to the claims they make. They provide actual exam questions and the testing engine works perfectly. The bundle contains everything they promise, and their customer service works well (I had to congregate in finger with them since first my online payment would not Go through, but it turned out to exist my fault). Anyways, this is a very advantageous product, much better than I had expected. I passed 9L0-623 exam with nearly top score, something I never thought I was capable of. Thank you.

take delivery of as proper with it or no longer, simply try 9L0-623 sight at questions as soon as!
Being an underneath medium scholar, I were given terrified of the 9L0-623 exam as subjects seemed very tough to me. butpassing the capture a sight at was a need as I had to change the job badly. searched for an immaculate manual and got one with the dumps. It helped me retort total a couple of kind questions in 200 mins and bypass effectively. What an exquisitequery & solutions, judgement dumps! satisfied to congregate hold of two gives from well-known organizations with handsome bundle. I advise most efficacious

Obviously it is arduous assignment to pick solid certification questions/answers assets concerning review, reputation and validity since individuals congregate sham because of picking incorrectly benefit. ensure to serve its customers best to its assets concerning exam dumps update and validity. The vast majority of other's sham report objection customers near to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams cheerfully and effectively. They never trade off on their review, reputation and property because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams customer conviction is vital to us. Uniquely they deal with review, reputation, sham report grievance, trust, validity, report and scam. In the event that you survey any erroneous report posted by their rivals with the denomination killexams sham report grievance web, sham report, scam, dissension or something like this, simply bethink there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of advantageous administrations because of their advantages. There are a Great many fulfilled clients that pass their exams utilizing brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams hone questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit, their specimen questions and test brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will realize that is the best brain dumps site.

Vk Profile
Vk Details
Killexams Reddit
Google Album
Google About me

C2080-474 drill exam | 4A0-101 test prep | 3100-1 exam questions | CPHQ braindumps | 1Z0-860 actual questions | ES0-007 drill test | ST0-155 mock exam | NS0-502 questions and answers | 000-732 exam prep | C2140-823 questions and answers | ICDL-EXCEL sample test | 10-184 bootcamp | VCS-412 dump | 000-134 brain dumps | 920-807 examcollection | HP0-S23 braindumps | 500-254 test prep | A2010-590 exam prep | HP2-N35 drill questions | 70-548-Csharp study guide |

9L0-623 exam questions | 9L0-623 free pdf | 9L0-623 pdf download | 9L0-623 test questions | 9L0-623 real questions | 9L0-623 practice questions

Here is the bests status to congregate back pass 9L0-623 exam?
In the event that you are intrigued by proficiently Passing the Apple 9L0-623 exam to launch gaining, has principle feature developed Mac OS X Deployment 10.6 exam questions with a judgement to ensure you pass this 9L0-623 exam! offers you the greatest precise, synchronous and current cutting-edge 9L0-623 exam questions and to exist had with a 100% unconditional promise.

At, they give absolutely surveyed Apple 9L0-623 exam prep which will exist the best to pass 9L0-623 exam, and to congregate certified with the back of 9L0-623 braindumps. It is a Great selection to quicken up your position as an expert in the Information Technology enterprise. They are thrilled with their notoriety of helping individuals pass the 9L0-623 exam of their first attempt. Their prosperity costs in the preceding years were completely incredible, due to their upbeat clients who presently equipped to impel their positions inside the speedy manner. is the primary decision amongst IT professionals, especially the ones who are hoping to meander up the progression tiers quicker in their character associations. Apple is the commercial enterprise pioneer in facts innovation, and getting certified via them is an ensured technique to exist successful with IT positions. They allow you to accomplish exactly that with their excellent Apple 9L0-623 exam prep dumps.

Apple 9L0-623 is rare total over the globe, and the commercial enterprise and programming arrangements gave through them are being grasped by means of each one of the agencies. They absorb helped in using a huge attain of corporations at the beyond any doubt shot manner of achievement. Far achieving studying of Apple objects are regarded as a faultfinding functionality, and the experts certified by using them are especially esteemed in total associations.

We deliver genuine 9L0-623 pdf exam questions and answers braindumps in arrangements. Download PDF and drill Tests. Pass Apple 9L0-623 Exam swiftly and effectively. The 9L0-623 braindumps PDF kind is obtainable for perusing and printing. You can print more and more and drill mainly. Their pass rate is excessive to 98% and the comparability fee among their 9L0-623 syllabus prep lead and redress exam is 90% in mild of their seven-year coaching history. accomplish you want successs within the 9L0-623 exam in handiest one strive? I am confident now after analyzing for the Apple 9L0-623 actual exam. Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total exams on internet site
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders extra than $ninety nine
OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders

As the simplest factor that is in any manner vital perquisite here is passing the 9L0-623 - Mac OS X Deployment 10.6 exam. As total which you require is a elevated score of Apple 9L0-623 exam. The just a unmarried aspect you need to accomplish is downloading braindumps of 9L0-623 exam hold in judgement directs now. They will not let you down with their unconditional guarantee. The professionals likewise hold pace with the maximum up and coming exam with the objective to give the more a section of updated materials. One yr loose congregate perquisite of entry to absorb the capability to them via the date of purchase. Each applicant may additionally stand the cost of the 9L0-623 exam dumps through at a low cost. Frequently there may exist a markdown for every body all.

If you're seeking out 9L0-623 drill Test containing actual Test Questions, you are at proper place. They absorb compiled database of questions from Actual Exams in order to back you prepare and pass your exam on the first try. total training materials at the site are Up To Date and tested via their specialists. provide cutting-edge and up to date drill Test with Actual Exam Questions and Answers for brand current syllabus of Apple 9L0-623 Exam. drill their actual Questions and Answers to improve your understanding and pass your exam with elevated Marks. They manufacture confident your achievement in the Test Center, protecting total of the subjects of exam and build your learning of the 9L0-623 exam. Pass four confident with their accurate questions.

100% Pass Guarantee

Our 9L0-623 Exam PDF includes Complete Pool of Questions and Answers and Brain dumps checked and established inclusive of references and references (wherein applicable). Their goal to collect the Questions and Answers isn't always best to pass the exam at the start strive however Really improve Your learning about the 9L0-623 exam subjects.

9L0-623 exam Questions and Answers are Printable in elevated property Study lead that you could download in your Computer or some other instrument and launch making ready your 9L0-623 exam. Print Complete 9L0-623 Study Guide, carry with you while you are at Vacations or Traveling and devour your Exam Prep. You can congregate perquisite of entry to up to date 9L0-623 Exam brain dumps out of your online account every time.

nside seeing the bona fide exam material of the brain dumps at you could without numerous an enlarge broaden your declare to fame. For the IT specialists, it's miles fundamental to modify their capacities as showed by artery of their travail need. They manufacture it primary for their customers to hold certification exam with the assist of confirmed and wholehearted to goodness exam material. For an splendid destiny in its domain, their brain dumps are the excellent choice. A nice dumps creating is a primary section that makes it straightforward for you to capture Apple certifications. In any case, 9L0-623 braindumps PDF offers settlement for applicants. The IT announcement is a primary troublesome attempt if one doesnt locate proper course as obvious aid material. Thus, they absorb redress and updated material for the arranging of certification exam. It is essential to acquire to the lead cloth in case one desires towards hold time. As you require packs of time to sight for revived and redress exam material for taking the IT certification exam. If you locate that at one location, what can exist higher than this? Its simply that has what you require. You can store time and hold a strategic distance from hassle in case you purchase Adobe IT certification from their website online. Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total tests on internet site
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders extra than $ninety nine
OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders

Download your Mac OS X Deployment 10.6 Study lead straight away after shopping for and Start Preparing Your Exam Prep perquisite Now!

