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

9L0-623 Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Study usher 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
exam questions : 64 actual Questions

I got Awesome Questions bank for my 9L0-623 exam.
its miles a captains job to steer the ship just fancy its miles a pilots process to steer the plane. This can exist called my captain or my pilot as it advised me in to the proper path before my 9L0-623 test and it become their directions and guidance that were given me to keep the prerogative path that ultimately lead me to fulfillment. i used to exist very a success in my 9L0-623 check and it became a second of glory for which im able to for shameful time wait obliged to this online study center.

I feel very confident by preparing 9L0-623 actual test questions.
In case you requisite to change your future and ensure that happiness is your future, you want to paintings tough. Operatingtough on my own isnt always enough to win to future, you want some path to exist able to lead you closer to the course. It wasdestiny that i create this killexams.Com at some point of my assessments as it lead me toward my future. My fate changed into getting reform grades and this killexams.Com and its teachers made it viable my training they so properly that I couldnt likely fail by artery of giving me the substance for my 9L0-623 exam.

it is exquisite to absorb 9L0-623 actual exam questions.
Within the wake of attempting some aids, I at closing halted at Dumps and it contained precise answers added in a light manner that was exactly what I required. I used to exist struggling with with topics, while my examination 9L0-623 become handiest 10 day away. I used to exist shy that i might now not absorb the capacity to harvest passing rating the lowest pass imprints. I at remaining handed with 78% marks without an abominable lot inconvenience.

discovered an accurate source for actual 9L0-623 dumps.
I went crazy when my test was in a week and I lost my 9L0-623 syllabus. I got blank and wasnt able to design out how to cope up with the situation. Obviously, they shameful are awake of the significance the syllabus during the preparation period. It is the only paper which directs the way. When I was almost mad, I got to know about killexams. Cant thank my friend for making me awake of such a blessing. Preparation was much easier with the serve of 9L0-623 syllabus which I got through the site.

What are middle objectives state-of-the-art 9L0-623 exam?
The exercise examination is remarkable, I surpassed 9L0-623 paper with a score of one hundred percentage. Properly well worth the fee. I might exist again for my subsequent certification. First of shameful permit me provide you with a huge thanks for giving me prep dumps for 9L0-623 exam. It changed into certainly useful for the education of exams and furthermore clearing it. You wont recall that i got not a lone solution incorrect !!!Such whole examination preparatory material are top notch manner to obtain immoderate in checks.

it's far high-quality example to establish together 9L0-623 exam with dumps.
The cloth is straightforward to comprehend and enough to establish together for the 9L0-623 examination. No different keep at cloth I used in conjunction with the Dumps. My heartfelt thanks to you for creating such an enormously effective, simple fabric for the hard exam. I never thought I may want to bypass this exam easily without any tries. You people made it Take place. I spoke back seventy six questions maximum correctly within the actual exam. thank you for offering me an revolutionary product.

do not forget to study these actual test questions for 9L0-623 examination.
Howdy there fellows, clearly to bid you that I passed 9L0-623 examination an afternoon or two ago with 88% marks. Sure, the examination is tough and killexams.Com exam questions and exam Simulator does yield life much less tough - a first-rate deal! I suppose this unit is the unrivaled intuition I passed the examination. As a recollect of first significance, their examination simulator is a present. I generally loved the probe and-answer company and assessments of numerous kinds in light of the reality that that is the maximum excellent routine to Take a keep at.

terrific source cutting-edge remarkable dumps, reform solutions.
Passing the 9L0-623 examination changed into quite tough for me till I became brought with the Question & reply with the aid of killexams. Some of the subjects seemed very difficult to me. Tried loads to examine the books, but failed as time changed into quick. Finally, the unload helped me comprehend the subjects and wrap up my education in 10 days time. remarkable manual, killexams. My heartfelt thanks to you.

Unbelieveable performance ultra-modern 9L0-623 question bank and study guide.
I absorb cleared 9L0-623 examination in a lone strive with 98% marks. Killexams.Com is the best medium to lucid this examination. Thank you, your case studies and cloth absorb been top. I requisite the timer could hasten too while they deliver the workout tests. Thank you over again.

Take a smart circulate, attain these 9L0-623 questions and answers.
I surpassed the 9L0-623 exam with this package from Killexams. Im now not nice i would absorb performed it without it! The vicissitude is, it covers a massive purview of subjects, and in case you establish together for the examination on your personal, with out a demonstratedapproach, possibilities are that a few subjects can descend thru the cracks. Those are only a few areas has trulyhelped me with there can exist simply an inordinate amount of facts! covers the whole lot, and because they utilize actual examination questions passing the 9L0-623 with a whole lot less stress is lots simpler.

Apple Apple Mac OS X

what's Mac OS? professionals and Cons | clarification | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

“Apple” essentially the most efficacious manufacturer on this planet produces one of the superior Hardware & application products and Mac OS is only one of them.

in case you don’t know what is it? you then came at right location as a result of prerogative here, listed here, we're featuring you with everything you deserve to know about MacOs.

also read – MacOS vs windows vs Linux: Which one is more advantageous?

what is Mac Os?

The time age Mac OS stands for Macintosh operating equipment.

It’s a UNIX primarily based working gear by means of Apple, completely for MacBooks and iMacs.

out there of computers, Laptops, and home computers it’s the second most typical computer OS after home windows.

quick background of Mac Os

After the departure of Steve Jobs from Apple, the business suffered a massive loss and board of directors at Apple determined to bring Steve again from next and lead the business on an interim groundwork.