9L0-623 Practice Test | 9L0-623 examcollection | 9L0-623 VCE | 9L0-623 study guide | 9L0-623 practice exam | 9L0-623 cram

Killexams NS0-202 bootcamp | Killexams C2090-619 exam questions | Killexams 9A0-382 free pdf download | Killexams 000-198 cram | Killexams 000-N05 mock exam | Killexams C4040-227 examcollection | Killexams HP2-E27 actual questions | Killexams LOT-958 exam prep | Killexams C2070-981 free pdf | Killexams C9530-410 braindumps | Killexams ST0-149 dumps | Killexams MB3-210 drill test | Killexams C2150-624 test prep | Killexams 00M-620 braindumps | Killexams 000-253 drill questions | Killexams MD0-251 test prep | Killexams 648-232 braindumps | Killexams HP0-785 dumps questions | Killexams 190-622 exam prep | Killexams 1Z0-501 questions answers |

Exam Simulator : Pass4sure 9L0-623 VCE Exam Simulator

View Complete list of Brain dumps

Killexams 70-773 free pdf | Killexams 648-232 drill test | Killexams C2090-304 free pdf | Killexams TB0-123 test prep | Killexams 70-411 exam prep | Killexams OAT braindumps | Killexams 1Z0-861 drill test | Killexams 74-343 sample test | Killexams 70-764 test prep | Killexams 000-820 pdf download | Killexams EE0-501 actual questions | Killexams 920-177 braindumps | Killexams 000-M226 study guide | Killexams MB6-895 braindumps | Killexams ST0-086 actual questions | Killexams C4040-120 exam questions | Killexams 1D0-525 exam prep | Killexams 400-051 VCE | Killexams GB0-360 drill questions | Killexams C4040-251 bootcamp |

Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Pass 4 confident 9L0-623 dumps | 9L0-623 actual questions |

Siri Deployed on Mac OS X via Air impose | actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

Developer Avatron Software has released a two-piece utility that allows anyone who uses an iPhone and a Mac to deploy Siri Dictation on Mac OS X. The only entangle is that you really need the current iPhone 4S model which features the Siri assistant.

The capitalize here is to congregate Siri Dictation working on your Mac: “Like Siri on your iPhone 4S? You'll like it even more on your Mac,” says Avatron. “With Air Dictate, you can enter text on your computer by talking into your iPhone 4S. It's that simple.”

So, for instance, if you want to impose text into Mail, Pages, Microsoft Word, and even Apple’s own TextEdit app, total you need is the Air impose app on your iPhone 4S and the Air impose Receiver app on your Mac. From there on, just pair the two and start talking.

The instructions provided by Avatron Software are reproduced below:

On Mac:

- Launch any app that allows text input. For example: TextEdit, Mail, Pages, Microsoft Word.

On iPhone 4S:

- Launch the Air impose app.

- choose your Mac from a list of nearby computers.

- Press the microphone button, converse for a while, and press the button again to stop.

According to the developer, speech will congregate converted into text and loom automatically in the text territory on your Mac, just as if you had typed it using your keyboard.

To avoid any confusion (that may mount on the section of drooling iDevice owners hoping this is some kind of hack that puts Siri on their older iPhones), Air impose runs only on an iPhone 4S, and requires iOS 5.0. The app costs $0.99 (0.79 EUR).

Air impose Receiver requires a Mac running at least Mac OS X 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard) and is free to download.

Air impose is only the most recent application in Avatron Software’s portfolio, which includes such titles as Air Display, Air Sharing, and Print Sharing.

Visit the company here to check out total their offerings, or visit the links below to congregate your dictation on perquisite now.

Download Air impose for iPhone 4S

Download Air impose for Mac OS X (Free)

Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard: the Ars Technica review | actual 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+  current featuresMac OS X 10.4 Tiger: 150+ current 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 drive reflected this, touting "over 150 current features."

    All those current 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 meander 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  current features in Mac OS X 10.5 LeopardSteve Jobs at WWDC 2007, touting 300 current features in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

    Apple even went so far as to list total 300 current features on its website. As it turns out, "spring" was a bit optimistic. Leopard actually shipped at the finish of October 2007, nearly two and a half years after Tiger. Did Leopard really absorb twice as many current features as Tiger? That's debatable. What's inevitable is that Leopard included a solid crop of current features and technologies, many of which they now capture for granted. (For example, absorb 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 current features? A thousand?

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

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

    That's right, the next major release of Mac OS X would absorb no current 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 current features and APIs in 10.4 and 10.5, could Apple really congregate 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? instinctive applause. There were even a few hoots and whistles.

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

    It probably helps to know that the "0 current Features" slip came at the finish of an hour-long presentation detailing the major current APIs and technologies in Snow Leopard. It was moreover quickly followed by a back-pedaling ("well, there is one current feature...") slip describing the addition of Microsoft Exchange support. In isolation, "no current 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 like this: "We're adding a ton of current things to Mac OS X that will back you write better applications and manufacture your existing code race faster, and we're going to manufacture confident that total this current stuff is rock-solid and as bug-free as possible. We're not going to overextend ourselves adding a raft of current customer-facing, marketing-friendly features. Instead, we're going to concentrate 100% on the things that influence you, the developers."

    But if Snow Leopard is a treasure note to developers, is it a Dear John note 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 hold up with Apple's seemingly never-ending stream of current APIs, it can exist just as taxing for customers to linger on top of Mac OS X's features. Exposé, a current Finder, Spotlight, a current Dock, Time Machine, a current Finder again, a current iLife and iWork almost every year, and on and on. And as much as developers scorn bugs in Apple's APIs, users who experience those bugs as application crashes absorb just as much judgement to exist annoyed.

    Enter Snow Leopard: the release where they total congregate a atomize 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 current APIs and technologies?" When speaking to developers, Apple's message of "no current features" is another artery of saw "no current bugs." Snow Leopard is supposititious to fix veteran bugs without introducing current ones. But nothing says "new bugs, coming perquisite up" quite like major current APIs. So which is it?

    Similarly, for users, "no current 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 manufacture advantageous on this promise? Or will users finish up with total the disadvantages of a feature-packed release like Tiger or Leopard—the inevitable 10.x.0 bugs, the unfamiliar, untried current functionality—but without any of the actual current features?

    Yes, it's enough to manufacture one quite cynical about Apple's actual motivations. To fling some more fuel on the fire, absorb a sight 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 current features. (The releases are distributed uniformly on the Y axis.) Maybe you mediate it's reasonable for the time between releases to stretch out as each one brings a heavier load of goodies than the last, but hold in judgement the analytic consequence of such a curve over the longhorn haul.

    And yeah, there's a petite upwards kick at the finish for 10.6, but remember, this is supposititious to exist the "no current 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 arduous not to sensation 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 commerce has exploded onto Apple's equilibrium sheets like no other product before, even the iPod. It's moreover 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 absorb been reassigned to iPhone OS (temporarily or otherwise). After all, Mac OS X and iPhone OS share 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 erudite were developed for the iPhone and just happened to exist announced for the Mac first (because the iPhone was soundless a secret), like Core Animation and code signing. Such plot 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 total that? A nearly two-year evolution cycle, but no current features. Major current frameworks for developers, but few current bugs. Significant changes to the core OS, but more reliability. And a franchise rejuvenation with few user-visible changes.

    It's enough to turn a leopard white.

    The charge 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 last four major releases absorb total been $129, with no special pricing for upgrades. After eight years of this kind of fiscal disciplining, Leopard users may well exist tempted to desist reading perquisite now and just Go pick up a copy. Snow Leopard's upgrade charge is well under the impulse purchase threshold for many people. Twenty-nine dollars plus some minimal flush of faith in Apple's ability to improve the OS with each release, and boom, instant purchase.

    Still here? Good, because there's something else you need 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 race on Macs with Intel CPUs. Sorry (again), PowerPC fans, but this is the finish of the line for you. The transition to Intel was announced over four years ago, and the last current 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 current features" stance (and the accompanying need of added visual flair) is working against it. For those running Leopard on a PowerPC-based Mac, there's precious petite in Snow Leopard to back thrust them over the (likely) four-digit charge wall of a current Mac. For PowerPC Mac owners, the threshold for a current Mac purchase remains mostly unchanged. When their veteran Mac breaks or seems too slow, they'll Go out and buy a current one, and it'll near with Snow Leopard pre-installed.

    If Snow Leopard does finish up motivating current 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 advocate on the Mac platform.

    The final gripping 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 petite 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 moreover apparently not eligible to purchase Snow Leopard for the traditional $129 price. Here's what Apple has to screech 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 lone user license will exist available for a suggested retail charge of $29 (US) and the Snow Leopard Family Pack, a lone household, five-user license, will exist available for a suggested charge 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 charge of $169 (US) and a Family Pack is available for a suggested charge of $229 (US).

    Ignoring the family packs for a moment, this means that Snow Leopard will either exist free with your current Mac, $29 if you're already running Leopard, or $169 if you absorb an Intel Mac running Tiger. People upgrading from Tiger will congregate the latest version of iLife and iWork in the shrink (if that's the appropriate term), whether they want them or not. It confident seems like there's an obvious status in this lineup for a $129 offering of Snow Leopard on its own. Then again, perhaps it total 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 upshot on your ability to race the OS. This is considered a genuine edge of Mac OS X, but it moreover means that Apple has no amenable 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 sort of thing before, and it bypasses any proof-of-purchase annoyances. It would, however, interlard a current problem. In the event of a arduous 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 absorb 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 arduous 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 correct deceitful people by treating everyone like a criminal. This "honor system" upgrade enforcement policy partially explains the vast jump to $169 for the Mac Box Set, which ends up re-framed as an honest person's artery to congregate iLife and iWork at their customary prices, plus Snow Leopard for $11 more.

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


    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 quicken of the optical drive, and so on. Installation moreover only happens once, and it's not really an gripping process unless something goes terribly wrong. Still, if Apple's going to manufacture such a claim, it's worth checking out.

    To liquidate as many variables as possible, I installed both Leopard and Snow Leopard from one arduous disk onto another (empty) one. It should exist noted that this change negates some of Snow Leopard's most primary 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 survey 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 diminutive (5:49 vs. 3:20) and again, current 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 congregate that Snow Leopard means commerce 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 race on Intel Macs. Okay Apple, they congregate 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 petite harsh, even foolhardy. What's going to occur when total 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 expend 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 expend 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; survey 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 upshot of making your arduous disk suddenly loom larger after installing Snow Leopard. For example, my "1 TB" arduous 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 absorb guessed, arduous disk manufacturers expend the powers-of-ten system. It's total quite a mess, really. Though I near down pretty firmly on the powers-of-two side of the fence, I can't fault Apple too much for wanting to match up nicely with the long-established (but soundless dumb, judgement you) arduous disk vendors' capacity measurement standard.

    Snow Leopard has several weight loss secrets. The first is obvious: no PowerPC advocate means no PowerPC code in executables. Recall the maximum workable 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 total the files in the operating system are executables. There are data files, images, audio files, even a petite video. But most of those non-executable files absorb 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/ % 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/ Applications/ empty

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

    So, where's the data? The petite "@" at the finish 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 absorb some extended attributes:

    % xattr -l Applications/ 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 .... 0000 66 70 6D 63 04 00 00 00 A0 82 72 00 00 00 00 00 fpmc......r.....

    Ah, there's total 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 arduous links. In Tiger, extended attributes and access control lists were incorporated. In Leopard, HFS+ gained advocate for arduous links to directories. In Snow Leopard, HFS+ learns another current trick: per-file compression.

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

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

    % hfsdebug /Applications/ ... compression magic = cmpf compression sort = 4 (resource fork has compressed data) uncompressed size = 7500336 bytes

    And confident enough, as they saw, the resource fork does indeed contain the compressed data. Still, why the resource fork? It's total section of Apple's usual, clever backward-compatibility gymnastics. A recent specimen is the artery that arduous links to directories point to 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 manufacture 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, corrupt 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 artery 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 lamentable or duplicating files. In Leopard, even the lowly cp and rsync commands will accomplish the same. So while it may exist a petite bit spooky to survey total 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 meander or copy one of the files.

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

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

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

    % hfsdebug /Volumes/Snow Time/Applications/ ... compression magic = cmpf compression sort = 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 gauge PkgInfo file like this one, those contents are the four-byte classic Mac OS sort and creator codes.

    % xattr -l Applications/ 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 total the earlier examples of the attribute, but at the finish of the value, the expected data appears as simple as day: sort 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 total about data compression, how does storing eight uncompressed bytes plus a 17-byte preamble in an extended impute save any disk space? The retort 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 obstruct size (4 KB, by default). So those eight bytes will capture up a minimum of 4,096 bytes if stored in the traditional way. When allocating disk space for extended attributes, however, the allocation obstruct 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 impute is over 4,000 bytes.

    But compression isn't just about saving disk space. It's moreover a classic specimen 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 arduous 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 travail mightily to cover these delays. But those bits absorb to near off the disk at some point to fill those caches. Compression means that fewer bits absorb to exist transferred. Given the almost comical glut of CPU resources on a modern multi-core Mac under customary use, the total time needed to transfer a compressed payload from the disk and expend the CPU to decompress its contents into recollection will soundless usually exist far less than the time it'd capture to transfer the data in uncompressed form.

    That explains the potential performance benefits of transferring less data, but the expend of extended attributes to store file contents can actually manufacture things faster, as well. It total has to accomplish with data locality.

    If there's one thing that slows down a arduous disk more than transferring a great amount of data, it's lamentable its heads from one section of the disk to another. Every meander 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 do the desired bits beneath it. These are total real, physical, lamentable parts, and it's exotic that they accomplish their dance as quickly and efficiently as they do, but physics has its limits. These motions are the actual performance killers for rotational storage like arduous disks.

    The HFS+ volume format stores total 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 moreover means that the disk head doesn't need to capture a trip to another section of the disk to congregate the actual data.

    As you can imagine, the disk blocks that manufacture up the Catalog and Attributes files are frequently accessed, and therefore more likely than most to exist in a cache somewhere. total of this conspires to manufacture 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 obstruct size for customary data storage, and as long as it total 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 gripping promises about the installation process:

    Snow Leopard checks your applications to manufacture confident 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 screech "illicit"—third-party system extensions. I absorb a decidedly pragmatic view of such software, and I'm joyful to survey Apple taking a similarly practical approach to minimizing its impact on users.

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

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

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

    Snow Leopard's current looks

    I've long yearned for Apple to manufacture a immaculate 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 argue otherwise. The veracity is, Snow Leopard actually changes the appearance of nearly every pixel on your screen—but not in the artery 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 rest of the world—has used a value of 2.2. Though this may not appear significant to anyone but professional graphics artists, the dissimilarity is usually clear-cut 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 dissimilarity is more pains than it's worth. The default output gamma correction value in Snow Leopard is now 2.2, just like everyone else. Done and done.

    If they notice at all, users will likely experience this change as a emotion that the Snow Leopard user interface has a bit more contrast than Leopard's. This is reinforced by the current 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, redress to form, Apple could not resist adding a few graphical tweaks to the Snow Leopard interface. The most clear-cut changes are related to the Dock. First, there's the current "spotlight" sight 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 total pop-up menus on the Dock—and only on the Dock—have a unique sight 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 inevitable age, these menus may bring to judgement 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 moreover admirably restrained.

    Nevertheless, this is an entirely current sight for a lone (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 screech about that, and more. If the oath of Snow Leopard's appearance was to "first, accomplish no harm," then I mediate 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 section 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 petite to treasure in Snow Leopard's visual changes.

    The one that really drove me over the edge is the fussy petite dance of the filename zone 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 diminutive zone that makes me want to scream. And whether or not I'm actually waiting for these animations to finish before I can continue to expend my computer, it certainly feels that artery sometimes.

    Still, I must unenthusiastically foretell that most customary 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.


    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 current features" to consumers, there's the issue of how to congregate people to notice that this current 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 total 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 sever and dried: outer space, stars, moneyed 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 sight 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 wall 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 absorb been coalesced.)

    One of these things is not like the others…One of these things is not like 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 absorb one vast thing going for it: it's immediately recognizable as something current 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 petite 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 current product.

    (If you'd like your own picture of Snowy the snow leopard (that's right, I've named him), Apple was kind 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 total 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 current 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 advocate for the then-new PowerPC G5 64-bit CPU. In 2005, Tiger brought with it the ability to create redress 64-bit processes—as long as they didn't link with any of the GUI libraries. Finally, Leopard in 2007 included advocate for 64-bit GUI applications. But again, there was a caveat: 64-bit advocate extended to Cocoa applications only. It was, effectively, the finish 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 attain 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, total that yellow in the Snow Leopard diagram represents its capability, not necessarily its default mode of operation.


    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 primary 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 total 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 total 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 total 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 total K64-capable Macs, boot while holding down "6" and "4" keys simultaneously to select the 64-bit kernel. For a more permanent solution, expend the nvram command to add arch=x86_64 to your boot-args string, or edit the file /Library/Preferences/SystemConfiguration/ 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 expend 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 expend the 64-bit kernel?

    The first judgement has to accomplish with RAM, and not in the artery you might think. Though Leopard uses a 32-bit kernel, Macs running Leopard can contain and expend 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 like a problem; after all, should the kernel really need more than 4GB of recollection to accomplish its job? But bethink that section 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 like a lot. But now deem a Mac in the not-too-distant future containing 96GB of RAM. (If this sounds ridiculous to you, mediate of how ridiculous the 8GB of RAM in the Mac I'm typing on perquisite now would absorb 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 recollection 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 need it today on the desktop, it's already common for servers to absorb 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 opening to leave behind some of the ugliness of the past and comprise more modern features: more registers, current addressing modes, non-stack-based floating point capabilities, etc. K64 reaps these benefits. Apple makes the following claims about its performance:

  • 250% faster system convene entry point
  • 70% faster user/kernel recollection copy
  • Focused benchmarking would stand these out, I'm sure. But in daily use, you're unlikely to exist able to impute any particular performance boost to the kernel. mediate of K64 as removing bottlenecks from the few (usually server-based) applications that actually accomplish 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 absorb 96GB of RAM installed, you would not risk starving the kernel of address space, and if you don't absorb any 32-bit drivers that you absolutely need to use, then by total means, boot into the 64-bit kernel.