At WWDC (around the globe Developer’s conference) when Steve announced that builders truly need a modern edition of the Mac OS, and Apple is going to convey it, then he received a tall circular of applause from the audience.

This in reality made Steve and his crew work harder on Mac Os and shortly they proved that Apple actually has a potential.

the first initial release of Mac Os was on March 24, 2001, which is essentially 17 years ago from now.

And till now Mac OS is enhancing with every novel unlock.

Myths concerning Mac Os 1. Mac OS is greater secure than windows

lots of you might absorb heard that Mac Os is greater relaxed than windows. but that’s no longer proper.

The market participate of Mac is less than 10% which effects in much less malware and spyware attacks.

in fact, the leading motive in the back of this is iMac and Macbook.

These two items running on Mac OS which is a bit of elevated priced as compared to windows. So this instantly consequences in much less harm.

also read– Why accurate hackers opt for Linux over windows and Mac

2. Mac is constructed for Artists

Mac Os comes with lots of built-in inventive and constructive gear as compared to windows.

as an example, iMovie and final reduce seasoned increases the adventure of video enhancing.

however that doesn’t hint that windows are unhealthy.

that you can one at a time download the third birthday party utility comparable to Adobe most useful or Adobe After effects for a much better journey.

Doing this on home windows pc will forestall loads of tough earned funds.

3. highly elevated priced

sure running a Mac OS device may sound elevated priced however that’s not entirely authentic.

The suffuse of substances used in making iMac and MacBook is additionally very excessive.

due to this fact, a person finally ends up with an exceptional product with maximum durability in terms of each hardware and utility.

Apple furthermore spends billions of dollars in R&D (analysis and building) which besides the fact that children blanketed within the cost of the product.

four. hard to learn and Use

here is probably the most denied myth through any Mac consumer because Mac OS feels an abominable lot extra handy to study and function as in comparison with another operating equipment.

It has a really consumer-pleasant person interface.

And furthermore draws everyone’s consideration as it is completely stacked and organized as in comparison with home windows.

5. No want of Antiviruses for Mac

As they mentioned prior attackers goal Mac OS contraptions very much less compared with windows.

nonetheless it doesn’t hint that you simply don’t should deploy any antiviruses on it.

Don’t exist fooled by means of fewer attacks.

As they at shameful times hear in the tidings that some malware attacked on Mac OS. So It’s stronger to exist equipped with protection.

professionals and Cons of Mac Os

Following are some of the pros (benefits) and Cons (negative aspects) of Mac OS.

professionals 1. BootCamp

Mac OS has a built-in software known as BootCamp.

It allows you to install windows, Linux or another working system in addition to OS X.

setting up the boot camp in OS X is furthermore very handy.

And switching between them is even less difficult now.

2. Works seamlessly with different Apple devices

As each Apple gadget is made through Apple itself so the hardware and software are fully controlled by using them.

It capability they participate the equal interior working mechanism.

which implies that the iMessage on iPhone works as light as on a MacBook or iMac.

This seamless integration of instruments eventually gives you the most fulfilling user journey and satisfaction.

three. Fewer attacks

As they outlined prior Apple has only 10% of market participate within the desktop OS, which effects in fewer assaults.

The volume of Mac users are pretty much less as compared to home windows.

So this doesn’t yield any sense for hackers to assault Mac OS users.

this is arrive what may may furthermore exist an competencies for some individuals because it makes the user regard Mac Os more relaxed but will furthermore exist a disadvantage for some others as a result of on the equal time it is not as a whole lot ordinary as the home windows.

4. Bloatware Free

nearly every home windows notebook comes with some sort of Bloatware (Pre-put in utility) which slows down the computing device over time.

but Macbook and iMac makes you free from this worry.

It doesn’t hint that they don’t arrive with Pre-put in utility.

Mac computers absorb pre-installed software, but best from Apple and they don’t decelerate your system as well.

5. impressive swish Design

The biggest talents of Macbook and iMac is that they're sleek as compared to their competitors.

This makes using Mac OS greater exciting.

As a count of fact, the first MacBook air turned into the slimmest computing device on earth at the moment.

And iMac nonetheless is silent the slimmest desktop edition.

6. Mac can examine NTFS or fats

Macs can read NTFS or fats formatted complicated drives whereas windows can’t read Mac formatted drives.

You deserve to install third-celebration software for that in home windows.

7. stronger consumer carrier and After earnings assist

Apple is terribly smartly sought after for it’s premier consumer carrier and after earnings support.

they absorb got the maximum customer delight price throughout the globe.

The cadaver of workers on outlets are smartly trained and if you received your gadget broken they yield certain that they arrive up with the absolute best solution.

also study – exact 5 reasons for Apple’s Success

Cons 1. less purview and options

The largest drawback of Mac OS or they may silent voice MacBook and iMac is that Apple presents very restricted versions of them.

means you deserve to disburse the determined volume through them, handiest then you can purchase their product otherwise no longer.

This makes windows a go-to preference for those that are seeking for some most economical notebook or laptop because of a wide variety of choice.

This factor restricts the buyer from paying for Apple Mac Product.

2. Non-upgradable

another predominant disadvantage of Mac OS powered items is that they are non-upgradable.

means that you can’t boost the quantity of RAM, change processor or motherboard, really, that you would exist able to’t customize it in keeping with you.

when you acquired it, you requisite to modify on what you bought.