    For everyone else, my counsel is to exist joyful that K64 will exist ready and waiting for you when you eventually accomplish need it—and gladden accomplish embolden total the vendors that manufacture kernel extensions that you supervision about to add K64 advocate as soon as possible.

    Finally, this is worth repeating: gladden hold in judgement that you accomplish not need to race the 64-bit kernel in order to race 64-bit applications or install more than 4GB of RAM in your Mac. Applications race 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 workable to install and capture edge of much more than 4GB of RAM.

    64-bit applications

    While Leopard may absorb brought with it advocate 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 workable for third-party developers to bear 64-bit (albeit Leopard-only) GUI applications, very few have—sometimes due to ill-fated realities, but most often because there's been no advantageous judgement to accomplish 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, back Viewer, Installer, Terminal, Calculator—you denomination it, it's 64-bit.

    The second vast carrot (or stick, depending on how you sight at it) is the continued need of 32-bit advocate for current APIs and technologies. Leopard started the trend, leaving deprecated APIs behind and only porting the current ones to 64-bit. The improved Objective-C 2.0 runtime introduced in Leopard was moreover 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 current 64-bit-only API is QuickTime X—significant enough to exist addressed separately, so linger tuned.

    64-bits or bust

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

    Despite total of the above, I'd soundless convene 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 total 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 like such a vast 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 turn to Go 64-bit.

    As it turns out, my terse but pessimistic assessment of the situation at the time was accurate: QuickTime got the "Carbon treatment". like Carbon, the venerable QuickTime API that they know and treasure 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 profile 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, like the one in in Mac OS X, is pronounced "ten." This is but the first of many eerie parallels. like Mac OS X before it, QuickTime X:

  • aims to manufacture a immaculate atomize 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 primary features in its initial release
  • Maximum available Mac CPU  quicken (MHz)Maximum available Mac CPU quicken (MHz)

    Let's capture these one at a time. First, why is a immaculate atomize needed? do 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 congregate you so far. The shape of the world a technology is born into eventually, inevitably dictates its fate. This is especially redress for long-lived APIs like QuickTime with a stout bent towards backward compatibility.

    As the first successful implementation of video on a personal computer, it's frankly exotic 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 advantageous advocate for the GPU-accelerated video playback necessary to ply modern video codecs on a handheld (even with a CPU sixteen times the clock quicken 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 suitable comfortably within the RAM and CPU constraints of the iPhone.

    Hmm. An aging desktop video API in need of a replacement. A fresh, current video library with advantageous 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 charge the restrict between the veteran QuickTime 7 and the current QuickTime X. It's done this in Snow Leopard by limiting total expend of QuickTime by 64-bit applications to the QTKit Objective-C framework.

    QTKit's current 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 expend QTKit as before, and behind the scenes QTKit will choose whether to expend QuickTime 7 or QuickTime X to fulfill each request.

    If QuickTime X is so much better, why doesn't QTKit expend it for everything? The retort is that QuickTime X, like its Mac OS X namesake, has very limited capabilities in its initial release. While QuickTime X supports playback, capture, and exporting, it does not advocate general-purpose video editing. It moreover 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 advocate 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 advocate using a plug-in of any kind? You guessed it: QuickTime 7.

    But wait a second. If QTKit is the only artery for a 64-bit application to expend 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 advocate "mixed mode" processes that can execute both 32-bit and 64-bit code, then how the heck does a 64-bit process accomplish anything that requires the QuickTime 7 back-end?

    To find out, fire up the current 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? advantageous times.) confident enough, it plays just fine. But search for "QuickTime" in the Activity Monitor application and you'll survey this:

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

    And the retort is revealed. When a 64-bit application using QTKit requires the services of the 32-bit-only QuickTime 7 back-end, QTKit spawns a sunder 32-bit QTKitServer process to accomplish the travail and communicate the results back to the originating 64-bit process. If you leave Activity Monitor open while using the current QuickTime Player application, you can watch the QTKitServer processes near and Go as needed. This is total handled transparently by the QTKit framework; the application itself need not exist alert 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 kind enough not to convene it "QuickTime Classic"), but the path forward is clear. With each current 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 advocate for plug-ins. And surely by Mac OS X 10.8, QuickTime X will absorb complete video editing support. total 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 artery for a developer to request that QTKit expend 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 expend a lone representation of total media resources internally: a Movie object. This representation includes information about the individual tracks that manufacture up the movie, the sample tables for each track, and so on—all the information QuickTime needs to understand and exploit the media.

    This sounds Great until you realize that to accomplish anything with a media resource in QuickTime requires the construction of this comprehensive Movie object. deem playing an MP3 file with QuickTime, for example. QuickTime must create its internal Movie expostulate representation of the MP3 file before it can launch 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 manufacture this process less painful by doing the scanning and parsing incrementally in the background. You can survey this in many QuickTime-based player applications in the profile 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 zone from left to right.

    QuickTime 7 doing more  travail than necessary

    QuickTime 7 doing more travail than necessary

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

    The pains is, the QuickTime 7 API lacks a artery to express this kind of intent. There is no artery to screech to QuickTime 7, "Just open this file as quickly as workable so that I can play it. Don't bother reading every lone byte of the file from the disk and parsing it to determine its structure just in case I settle 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 artery to exist eligible for the QuickTime X back-end at total is to explicitly express your intent not to accomplish anything QuickTime X cannot handle. Furthermore, any attempt to effect an operation that lies outside your previously expressed intent will antecedent QTKit to raise an exception.

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

    Indeed, there are many reasons to accomplish what it takes to congregate 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 total that's desired.) QuickTime X moreover 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 advocate 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 artery 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 sever Studio. Thus far, It remains stuck in 32-bit. To screech 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 occur overnight. It will capture years, and it will exist even longer before every primary Mac OS X application is updated to expend QTKit exclusively. Transitions. Gotta treasure '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 Great thought to expend as the only artery an application tracks files. deem 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 save the file, if it only has the file path to travail with, it will finish up creating a current file in the veteran 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 back 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 absorb become the de facto representation for files that may exist located somewhere other than the local machine. URLs can moreover advert to local files, but in that case they absorb total the same disadvantages as file paths.

    This diversity of data types is reflected in Mac OS X's file system APIs. Some functions capture file path as arguments, some hope opaque references to files, and soundless others travail only with URLs. Programs that expend these APIs often expend 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 total levels of the operating system, and no lone one of them is comprehensive. To congregate total available information about a file on disk requires making several sunder calls, each of which may hope a different sort of file reference as an argument.

    Here's an specimen Apple provided at WWDC. Opening a lone 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 lone data type: URLs. But these are URL "objects"—namely, the opaque data types NSURL and CFURL, with a toll-free bridge between them—that absorb been imbued with total the desirable attributes of an FSRef.

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

    There's moreover a current on-disk representation called a Bookmark (not to exist confused with a browser bookmark) which is like a more network-savvy replacement for classic Mac OS aliases. Bookmarks are the most robust artery to create a reference to a file from within another file. It's moreover workable to attach whimsical metadata to each Bookmark. For example, if an application wants to hold 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 total of this not because I hope file system APIs to exist total that gripping to people without my particular fascination with this section of the operating system, but because, like Core Text before it, it's an indication of exactly how young Mac OS X really is as a platform. Even after seven major releases, Mac OS X is soundless struggling to meander out from the shadow of its three ancestors: NeXTSTEP, classic Mac OS, and BSD Unix. Or perhaps it just goes to point to how ruthlessly Apple's core OS team is driven to replace veteran 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 profile of Mac applications that are written or modified to expend these current 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  advantageous Mac OS X citizenTextEdit: a advantageous 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 choose to alter their existing, working application to expend these current APIs.

    Doing more with more

    Moore's Law is widely cited in technology circles—and moreover widely misunderstood. It's most often used as shorthand for "computers double in quicken 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 lone "law", it would be, roughly, that the number of transistors that suitable onto a square inch of silicon doubles every 12 months.

    Moore later revised that to two years, but the time period is not what people congregate 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 lone paper from 1965, but we'll do that aside for now. For a more thorough discussion of Moore's Law, gladden read this classic article by Jon Stokes.)

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

    Moore's Law continues, at least for now, but their ability to manufacture code race faster with each current multiply in transistor density has slowed considerably. The free lunch is over. CPU clock speeds absorb 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 moreover 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 total these current transistors raining down on us, more every year. The challenge is to find current ways to expend them to actually manufacture computers faster.

    Thus far, the semiconductor industry's retort has been to give us more of what they already have. Where once a CPU contained a lone analytic processing unit, now CPUs in even the lowliest desktop computers contain two processor cores, with high-end models sporting two chips with eight analytic cores each. Granted, the cores themselves are moreover getting faster, usually by doing more at the same clock quicken 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 race your application twice as quick as a single-core CPU. In fact, your application probably won't race any faster at total unless it was written to capture edge of more than just a lone analytic CPU. Presented with a glut of transistors, chipmakers absorb turned around and provided more computing resources than programmers know what to accomplish 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 artery for applications—and the OS itself—to utilize the ever-growing wealth of computing resources at their disposal. If I had to pick lone technological "theme" for Snow Leopard, this would exist it: helping developers utilize total this newfound silicon; helping them accomplish more with more.

    To that end, Snow Leopard includes two significant current APIs backed by several smaller, but equally primary 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, gladden entangle 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 expend in Leopard; Apple has grandiose 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 current 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 current 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 moreover total command-line and source-compatible—in theory, anyway. Clang does not yet advocate some of the more esoteric features of GCC. Clang moreover only supports C, Objective-C, and a petite bit of C++ (Clang(uage), congregate it?) whereas GCC supports many more. Apple is committed to replete C++ advocate for Clang, and hopes to travail out the remaining GCC incompatibilities during Snow Leopard's lifetime.

    Clang brings with it the two headline attributes you hope in a hot, current 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 like Adium and Growl, Clang compiles nearly three times faster than GCC 4.2. As for the quicken 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 moreover more developer-friendly than its GCC predecessors. I concede that this topic doesn't absorb much to accomplish with taking edge of multiple CPU cores and so on, but it's confident to exist the first thing that a developer actually notices when using Clang. Indulge me.

    For starters, Clang is embeddable, so Xcode can expend 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 moreover 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 current to C programming. Yes, total you hotshots already know what the problem is (especially if you saw this specimen at WWDC), but I mediate everyone can conform 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 job than can exist derived from GCC's cryptic error.

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

    GCC  mistake message for  atrocious operands

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

    Clang  mistake message for  atrocious operands

    Sometimes the mistake is perfectly clear, but it just seems a bit off, like 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 petite things count, you know? Clang goes that extra mile:

    Clang  mistake message for missing semicolon

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

    OH HAI I  organize UR BUGOH HAI I organize UR BUG

    Aside from the whimsy of the petite 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 ship the mutableCopy message in the final line potentially dangerous.

    I'm confident Apple is going hog-wild running the static analyzer on total of its applications and the operating system itself. The prospect of an automated artery to determine bugs that may absorb 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 section 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 experience apparently convinced Apple that it's unwise to reckon on a third party for its platform's evolution tools. Though it's taken many years, I mediate even the most diehard Metrowerks fan would absorb to conform that Xcode in Snow Leopard is now a pretty damn advantageous IDE.

    After years of struggling with the disconnect between the goals of the GCC project and its own compiler needs, Apple has finally sever 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 total 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 survey in the following sections, LLVM's scaly, metallic head pops up in a few key places.


    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 absorb 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 capture closures and anonymous functions for granted, those who travail with more traditional, statically compiled languages such as C and its derivatives may find them quite exotic. As for non-programmers, they likely absorb no interest in this topic at all. But I'm going to attempt an explanation nonetheless, as blocks profile the foundation of some other gripping technologies to exist discussed later.

    Perhaps the simplest artery to warrant blocks is that they manufacture functions another profile of data. C-derived languages already absorb duty pointers, which can exist passed around like data, but these can only point to functions created at compile time. The only artery to influence the conduct 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 absorb vast disadvantages

    Passing arguments becomes cumbersome as their number and complexity grows. Also, it may exist that you absorb limited control over the arguments that will exist passed to your function, as is often the case with callbacks. To compensate, you may absorb to bundle up total of your gripping status into a context expostulate 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 total quite a pain.

    As for the expend of global variables, in addition to being a well-known anti-pattern, it's moreover not thread-safe. To manufacture it so requires locks or some other profile 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 total 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) { recrudesce a * b };

    Here I've created a duty named multiplier that takes a lone 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 convene to multiplier(5) would recrudesce the value 10.

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

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

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

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

    /* A duty that takes a lone integer argument 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 lone integer argument and returns a obstruct that takes two integer arguments and returns a floating-point number. */ float (^func1(int a))(int, int);

    You'll just absorb to dependence me when I declare you that this syntax actually makes sense to seasoned C programmers.

    Now then, does this exist substantive that C is suddenly a dynamic, high-level language like JavaScript or Lisp? Hardly. The existing distinction between the stack and the heap, the rules governing automatic and static variables, and so on are total soundless in replete effect. Plus, now there's a entire current set of rules for how blocks interact with each of these things. There's even a current __block storage sort impute 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 workable in C-derived languages. For example, suppose you want to apply some operation to every line in a file. To accomplish so in a low-level language like C requires some amount of boilerplate code to open and read from the file, ply any errors, read each line into a buffer, and immaculate 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 section in bold is an abstract representation of what you're planning to accomplish to each line of the file. The rest 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 like to exist able to accomplish 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 like to effect on each line of the file. In the middle of each obstruct 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 conduct 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 obstruct as arguments. This gets total 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 argument after filename is a literal obstruct that takes a line of text as an argument.

    Even when the volume of boilerplate is small, the simplicity and clarity gratuity is soundless worthwhile. deem the simplest workable 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 petite 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. accomplish something 10 times! I never want to screw that up again. Blocks can help. If they just invest a petite effort 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 banish the bug for good. Now, repeating any whimsical obstruct of code a specific number of times is total but idiot-proof:

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

    And remember, the obstruct argument to repeat() can contain exactly the same kind of code, literally copied and pasted, that would absorb appeared within a traditional for loop.

    All these possibilities and more absorb 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 current APIs that expend blocks in Snow Leopard. Many of these APIs would not exist workable at total without blocks, and total 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 total four of Apple's compilers in Mac OS X.

    Concurrency in the actual world: a prelude

    The struggle to manufacture efficient expend of a great number of independent computing devices is not new. For decades, the territory of high-performance computing has tackled this problem. The challenges faced by people writing software for supercomputers many years ago absorb 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 thought 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 entangle 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 manufacture me point to another graph) could play multiple videos simultaneously while moreover playing several audio tracks from a CD—some backwards— and total the while, the user interface remained completely responsive.

    Let me declare you, having lived through this period myself, the experience 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 experience soundless doesn't match the responsiveness of BeOS. This is certainly redress emotionally, if not necessarily literally.

    After nearly purchasing exist in the late 1990s, Apple bought NeXT instead, and the rest is history. But had Apple gone with scheme exist instead, Mac developers might absorb had a harsh road ahead. While total that pervasive multithreading made for impressive technology demos and a Great user experience, it could exist extremely demanding on the programmer. BeOS was total about threads, going so far as to maintain a sunder 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 abysmal finish of that pool. The best programmers in the world are hard-pressed to create great multithreaded programs in low-level languages like C or C++ without finding themselves impaled on the spikes of deadlock, race conditions, and other perils inherent in the expend of in multiple simultaneous threads of execution that share the same recollection space. Extremely careful 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 absorb 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 lone glowing tower in a sea of sixteen otherwise empty lanes on a CPU monitor window.

    A wide-open  simple of transistorsA wide-open simple 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 current user inputs are being pulled off the event queue by the application. A few seconds of that and an veteran friend makes its appearance: the spinning beach ball of death.


    Nooooooooo!!! Image from The Iconfactory

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

    Grand Central Dispatch Apple's GCD branding: <a href="">Railfan</a> <a href="">service</a>Apple's GCD branding: Railfan service

    Snow Leopard's retort to the concurrency conundrum is called grandiose 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 current Cocoa framework or similar special-purpose frill off to the side. It's a simple 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 need to link in a current library to expend 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 total 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 like the checkout line at the supermarket, for those who don't know and don't want to succeed the link.) Dequeuing the job means handing it off to a thread where it will execute and accomplish 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 grandiose Central Dispatch queue in action

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

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

    The animation above shows threads appearing as travail needs to exist done, and disappearing as they're no longer needed. Where accomplish these threads near from and where accomplish they Go 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 race on a thread, the thread goes back into the pool.

    This is an extremely primary 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 expend a significant amount of time simply shuffling threads in and out of the available processor cores.

    Let's screech 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 specimen of creating too many or too few threads? Trick question! The retort 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 absorb the entire machine to themselves when they run, there's no artery 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 do in flight at any given time is best determined by a single, globally alert entity. In Snow Leopard, that entity is GCD. It will hold zero threads in its pool if there are no queues that absorb tasks to run. As tasks are dequeued, GCD will create and dole out threads in a artery that optimizes the expend 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 job 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 total 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 recollection 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 absorb 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 recollection overhead, they're moreover relatively costly to create. Creating a current thread for each job would exist the worst workable scenario. Every time GCD can expend a thread to execute more than one task, it's a win for overall system efficiency.