3. Worse for playing games

Many americans accept as accurate with that you should’t play excessive-conclusion games on Macbook and iMac which is arrive what may real.

each of these products aren't made for gaming.

they've a extremely much less volume of photographs recollection which isn't enough for most fulfilling gaming performance.

so that you absorb to give up on this.

4. Fewer accessories

because it isn't as widespread as home windows PCs.

The MacBook and iMac requisite to suffer from fewer add-ons.

There are very much less volume of accessories producers who create accessories for them.

This additionally effects on what could exist the competencies patrons of Mac.

5. minuscule neighborhood

because of fewer sales, the MacBook and iMac americans absorb a very minuscule group as in comparison to home windows users.

Which skill you received’t relish the uphold as a wonderful deal you could on home windows pc.


So this was shameful regarding what is Mac Os? their professionals and Cons and explanation. if you locate it helpful then achieve bid us within the remark section under, they might treasure to hear that.

stay tuned for more.

Continental announces Apple OS compatibility for VDO RoadLog ELD | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Continental has introduced that its VDO RoadLog office Solo electronic Logging gear (ELD) utility is now suitable with Apple computers and laptops. VDO RoadLog Solo consumers can now operate USB key synchronization on modern Apple computer systems and laptops having macOS Sierra (edition 10.12 or greater), Apple computer’s Mac OS X operating gadget for Macintosh desktop, laptop, and server computer systems. The client’s computing device or computing device ought to furthermore absorb an attainable USB port and broadband information superhighway access.

“Many proprietor/operators and fleets are interested in synchronization to Apple computers and laptops, and they are actually able to present a simple routine for them to link these devices,” said Jay McCarthy, Continental’s VDO RoadLog advertising manager. “for people that may well exist the usage of different ELDs, this is yet another excuse to yield the swap to the VDO RoadLog ELD answer.”

OS X/macOS now older than classic Mac OS | actual Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Older readers might silent exist awake when Macs made the transition to OS X, greater recently rebranded to macOS. but if you nonetheless sort of suppose of that because the ‘new’ OS, as of nowadays it’s in fact now been round for longer than the entire preceding versions – jointly and colloquially known as classic Mac OS …

Jason Snell marked the event in a weblog publish the day before today.

these days marks 17 years, one month, and 29 days considering that Mac OS X 10.0 turned into released on March 24, 2001. That’s a strangely peculiar number—6,269 days—but it additionally happens to exist the exact length of time between January 24, 1984 (the launch of the natural Macintosh) and March 24, 2001.

In other words, these days the Mac’s second working gadget era, powered with the aid of Mac OS X (now macOS) has been in existence provided that the primary era turned into.

As he notes, it does depend slightly on the artery you measure these items.

There was a Mac OS X public beta. The funeral for Mac OS 9 wasn’t held except 2002. classic Mode persevered to function within Mac OS X unless it become eliminated in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

So for beta clients, the milestone can furthermore absorb been passed a while returned, and for people that held onto Mac OS 9 for a while after OS X launched, it might now not yet absorb arrived.

Early models of the Macintosh gear application had no official name, with Apple referring simplest to Macintosh Toolbox ROM and the system Folder. It most efficacious grew to exist Macintosh gear utility in 1987, with what became then known as system 5. Apple rebranded it to Mac OS in 1996, at system 7.6.

As to the long run, Snell says that he doesn’t espy a ‘seismic’ shift any time quickly, more a gradual raise within the borrowing from iOS. however he does confess that a novel chip could espy the technique betide far and wide again.

there was persisted hypothesis about Apple switching from Intel to ARM chips for future Macs, with one recent document suggesting it could occur as soon as 2020. I gave my very own view on that concept, concluding that the date might look unlikely, but that it's coming soon.

which you can download shameful of the default wallpapers in 5K from 512 Pixels.

by means of Daring Fireball. picture: 512 Pixels

try 9to5Mac on YouTube for greater Apple information:

9L0-623 Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

Study usher 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
exam questions : 64 actual Questions

I got Awesome Questions bank for my 9L0-623 exam.
its miles a captains job to steer the ship just fancy its miles a pilots process to steer the plane. This can exist called my captain or my pilot as it advised me in to the proper path before my 9L0-623 test and it become their directions and guidance that were given me to keep the prerogative path that ultimately lead me to fulfillment. i used to exist very a success in my 9L0-623 check and it became a second of glory for which im able to for shameful time wait obliged to this online study center.

I feel very confident by preparing 9L0-623 actual test questions.
In case you requisite to change your future and ensure that happiness is your future, you want to paintings tough. Operatingtough on my own isnt always enough to win to future, you want some path to exist able to lead you closer to the course. It wasdestiny that i create this killexams.Com at some point of my assessments as it lead me toward my future. My fate changed into getting reform grades and this killexams.Com and its teachers made it viable my training they so properly that I couldnt likely fail by artery of giving me the substance for my 9L0-623 exam.

it is exquisite to absorb 9L0-623 actual exam questions.
Within the wake of attempting some aids, I at closing halted at Dumps and it contained precise answers added in a light manner that was exactly what I required. I used to exist struggling with with topics, while my examination 9L0-623 become handiest 10 day away. I used to exist shy that i might now not absorb the capacity to harvest passing rating the lowest pass imprints. I at remaining handed with 78% marks without an abominable lot inconvenience.

discovered an accurate source for actual 9L0-623 dumps.
I went crazy when my test was in a week and I lost my 9L0-623 syllabus. I got blank and wasnt able to design out how to cope up with the situation. Obviously, they shameful are awake of the significance the syllabus during the preparation period. It is the only paper which directs the way. When I was almost mad, I got to know about killexams. Cant thank my friend for making me awake of such a blessing. Preparation was much easier with the serve of 9L0-623 syllabus which I got through the site.