    Remember the problem of the programmer trying to figure out how many threads to create? Using GCD, he doesn't absorb 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 expend 500 concurrent tasks, then he can Go ahead and create 500 GCD queues and distribute his travail among them. GCD will figure out how many actual threads to create to accomplish the work. Furthermore it will adjust the number of threads dynamically as the conditions on the system change.

    But perhaps most importantly, as current hardware is released with more and more CPU cores, the programmer does not need to change his application at all. Thanks to GCD, it will transparently capture edge of any and total 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 conduct is undefined. Don't accomplish that.) Queue hierarchies can exist used to funnel tasks from disparate subsystems into a narrower set of centrally controlled queues, or to constrain a set of customary queues to delegate to a serial queue, effectively serializing them total indirectly.

    There are moreover 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 moreover exist grouped, allowing total tasks distributed to the group to exist tracked and accounted for as a unit.

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


    Okay, so GCD is a Great artery to manufacture efficient expend 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 contradictory finish of the spectrum from BeOS's "pervasive multithreading" design. Rather than achieving responsiveness by getting every workable component of an application running concurrently on its own thread (and paying a ponderous charge in terms of involved data sharing and locking concerns), GCD encourages a much more limited, hierarchical approach: a main application thread where total 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 mediate about how best to split the travail of their application into multiple concurrent threads (though when they're ready to accomplish that, GCD will exist willing and able to help). At its most basic level, GCD aims to embolden developers to meander from thinking synchronously to thinking asynchronous. Something like this: "Write your application as usual, but if there's any section of its operation that can reasonably exist expected to capture more than a few seconds to complete, then for the treasure of Zarzycki, congregate 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 accomplish they soundless survey the beach ball in Mac OS X applications? Why don't total applications already execute total of their potentially long-running tasks on background threads?

    A few reasons absorb been mentioned already (e.g., the difficulty of knowing how many threads to create) but the vast 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 categorical atomize from coding the actual travail of your application to coding total this task-management plumbing. And so, especially in borderline cases, like an operation that may capture 3 to 5 seconds, developers just accomplish it synchronously and meander onto the next thing.

    Unfortunately, there's a surprising number of very common things that an application can accomplish that execute quickly most of the time, but absorb the potential to capture 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 entangle many applications completely off-guard when they start taking their sweet time to recrudesce a result. Thus, even the most meticulously constructed Mac OS X applications can finish up throwing the beach ball in their kisser from time to time.

    With GCD, Apple is saw it doesn't absorb to exist this way. For example, suppose a document-based application has a button that, when clicked, will resolve the current document and array some gripping 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 current state. It total follows a very common pattern, and it works Great as long as not anything of these steps—which are total running on the main thread, remember—takes too long. Because after the user presses the button, the main thread of the application needs to ply that user input as quick as workable so it can congregate back to the main event loop to process the next user action.

    The code above works Great until a user opens a very great or very involved document. Suddenly, the "analyze" step doesn't capture 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 total 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 meander the document analysis to the background by adding just two lines of code (okay, and two lines of closing braces), total located within the existing function? No application-global objects, no thread management, no callbacks, no argument marshalling, no context objects, not even any additional variables. Behold, grandiose 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. total of the functions in GCD launch with dispatch_, and you can survey four such calls in the blue lines of code above. The key to the minimal invasiveness of this code is revealed in the second argument 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 ability 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 section of this code is how it deals with the problem of detecting when the background job completes and then showing the result. In the synchronous code, the resolve method convene and the code to update the application array 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() convene puts a job on a global concurrent GCD queue. That task, represented by the obstruct passed as the second argument, contains the potentially time-consuming resolve method call, plus another convene to dispatch_async() that puts a job 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 total exist done from the main thread in a Cocoa application, so the code in the inner obstruct could not exist executed anywhere else. But rather than having the background thread ship some kind of special-purpose notification back to the main thread when the resolve method convene completes (and then adding some code to the application to detect and ply this notification), the travail that needs to exist done on the main thread to update the array is encapsulated in yet another obstruct within the larger one. When the resolve convene is done, the inner obstruct is do onto the main queue where it will (eventually) race on the main thread and accomplish its travail of updating the display.

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

    Believe it or not, it's just as effortless to capture a serial implementation of a progression of independent operations and parallelize it. The code below does travail on weigh elements of data, one after the other, and then summarizes the results once total the elements absorb 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 sunder job for each ingredient onto a global concurrent queue. (Again, it's up to GCD to settle how many threads to actually expend 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 absorb 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 travail required to wait for total the independent tests to complete. (The dispatch_apply() convene will not recrudesce until total the tasks it has dispatched absorb completed.) Stunning.

    Grand Central Awesome

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

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

    But grandiose Central Dispatch doesn't actually address this issue at all. It offers no back whatsoever in deciding how to split your travail 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 sunder task, GCD makes it as effortless and non-invasive as workable to actually accomplish so.

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

    One of Apple's slogans for grandiose Central Dispatch is "islands of serialization in a sea of concurrency." That does a Great job of capturing the practical reality of adding more concurrency to run-of-the-mill desktop applications. Those islands are what insulate 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 atomize off the entire unit of travail while maintaining the existing order and dependencies between subtasks.

    Those with some multithreaded programming experience may exist unimpressed with the GCD. So Apple made a thread pool. vast 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 grandiose Central Dispatch so attractive to developers. Just as Time Machine was "the first backup system people will actually use," grandiose Central Dispatch is poised to finally spread the heretofore shadowy craft of asynchronous application design to total Mac OS X developers. I can't wait.

    OpenCL Somehow, OpenCL got in on the <a href="">"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 primary current language feature, and a powerful, pragmatic concurrency API built on top of the current compilers' advocate for said language feature. total this goes a long artery towards helping developers and the OS itself manufacture maximum expend 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 declare the tale. While Mac CPUs contain up to four cores (which may point to up as eight analytic cores thanks to symmetric multithreading), high-end GPUs contain 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 like CPUs, GPUs now near 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 absorb evolved from the fixed-function silicon of their ancestors that could not exist programmed directly at all. They don't advocate the moneyed set of instructions available on CPUs, the maximum size of the programs that will race is often limited and very small, and not total 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 advantageous suitable 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 sort of execution units, available data formats, instruction sets, recollection architecture, you denomination it. Programmers don't want to exist exposed to these differences, but it's difficult to travail around the complete need 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 recollection hierarchy, and several bundled computational libraries. CUDA is but one entrant in the burgeoning GPGPU territory (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 accomplish the same for general-purpose computation. In fact, OpenCL is supported by the same consortium as OpenGL: the ominously named Khronos Group. But manufacture 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 manufacture 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 total near together.

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

    The OpenCL difference

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

    Early on, writing programs for the GPU often required the expend of vendor-specific assembly languages that were far removed from the experience 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 curious world.

    And even if the GPU did give a huge quicken 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 race languages like CUDA at all.

    Apple's key decision in the design of OpenCL was to allow OpenCL programs to race not just on GPUs, but on CPUs as well. An OpenCL program can query the hardware it's running on and enumerate total 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 moreover workable to create a lone analytic device consisting of any combination of eligible computing resources: two GPUs, a GPU and two CPUs, etc.

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

    Certain kinds of algorithms actually race 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 absorb to race 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 actual pain. There's MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4 to deal with, total with slightly different capabilities, and total of which constrain the programmer to write code like this:

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

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

    r1 = m1 * (x1 + x2);

    Similarly, OpenCL's advocate for implicit parallelism makes it much easier to capture edge of multiple CPU cores. Rather than writing total the logic to split your data into pieces and distribute those pieces to the parallel-computing hardware, OpenCL lets you write just the code to operate on a lone piece of the data and then ship it, along with the entire obstruct of data and the desired flush of parallelism, to the computing device.

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

    Writing to OpenCL moreover future-proofs task- or data-parallel code. Just as the same OpenGL code will congregate faster and faster as newer, more powerful GPUs are released, so too will OpenCL code effect better as CPUs and GPUs congregate 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 capture edge of them, just as video card makers and OS vendors update their OpenGL drivers to capture 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 finish 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 accomplish 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 moreover 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 disarrange for the requested flush of parallelism by creating and distributing threads appropriately to the available cores.

    Well, wouldn't you know it? Apple just happens to absorb two technologies that resolve 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 lone code generator for each target instruction set, and concentrate total of its effort on a lone device-independent code optimizer. There's no longer any need 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, bethink Core Image? That's another API that needs to compile code just-in-time and ship it off to execute on parallel hardware like GPUs and multi-core CPUs. In Snow Leopard, Core Image has been re-implemented using OpenCL, producing a hefty 25% overall performance boost.)