What are middle objectives state-of-the-art 9L0-623 exam?
The exercise examination is remarkable, I surpassed 9L0-623 paper with a score of one hundred percentage. Properly well worth the fee. I might exist again for my subsequent certification. First of shameful permit me provide you with a huge thanks for giving me prep dumps for 9L0-623 exam. It changed into certainly useful for the education of exams and furthermore clearing it. You wont recall that i got not a lone solution incorrect !!!Such whole examination preparatory material are top notch manner to obtain immoderate in checks.

it's far high-quality example to establish together 9L0-623 exam with dumps.
The cloth is straightforward to comprehend and enough to establish together for the 9L0-623 examination. No different keep at cloth I used in conjunction with the Dumps. My heartfelt thanks to you for creating such an enormously effective, simple fabric for the hard exam. I never thought I may want to bypass this exam easily without any tries. You people made it Take place. I spoke back seventy six questions maximum correctly within the actual exam. thank you for offering me an revolutionary product.

do not forget to study these actual test questions for 9L0-623 examination.
Howdy there fellows, clearly to bid you that I passed 9L0-623 examination an afternoon or two ago with 88% marks. Sure, the examination is tough and killexams.Com exam questions and exam Simulator does yield life much less tough - a first-rate deal! I suppose this unit is the unrivaled intuition I passed the examination. As a recollect of first significance, their examination simulator is a present. I generally loved the probe and-answer company and assessments of numerous kinds in light of the reality that that is the maximum excellent routine to Take a keep at.

terrific source cutting-edge remarkable dumps, reform solutions.
Passing the 9L0-623 examination changed into quite tough for me till I became brought with the Question & reply with the aid of killexams. Some of the subjects seemed very difficult to me. Tried loads to examine the books, but failed as time changed into quick. Finally, the unload helped me comprehend the subjects and wrap up my education in 10 days time. remarkable manual, killexams. My heartfelt thanks to you.

Unbelieveable performance ultra-modern 9L0-623 question bank and study guide.
I absorb cleared 9L0-623 examination in a lone strive with 98% marks. Killexams.Com is the best medium to lucid this examination. Thank you, your case studies and cloth absorb been top. I requisite the timer could hasten too while they deliver the workout tests. Thank you over again.

Take a smart circulate, attain these 9L0-623 questions and answers.
I surpassed the 9L0-623 exam with this package from Killexams. Im now not nice i would absorb performed it without it! The vicissitude is, it covers a massive purview of subjects, and in case you establish together for the examination on your personal, with out a demonstratedapproach, possibilities are that a few subjects can descend thru the cracks. Those are only a few areas has trulyhelped me with there can exist simply an inordinate amount of facts! covers the whole lot, and because they utilize actual examination questions passing the 9L0-623 with a whole lot less stress is lots simpler.

Obviously it is hard assignment to pick solid certification questions/answers assets concerning review, reputation and validity since individuals win 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 arrive 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 certitude is vital to us. Uniquely they deal with review, reputation, sham report grievance, trust, validity, report and scam. In the event that you espy any spurious report posted by their rivals with the denomination killexams sham report grievance web, sham report, scam, dissension or something fancy this, simply recollect there are constantly terrible individuals harming reputation of wonderful administrations because of their advantages. There are a remarkable 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.

Back to Bootcamp Menu

LOT-956 examcollection | 700-037 test prep | ST0-94X study guide | ADM-201 bootcamp | 000-646 brain dumps | 3309 exercise test | 000-604 cheat sheets | C2120-800 braindumps | 310-620 questions answers | HP0-K02 exam questions | 050-663 exercise test | HP3-C33 exercise questions | HP3-045 exam prep | 310-052 exercise test | C2150-202 actual questions | FM0-305 free pdf | 270-131 cram | HP0-J20 brain dumps | 920-807 braindumps | C2010-573 questions and answers |

We are delighted that you are interested in becoming a part of our school.

Searching for 9L0-623 exam dumps that works in actual exam?
At, they convey completely tested Apple 9L0-623 actual Questions and Answers that are of late required for Passing 9L0-623 exam. They beyond question empower people to prepare to prep the exam questions and guarantee. It is a superb preference to accelerate your situation as a specialist inside the Industry.

The best thanks to win success within the Apple 9L0-623 exam is that you just got to win dependable dumps. they absorb an approach to guarantee that is the most direct pathway towards Apple Mac OS X Deployment 10.6 test. you will succeed with complete surety. you will exist able to espy free questions at before you win the 9L0-623 exam dumps. Their exam questions are as similar as actual exam questions. The Questions and Answers collected by the certified professionals. they outfit you the expertise of taking the distinguished exam. 100% guarantee to pass the 9L0-623 actual exam. Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under; WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for shameful exams on website PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $69 DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders larger than $99 SEPSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for shameful Orders Click

Quality and Value for the 9L0-623 Exam : exercise Exams for Apple 9L0-623 are written to the highest standards of technical accuracy, using only certified subject matter experts and published authors for development.

100% Guarantee to Pass Your 9L0-623 Exam : If you achieve not pass the Apple 9L0-623 exam using their testing engine, they will give you a complete REFUND of your purchasing fee.

Downloadable, Interactive 9L0-623 Testing engines : Their Apple 9L0-623 Preparation Material provides you everything you will requisite to Take Apple 9L0-623 exam. Details are researched and produced by Apple Certification Experts who are constantly using industry undergo to yield actual, and logical.

- Comprehensive questions and answers about 9L0-623 exam - 9L0-623 exam questions accompanied by exhibits - Verified Answers by Experts and almost 100% correct - 9L0-623 exam questions updated on regular basis - 9L0-623 exam preparation is in multiple-choice questions (MCQs). - Tested by multiple times before publishing - Try free 9L0-623 exam demo before you choose to buy it in Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as under;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for shameful exams on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $99
DECSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for shameful Orders


Since 1997, we have provided a high quality education to our community with an emphasis on academic excellence and strong personal values.

Killexams 920-115 exam prep | Killexams 190-805 actual questions | Killexams 9L0-012 test prep | Killexams HP2-H35 exercise questions | Killexams 98-381 study guide | Killexams MB7-639 test prep | Killexams C2010-565 free pdf | Killexams CRISC mock exam | Killexams M2020-732 braindumps | Killexams 310-810 exercise Test | Killexams AngularJS free pdf | Killexams 1Z0-541 examcollection | Killexams 9A0-310 test questions | Killexams 9L0-401 exercise test | Killexams 000-822 dumps questions | Killexams 00M-654 exam questions | Killexams C2020-605 actual questions | Killexams HPE0-J74 questions and answers | Killexams C2010-530 exercise test | Killexams MBLEX exercise questions |

Exam Simulator : Pass4sure 9L0-623 Exam Simulator

View Complete list of Brain dumps

Killexams 922-101 study guide | Killexams 000-R03 free pdf | Killexams 000-M246 exercise exam | Killexams 000-695 braindumps | Killexams A2010-572 questions and answers | Killexams 132-S-815-1 free pdf | Killexams 050-653 pdf download | Killexams C2050-240 sample test | Killexams 4A0-100 actual questions | Killexams EPPP braindumps | Killexams JN0-691 brain dumps | Killexams LOT-954 dump | Killexams 650-157 cheat sheets | Killexams HP0-T01 exercise questions | Killexams LCDC questions answers | Killexams 1Y0-611 braindumps | Killexams 920-173 study guide | Killexams HP0-M36 VCE | Killexams 1Z0-321 brain dumps | Killexams 000-915 exercise questions |

Mac OS X Deployment 10.6

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

Siri Deployed on Mac OS X via Air ordain | 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 tangle is that you really requisite the novel iPhone 4S model which features the Siri assistant.

The profit here is to win Siri Dictation working on your Mac: “Like Siri on your iPhone 4S? You'll fancy 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 ordain text into Mail, Pages, Microsoft Word, and even Apple’s own TextEdit app, shameful you requisite is the Air ordain app on your iPhone 4S and the Air ordain 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 ordain app.

- choose your Mac from a list of nearby computers.

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

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

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

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

Air ordain 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 shameful their offerings, or visit the links below to win your dictation on prerogative now.

Download Air ordain for iPhone 4S

Download Air ordain 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 with 269 posters participating, including record author Share this story
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Reddit
  • Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger: 150+ novel featuresMac OS X 10.4 Tiger: 150+ novel 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 push reflected this, touting "over 150 novel features."

    All those novel 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 goal to scurry 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 novel features in Mac OS X 10.5 LeopardSteve Jobs at WWDC 2007, touting 300 novel features in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

    Apple even went so far as to list shameful 300 novel features on its website. As it turns out, "spring" was a bit optimistic. Leopard actually shipped at the discontinuance of October 2007, nearly two and a half years after Tiger. Did Leopard really absorb twice as many novel features as Tiger? That's debatable. What's certain is that Leopard included a solid crop of novel features and technologies, many of which they now Take 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 include 500 novel features? A thousand?

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

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

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

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

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

    The overall message from Apple to developers was something fancy this: "We're adding a ton of novel things to Mac OS X that will serve you write better applications and yield your existing code hasten faster, and we're going to yield certain that shameful this novel stuff is rock-solid and as bug-free as possible. We're not going to overextend ourselves adding a raft of novel customer-facing, marketing-friendly features. Instead, we're going to concentrate 100% on the things that move you, the developers."

    But if Snow Leopard is a treasure epistle to developers, is it a Dear John epistle to users? You know, those people that the marketing department might so crudely refer 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 support up with Apple's seemingly never-ending stream of novel APIs, it can exist just as taxing for customers to wait on top of Mac OS X's features. Exposé, a novel Finder, Spotlight, a novel Dock, Time Machine, a novel Finder again, a novel iLife and iWork almost every year, and on and on. And as much as developers abhor bugs in Apple's APIs, users who undergo those bugs as application crashes absorb just as much intuition to exist annoyed.

    Enter Snow Leopard: the release where they shameful win 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 novel APIs and technologies?" When speaking to developers, Apple's message of "no novel features" is another artery of adage "no novel bugs." Snow Leopard is supposed to fix brokendown bugs without introducing novel ones. But nothing says "new bugs, coming prerogative up" quite fancy major novel APIs. So which is it?

    Similarly, for users, "no novel 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 yield wonderful on this promise? Or will users discontinuance up with shameful the disadvantages of a feature-packed release fancy Tiger or Leopard—the inevitable 10.x.0 bugs, the unfamiliar, untried novel functionality—but without any of the actual novel features?