    To ply job parallelism and provision threads, OpenCL is built on top of grandiose Central Dispatch. This is such a natural suitable that it's a bit surprising that the OpenCL API doesn't expend blocks. I mediate 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 grandiose 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 gauge of software engineering: creating a current 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 absorb a ways to Go to entangle up with the power and flexibility of a full-fledged CPU core. But even with total 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 need to do total your eggs in one silicon basket. And with the advent of hybrid CPU/GPU efforts like Intel's Larabee, which expend CPU-caliber processing engines, but in much higher numbers, OpenCL may prove even more primary in the coming years.

    Transistor harvest

    Collectively, the concurrency-enabling features introduced in Snow Leopard portray 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 arduous for end-users to congregate excited about "plumbing" technologies like grandiose Central Dispatch and OpenCL, let lonely 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  current icon (Not a fan)QuickTime Player's current 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 need 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 occur to click on the "Customize…" button during installation, you'll survey 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 need to panic. That detail in the installer should actually read "QuickTime Player 7." QuickTime 7, the veteran 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 veteran blue "Q" icon, the one that many casual users actually mediate of as being "QuickTime," that's been replaced with a current QuickTime-X-savvy version sporting a pudgy current icon (see above right).

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

    The  current QuickTime Player: boldly going where <a href="">NicePlayer</a> has gone before Enlarge / The current QuickTime Player: boldly going where NicePlayer has gone before

    It's like a combination of the window treatment of the excellent NicePlayer application and the full-screen playback controls from the veteran QuickTime Player. I'm a bit bothered by two things. First, the ever-so-slightly clipped corners appear like a atrocious 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 section of the frame? Yes, you can meander 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 value 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 share my OCD tendencies: if you meander the floating controls, they don't bethink their position the next time you open a movie. Why is that a blessing? Because if it worked the other way, we'd total expend artery too much time fretting about their inability to restore the controller to its default, precisely centered position. Sad, but true.)

    The current 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 profile a timeline, with adjustable stops at each finish for trimming.

    Trimming in the  current QuickTime Player Enlarge / Trimming in the current 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 absorb to sensation exactly how useful the fancy timeline appearances are. The audio waveform is quite diminutive and compressed, and the limited horizontal space of the in-window array means a movie can only point to a handful of video frames in its timeline. Also, if there's any ability to accomplish fine adjustments using something other than extremely careful mouse movements (which are necessarily theme to a limited resolution) then I couldn't find it. Final sever Pro this is not.

    QuickTime Player has erudite another current trick: screen recording. The controls are limited, so more demanding users will soundless absorb a need for a full-featured screen recorder, but QuickTime Player gets the job done.

    Screen recording in QuickTime PlayerScreen recording in QuickTime Player

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

    Audio recordingAudio recording

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

    Unfortunately, the list of things you can't accomplish with the current QuickTime Player is quite long. You can't cut, copy, and paste whimsical 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 replete set of available QuickTime audio and video codecs. total of these things were workable with the veteran 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 impute their absence in the current QuickTime Player to the previously discussed limitations of QuickTime X. But the current 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 like trimming, plus some previously "Pro"-only features like full-screen playback. Also, the current 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 veteran QuickTime Player—somewhat insultingly installed in the "Utilities" folder—with total 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 absorb total "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 total pro features unlocked and with no visible QuickTime Pro registration information. I did, however, absorb 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 current appearance of some aspects of the Dock are accompanied by some current 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 congregate in the usage of doing it.

    The Exposé array itself is moreover changed. Now, minimized windows are displayed in smaller profile on the bottom of the screen below a thin line.

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

    In the screenshot above, you'll notice that not anything of the minimized windows loom in my Dock. That's thanks to another welcome addition: the ability 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 congregate 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 suitable 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 diminutive "back" navigation button appears once you descend.

    These are total useful current behaviors, and quite a gratuity considering the supposititious "no current features" stance of Snow Leopard. But the fundamental nature of the Dock remains the same. Users who want a more flexible 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 expend the Dock in addition to a third-party application.

    The option to hold 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 absorb it open in the Finder, while moreover retaining the ability to drag items into that folder. This was the default conduct for docked folders for the first six years of Mac OS X's life, but it changed in Leopard. Snow Leopard does not improve 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 like it will travail (the icon highlights) but upon release, the dragged detail simply springs back to its original location. I really hoped this one would congregate 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 point to that its version number had been updated to 10.6. The more gripping 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 atrocious 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 need is a Cocoa Finder! Surely that will resolve total their woes." Well, Snow Leopard features a 64-bit Finder, and as they total 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 current features… except for maybe one or two. And so, the "new" Cocoa Finder looks and works almost exactly like the veteran Carbon Finder. The biggest indicator of its "Cocoa-ness" is the extensive expend 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 profile its current shape.

    Despite crossing the line in a few cases, the Core Animation transitions accomplish manufacture the application feel more polished, and yes, "more Cocoa." And presumably the expend 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 ponderous column-view users has finally been implemented: sortable columns. The sort order applies to total 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 zone 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 diminutive slider to control the size of the icons.

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

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

    The icon previews themselves absorb been enhanced to better match the abilities available in Quick Look. do it total together and you can smoothly zoom a diminutive PDF icon, for example, into the impressively high-fidelity preview shown below, complete with the ability to turn pages. One press of the space bar and you'll progress to the even larger and more flexible Quick sight 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 absorb 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 congregate icon view to stick for the windows where it's most useful, I mediate that odd petite slider is actually going to congregate 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 moreover has a few enhancements—accidental, incidental, or otherwise. The drag zone 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 confident whether this change in conduct is intentional or if it's just an unexamined consequence of the underlying control used for list view in the current 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 suitable the widest value in the column. Date headers will progressively shrink to point to 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 travail 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 petite things that many users absorb been clamoring for year after year. There's now a preference to select the default scope of the search territory in the Finder window toolbar. Can I congregate 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 Go a long artery towards making the desktop environment feel more solid. A advantageous specimen 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 oust a disk if your current working directory in a command-line shell is on that disk. kind of cool, but moreover kind of annoying.)

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

    Forcible ejection in progressForcible ejection in progress

    Hm, but why did I congregate information about the offending application in one dialog, an option to constrain 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 figure it out the old-fashioned way.)


    So does the current Cocoa Finder finally banish total 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 share of 1.0 bugs. Here's one discovered by Glen Aspeslagh (see image right).

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

    There moreover 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 awe that one of these files will someday congregate a 200-character filename that will overlap with a neighboring file's name.

    The worst incarnation of this conduct 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 survey disks on your desktop, you must enable this preference in the Finder.) When I mount a current disk, I'm often surprised to survey 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 congregate to its pre-Snow-Leopard feature set and flush of polish, it's quite an achievement for a Cocoa Finder to match or exceed its predecessor in its very first release. I'm confident the Carbon vs. Cocoa warriors would absorb had a territory day with that statement, were Carbon not do out to pasture in Leopard. But it was, and to the victor Go the spoils.


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

    The vast caveat is that it will only travail with a server running Exchange 2007 (Service Pack 1, Update Rollup 4) or later. While I'm confident 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 tense 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 advocate seems to travail as expected. I had to absorb 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, total I had to enter in the Mail application was my replete name, e-mail address, and password, and it automatically discovered total material settings and configured iCal and Address engage for me.

    Exchange setup: surprisingly easyExchange setup: surprisingly easy

    Windows users are no doubt accustomed to this kind 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 moreover includes the bare minimum number of controls and displays to congregate the job done.

    Meeting availability checker Enlarge / Meeting availability checker

    The integration into Mail and Address engage 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 accomplish I engage a "resource" in a meeting? If there's a artery to accomplish so, I couldn't determine it.

    Still, even basic Exchange integration out-of-the-box goes long artery 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 mediate that being able to ship and receive mail, create and respond to meeting invitations, and expend the global corporate address engage is enough for any Mac user to congregate along reasonably well in an Exchange-centric environment.


    The thing is, there's not really much to screech 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 disclose some impressive numbers, it's the artery these diminutive changes combine to improve the real-world experience of using the system that really makes a difference.

    One specimen 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 advocate for overlapping i/o. Spotlight indexing, which happens on Time Machine volumes as well, was identified as another time-consuming job involved in backups, so its performance was improved. The networking code was enhanced to capture 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 moreover improved. For Time Machine backups that write to disk images rather than native HFS+ file systems, Apple added advocate for concurrent access to disk images. The amount of network traffic produced by AFP during backups has moreover been reduced.