    Yes, it's enough to yield one quite cynical about Apple's actual motivations. To toss some more fuel on the fire, absorb a keep 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 novel features. (The releases are distributed uniformly on the Y axis.) Maybe you regard it's reasonable for the time between releases to stretch out as each one brings a heavier load of goodies than the last, but support in intelligence the rational consequence of such a curve over the longhorn haul.

    And yeah, there's a slight upwards kick at the discontinuance for 10.6, but remember, this is supposed to exist the "no novel 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 hard not to wonder 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, silent in that steep, early section of its own timeline graph. Yes, I'm talking about the iPhone, specifically iPhone OS. The iPhone business has exploded onto Apple's balance sheets fancy no other product before, even the iPod. It's furthermore 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 participate the identical core operating system, the identical language for GUI development, and many of the identical APIs. Some workforce migration seems inevitable.

    And let's not forget the "Mac OS X" technologies that they later learned were developed for the iPhone and just happened to exist announced for the Mac first (because the iPhone was silent a secret), fancy Core Animation and code signing. Such machination 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 shameful that? A nearly two-year evolution cycle, but no novel features. Major novel frameworks for developers, but few novel bugs. Significant changes to the core OS, but more reliability. And a franchise rejuvenation with few user-visible changes.

    It's enough to circle a leopard white.

    The price of entry

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

    Still here? Good, because there's something else you requisite to know about Snow Leopard. It's an overture of a different sort, less of a come-on and more of a spur. Snow Leopard will only hasten on Macs with Intel CPUs. Sorry (again), PowerPC fans, but this is the discontinuance of the line for you. The transition to Intel was announced over four years ago, and the final novel 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 novel features" stance (and the accompanying lack of added visual flair) is working against it. For those running Leopard on a PowerPC-based Mac, there's precious slight in Snow Leopard to serve shove them over the (likely) four-digit price wall of a novel Mac. For PowerPC Mac owners, the threshold for a novel Mac purchase remains mostly unchanged. When their brokendown Mac breaks or seems too slow, they'll depart out and buy a novel one, and it'll arrive with Snow Leopard pre-installed.

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

    The final attractive group is owners of Intel-based Macs that are silent running Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger. Apple shipped Intel Macs with Tiger installed for a slight 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 furthermore apparently not eligible to purchase Snow Leopard for the traditional $129 price. Here's what Apple has to voice 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 price of $29 (US) and the Snow Leopard Family Pack, a lone household, five-user license, will exist available for a suggested price of $49 (US). For Tiger® users with an Intel-based Mac, the Mac Box Set includes Mac OS X Snow Leopard, iLife® '09 and iWork® '09 and will exist available for a suggested price of $169 (US) and a Family Pack is available for a suggested price of $229 (US).

    Ignoring the family packs for a moment, this means that Snow Leopard will either exist free with your novel Mac, $29 if you're already running Leopard, or $169 if you absorb an Intel Mac running Tiger. People upgrading from Tiger will win the latest version of iLife and iWork in the condense (if that's the usurp term), whether they want them or not. It certain seems fancy there's an obvious dwelling in this lineup for a $129 offering of Snow Leopard on its own. Then again, perhaps it shameful 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 effect on your aptitude to hasten the OS. This is considered a genuine handicap of Mac OS X, but it furthermore means that Apple has no reliable 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 ilk of thing before, and it bypasses any proof-of-purchase annoyances. It would, however, interlard a novel problem. In the event of a hard drive failure or simple determination 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 hard 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 determination is a refreshing change: rewarding honest people with a hassle-free product rather than trying to punish untruthful people by treating everyone fancy a criminal. This "honor system" upgrade enforcement policy partially explains the tall jump to $169 for the Mac Box Set, which ends up re-framed as an honest person's artery to win iLife and iWork at their accustomed prices, plus Snow Leopard for $11 more.

    And yes, speaking of installing, let's finally win 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 hasten of the optical drive, and so on. Installation furthermore only happens once, and it's not really an attractive process unless something goes terribly wrong. Still, if Apple's going to yield such a claim, it's worth checking out.

    To eradicate as many variables as possible, I installed both Leopard and Snow Leopard from one hard disk onto another (empty) one. It should exist famed that this change negates some of Snow Leopard's most distinguished 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 espy 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 minuscule (5:49 vs. 3:20) and again, novel 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 win that Snow Leopard means business when it comes to performance.

    Another notable thing about installation is what's not installed by default: Rosetta, the facility that allows PowerPC binaries to hasten on Intel Macs. Okay Apple, they win 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 slight harsh, even foolhardy. What's going to betide when shameful those users upgrade to Snow Leopard and then double-click what they've probably long since forgotten is a PowerPC application? Perhaps surprisingly, this is what happens:

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

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

    Rosetta auto-install

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

    Installation footprint

    Rosetta aside, Snow Leopard simply puts fewer bits on your disk. Apple claims it "takes up less than half the disk space of the previous version," and that's no lie. A clean, default install (including fully-generated Spotlight indexes) is 16.8 GB for Leopard and 5.9 GB for Snow Leopard. (Incidentally, these numbers are both powers-of-two measurements; espy 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 effect of making your hard disk suddenly materialize larger after installing Snow Leopard. For example, my "1 TB" hard 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, hard disk manufacturers utilize the powers-of-ten system. It's shameful quite a mess, really. Though I arrive down pretty firmly on the powers-of-two side of the fence, I can't blame Apple too much for wanting to match up nicely with the long-established (but silent dumb, intelligence you) hard disk vendors' capacity measurement standard.

    Snow Leopard has several weight loss secrets. The first is obvious: no PowerPC uphold means no PowerPC code in executables. Recall the maximum possible 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 shameful the files in the operating system are executables. There are data files, images, audio files, even a slight 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 bid you is that the commands shown above were hasten from a Leopard system looking at a Snow Leopard disk. In fact, shameful compressed Snow Leopard files materialize to contain zero bytes when viewed from a pre-Snow Leopard version of Mac OS X. (They keep and act perfectly natural when booted into Snow Leopard, of course.)

    So, where's the data? The slight "@" at the discontinuance 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 shameful 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 hard links. In Tiger, extended attributes and access control lists were incorporated. In Leopard, HFS+ gained uphold for hard links to directories. In Snow Leopard, HFS+ learns another novel trick: per-file compression.

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

    Even more information is revealed with the serve 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 ilk = 4 (resource fork has compressed data) uncompressed size = 7500336 bytes

    And certain enough, as they saw, the resource fork does indeed contain the compressed data. Still, why the resource fork? It's shameful fragment of Apple's usual, shrewd backward-compatibility gymnastics. A recent case is the artery that hard links to directories demonstrate 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 yield 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, debase through modification—the unexpectedly compressed file contents, Apple has chosen to bury the compressed data instead.

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

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

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

    Here, the data is minuscule 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 ilk = 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 touchstone PkgInfo file fancy this one, those contents are the four-byte classic Mac OS ilk 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 silent the identical "fpmc..." preamble seen in shameful the earlier examples of the attribute, but at the discontinuance of the value, the expected data appears as unpretentious as day: ilk 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 shameful about data compression, how does storing eight uncompressed bytes plus a 17-byte preamble in an extended credit rescue any disk space? The reply 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 shroud size (4 KB, by default). So those eight bytes will Take up a minimum of 4,096 bytes if stored in the traditional way. When allocating disk space for extended attributes, however, the allocation shroud 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 credit is over 4,000 bytes.

    But compression isn't just about saving disk space. It's furthermore a classic case 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 hard disk hunt times and rotational delays are silent measured in milliseconds. In one millisecond, a 2 GHz CPU goes through two million cycles. And then, of course, there's silent the actual data transfer time to consider.

    Granted, several levels of caching throughout the OS and hardware work mightily to bury these delays. But those bits absorb to arrive 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 natural use, the total time needed to transfer a compressed payload from the disk and utilize the CPU to decompress its contents into recollection will silent usually exist far less than the time it'd Take to transfer the data in uncompressed form.

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

    If there's one thing that slows down a hard disk more than transferring a big amount of data, it's stirring its heads from one fragment of the disk to another. Every scurry 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 establish the desired bits beneath it. These are shameful real, physical, stirring parts, and it's fabulous that they achieve their dance as quickly and efficiently as they do, but physics has its limits. These motions are the actual performance killers for rotational storage fancy hard disks.

    The HFS+ volume format stores shameful 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 big (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 circumscribe of about 128 bytes per attribute. But it furthermore means that the disk head doesn't requisite to Take a trip to another fragment of the disk to win the actual data.

    As you can imagine, the disk blocks that yield up the Catalog and Attributes files are frequently accessed, and therefore more likely than most to exist in a cache somewhere. shameful of this conspires to yield 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 silent less than the allocation shroud size for natural data storage, and as long as it shameful 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 attractive promises about the installation process:

    Snow Leopard checks your applications to yield certain 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 voice "illicit"—third-party system extensions. I absorb a decidedly pragmatic view of such software, and I'm happy to espy Apple taking a similarly practical approach to minimizing its impact on users.

    Apple can't exist expected to detect and disable shameful potentially incompatible software, of course. I suspect only the most well-liked or highest profile risky software is detected. If you're a developer, this installer feature may exist a wonderful 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 furthermore absorb a UPS.) For long-running processes fancy installation, this benevolent of added robustness is welcome, especially on battery-powered devices fancy laptops.

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

    Snow Leopard's novel looks

    I've long yearned for Apple to yield a spotless 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 attest 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 ease of the world—has used a value of 2.2. Though this may not look significant to anyone but professional graphics artists, the disagreement is usually evident to even a casual observer when viewing the identical 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 disagreement is more smart than it's worth. The default output gamma correction value in Snow Leopard is now 2.2, just fancy everyone else. Done and done.

    If they notice at all, users will likely undergo this change as a emotion that the Snow Leopard user interface has a bit more contrast than Leopard's. This is reinforced by the novel 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, accurate to form, Apple could not resist adding a few graphical tweaks to the Snow Leopard interface. The most evident changes are related to the Dock. First, there's the novel "spotlight" keep 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 shameful pop-up menus on the Dock—and only on the Dock—have a unique keep 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 certain age, these menus may bring to intelligence 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 furthermore admirably restrained.

    Nevertheless, this is an entirely novel keep 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 voice about that, and more. If the oath of Snow Leopard's appearance was to "first, achieve no harm," then I regard 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 fragment 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 slight to treasure in Snow Leopard's visual changes.

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

    Still, I must unenthusiastically foretell that most natural 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 novel features" to consumers, there's the issue of how to win people to notice that this novel 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 shameful 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 prick and dried: outer space, stars, loaded 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 keep 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 fancy the others…One of these things is not fancy 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 tall thing going for it: it's immediately recognizable as something novel 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 slight casual 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 novel product.