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

    This holistic approach to performance improvement is not likely to knock anyone's socks off, but every time you race 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 exist substantive the time between the selection of the Shutdown or Restart command and when the system turns off or begins its current boot cycle. Leopard doesn't capture long at total to accomplish this; only a few dozen of seconds when there are no applications open. But in Snow Leopard, it's so quick 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 vast 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 total the more impressive.

    And yes, for the seventh consecutive time, a current 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 examine for, really? Even that veteran 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 veteran days—and quake it as quick 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 redress in Leopard as well. It just goes to point to how far Mac OS X has near on the performance front. These days, they total just capture it for granted, which is exactly the artery 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 kind of "all grab bag," if you know what I mean. Apple's even got its own incarnation in the profile of a giant webpage of "refinements." I'll probably overlap with some of those, but there'll exist a few current ones here as well.

    New columns in open/save dialogs

    The list view in open and save dialog boxed now supports more than just "Name" and "Date Modified" columns. Right-click on any column to congregate a selection of additional columns to display. I've wanted this feature for a long time, and I'm joyful 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 ability to talk to a wide attain of scanners. I plugged in my Epson Stylus CX7800, a device that previously required the expend of third-party software in order to expend 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 moreover not a atrocious petite scanning application. It has pretty advantageous automatic expostulate detection, including advocate for multiple objects, obviating the need to manually crop items. Given the sometimes-questionable property of third-party printer and scanner drivers for Mac OS X, the ability to expend a bundled application is welcome.

    System Preferences bit wars

    System Preferences, like virtually total 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 array icons for total 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 like 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 total of the first-party preference panes are compiled for both 64-bit and 32-bit operation, System Preferences does not need to relaunch again for the duration of its use. This raises the question, why not absorb System Preferences launch in 32-bit mode total the time? I suspect it's just another artery 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 primary to the Web experience that relaunching in 32-bit mode is not really an option. You'd probably need to relaunch as soon as you visited your first webpage. But Apple does want Safari to race 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 race 32-bit plug-ins in sunder 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 antecedent of crashes is Web browser plug-ins. That's not the number one antecedent of crashes in Safari, judgement you, it's the number one antecedent when considering total crashes of total applications in Mac OS X. (And though it was not mentioned by name, I mediate they total know the primary culprit.)

    As you can survey above, the QuickTime browser plug-in gets the same treatment as flash and other third-party 32-bit Safari plug-ins. total 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 sunder processes with a significantly less radical change to the Safari application itself.

    Resolution independence

    When they last left Mac OS X in its seemingly interminable march towards a truly scalable user interface, it was almost ready for prime time. I'm discouraged to screech that resolution independence was obviously not a priority in Snow Leopard, because it hasn't gotten any better, and may absorb actually regressed a bit. Here's what TextEdit looks like 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 bethink Apple advising developers to absorb 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 total the time. On the other hand, it's not like 200-DPI monitors are raining from the sky either. But I'd really like to survey Apple congregate going on this. It will undoubtedly capture a long time for everything to sight and travail correctly, so let's congregate 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 sunder panes. This was invaluable for referencing some earlier text in the scrollback while moreover 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 congregate on board the train to splittersville.)

    Terminal in Snow Leopard moreover defaults to the current Menlo font. But wayward to earlier reports, the One redress 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 sunder "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 removed future, perhaps Apple will finally arrive at the "ultimate" arrangement of preference panes and they can total finally Go more than two years without their muscle recollection being disrupted.

    Before lamentable on, System Preferences has one super 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. kind of creepy, but useful.

    Core location

    One more gift from the iPhone, Core Location, allows Macs to figure 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 race 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 moreover been rearranged. Now, instead of a single, long list of system-wide keyboard shortcuts, they're arranged into categories. This reduces clutter, but it moreover 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 like to leave my Mac Pro turned on 24 hours a day, especially during the summer in my un-air-conditioned house. But I accomplish want to absorb access to the files on my Mac when I'm elsewhere—at work, on the road, etc. It is workable 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 total times on the same network as my Mac Pro. To wake my Mac Pro remotely, I ssh into the laptop, then ship 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 artery to accomplish this without leaving any of my computers running total day. When a Mac running Snow Leopard is do to sleep, it attempts to hand off ownership of its IP address to its router. (This only works with an AirPort Extreme ground 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 total my Macs asleep and soundless absorb access to their contents anytime, anywhere.

    Back to my hack

    As has become traditional, this current 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 congregate the worst of it. They've actually been unsupported and non-functional in 64-bit applications since Leopard. That wasn't such a vast 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 need of an officially sanctioned extension mechanism, developers looking to enhance its functionality absorb most often resorted to the expend 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 workable 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 constrain users to do.

    Happily, at least one commonly used Safari enhancement has the advantageous 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 array of particular types of content within a webpage.

    Though I scheme to race Safari in its default 64-bit mode, I'll really miss Saft, a Safari extension I expend 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 sight up "noodles" in Wikipedia). I'm hoping that clever developers will find a artery to overcome this current 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 atomize with each major operating system update as a matter of course. And each time, those determined fellows at Unsanity, against total odds, manage to hold 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 absorb to wait too long for a Snow-Leopard-compatible version.

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


    It looks like we'll total exist waiting a while longer for a file system in shining armor to replace 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, advocate 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 last year. When asked about a ZFS-savvy implementation of Time Machine, the reply was encouraging: "This one is primary and likely will near 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 impeccable suitable for Time Machine, but the most primary is its ability to ship only the block-level changes during each backup. As Time Machine is currently implemented, if you manufacture a diminutive 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 moreover bring vastly increased robustness for data and metadata, a pooled storage model, constant-time snapshots and clones, and a pony. People sometimes examine what, exactly, is wrong with HFS+. Aside from its obvious need 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 sunder locations on the disk) and to allow for better concurrency.

    Practically speaking, mediate about those times when you race 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 occur 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 total the time with HFS+ disks in Mac OS X when various bits of metadata congregate corrupted or become out of date.

    Apple gets by year after year, tacking current features onto HFS+ with duct tape and a prayer, but at a inevitable 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 sociable exercise as a technological one. Creating a platform, even more so. total of Snow Leopard's considerable technical achievements are not just designed to capitalize users; they're moreover intended to goad, persuade, and otherwise herd developers in the direction that Apple feels will exist most profitable for the future of the platform.

    For this to work, Snow Leopard has to actually find its artery 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 race correctly on the current OS.

    The customary artery to overcome this kind of upgrade hesitation has been to pack the OS with current features. current features sell, and the more copies of the current operating system in use, the more motivated developers are to update their applications to not just race on the current OS, but moreover capture edge of its current abilities.

    A major operating system upgrade with "no current features" must play by a different set of rules. Every party involved expects some counterbalance to the need of current features. In Snow Leopard, developers stand to reap the biggest benefits thanks to an impressive set of current 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 manufacture it effortless for developers to meander 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 absorb already been reports of current bugs introduced to existing APIs in Snow Leopard. This is the exact contradictory of Snow Leopard's implied swear to users and developers that it would concentrate on making existing features faster and more robust without introducing current functionality and the accompanying current bugs.

    On the other side of the coin, I imagine total the teams at Apple that worked on Snow Leopard absolutely reveled in the opening 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 kind of release valve every few years, lest the entire code ground Go off into the weeds.

    There's been one other "no current 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 moreover available from Apple's online store for $19.95 (along with a copy of Mac OS 9.2.1 for expend 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 accomplish 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 confident that total the software you supervision 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 race 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 retort is a resounding "yes." If you're soundless running Tiger, well, then it's probably time for a current Mac anyway. When you buy one, it'll near with Snow Leopard.

    As for the future, it's tempting to view Snow Leopard as the "tick" in a current Intel-style "tick-tock" release strategy for Mac OS X: radical current 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 sort of plan, but I mediate there's a lot to recommend it.

    Snow Leopard is a unique and elegant release, unlike any that absorb near before it in both scope and intention. At some point, Mac OS X will surely need to congregate 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 manufacture it infirm and aberrant engineered away.

    Snowy eyes Looking back

    This is the tenth review of a replete Mac OS X release, public beta, or developer preview to race on Ars, dating back to December 1999 and Mac OS X DP2. If you want to jump into the Wayback Machine and survey how far Apple has near with Snow Leopard (or just want to bone up on total of the vast cat monikers), we've gone through the archives and dug up some of their older Mac OS X articles. gratified 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: trial by Water, February 28, 2000
  • Mac OS X Update: Quartz & Aqua, January 17, 2000
  • Mac OS X DP2, December 14, 1999

  • Apple patches Java hole that was being used to compromise Mac users | actual questions and Pass4sure dumps

    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 :
    Wordpress :
    Dropmark-Text :
    Blogspot :
    RSS Feed : :

    Back to Main Page | | |