    (If you'd fancy your own picture of Snowy the snow leopard (that's right, I've named him), Apple was benevolent enough to include 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 shameful 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 novel OS.

    64-bit: the road leads ever on

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

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

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

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

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

    The first intuition has to achieve with RAM, and not in the artery you might think. Though Leopard uses a 32-bit kernel, Macs running Leopard can contain and utilize far more RAM than the 4 GB circumscribe the "32-bit" qualifier might look 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 look fancy a problem; after all, should the kernel really requisite more than 4GB of recollection to achieve its job? But recollect that fragment 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 fancy a lot. But now regard a Mac in the not-too-distant future containing 96GB of RAM. (If this sounds ridiculous to you, regard of how ridiculous the 8GB of RAM in the Mac I'm typing on prerogative 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 requisite 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 occasion to leave behind some of the ugliness of the past and include more modern features: more registers, novel addressing modes, non-stack-based floating point capabilities, etc. K64 reaps these benefits. Apple makes the following claims about its performance:

  • 250% faster system muster entry point
  • 70% faster user/kernel recollection copy
  • Focused benchmarking would bear these out, I'm sure. But in daily use, you're unlikely to exist able to credit any particular performance boost to the kernel. regard of K64 as removing bottlenecks from the few (usually server-based) applications that actually achieve 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 requisite to use, then by shameful means, boot into the 64-bit kernel.

    For everyone else, my recommendation is to exist happy that K64 will exist ready and waiting for you when you eventually achieve requisite it—and please achieve cheer shameful the vendors that yield kernel extensions that you supervision about to add K64 uphold as soon as possible.

    Finally, this is worth repeating: please support in intelligence that you achieve not requisite to hasten the 64-bit kernel in order to hasten 64-bit applications or install more than 4GB of RAM in your Mac. Applications hasten 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 possible to install and Take handicap of much more than 4GB of RAM.

    64-bit applications

    While Leopard may absorb brought with it uphold for 64-bit GUI applications, it actually included very few of them. In fact, by my count, only two 64-bit GUI applications shipped with Leopard: Xcode (an optional install) and Chess. And though Leopard made it possible for third-party developers to yield 64-bit (albeit Leopard-only) GUI applications, very few have—sometimes due to unfortunate realities, but most often because there's been no wonderful intuition to achieve 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, serve Viewer, Installer, Terminal, Calculator—you denomination it, it's 64-bit.

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

    64-bits or bust

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

    Despite shameful of the above, I'd silent muster Snow Leopard merely the penultimate step in Mac OS X's journey to exist 64-bit from top to bottom. I fully await Mac OS X 10.7 to boot into the 64-bit kernel by default, to ship with 64-bit versions of shameful 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 look fancy such a tall 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 circle to depart 64-bit.

    As it turns out, my terse but pessimistic assessment of the situation at the time was accurate: QuickTime got the "Carbon treatment". fancy 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 configuration 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, fancy the one in in Mac OS X, is pronounced "ten." This is but the first of many eerie parallels. fancy Mac OS X before it, QuickTime X:

  • aims to yield a spotless 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 distinguished features in its initial release
  • Maximum available Mac CPU hasten (MHz)Maximum available Mac CPU hasten (MHz)

    Let's Take these one at a time. First, why is a spotless atomize needed? establish 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 prerogative is meant to hammer home this point. Forward-thinking design can only win you so far. The shape of the world a technology is born into eventually, inevitably dictates its fate. This is especially accurate for long-lived APIs fancy QuickTime with a sturdy bent towards backward compatibility.

    As the first successful implementation of video on a personal computer, it's frankly fabulous that the QuickTime API has lasted as long as it has. But the world has moved on. Just as Mac OS create 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 wonderful uphold for the GPU-accelerated video playback necessary to handle modern video codecs on a handheld (even with a CPU sixteen times the clock hasten 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 appropriate comfortably within the RAM and CPU constraints of the iPhone.

    Hmm. An aging desktop video API in requisite of a replacement. A fresh, novel video library with wonderful 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 price the frontier between the brokendown QuickTime 7 and the novel QuickTime X. It's done this in Snow Leopard by limiting shameful utilize of QuickTime by 64-bit applications to the QTKit Objective-C framework.

    QTKit's novel world order

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

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

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

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

    To find out, fire up the novel 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? wonderful times.) certain enough, it plays just fine. But search for "QuickTime" in the Activity Monitor application and you'll espy this:

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

    And the reply is revealed. When a 64-bit application using QTKit requires the services of the 32-bit-only QuickTime 7 back-end, QTKit spawns a divide 32-bit QTKitServer process to achieve the work and communicate the results back to the originating 64-bit process. If you leave Activity Monitor open while using the novel QuickTime Player application, you can watch the QTKitServer processes arrive and depart as needed. This is shameful handled transparently by the QTKit framework; the application itself requisite not exist awake 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 benevolent enough not to muster it "QuickTime Classic"), but the path forward is clear. With each novel release of Mac OS X, await the capabilities of QuickTime X to expand, and the number of things that silent require QuickTime 7 to decrease. In Mac OS X 10.7, for example, I imagine that QuickTime X will gain uphold for plug-ins. And surely by Mac OS X 10.8, QuickTime X will absorb complete video editing support. shameful 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 utilize the QuickTime X back-end, there are several roundabout means to influence the decision. The key is the QTKit API, which relies heavily on the concept of intent.

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

    This sounds remarkable until you realize that to achieve anything with a media resource in QuickTime requires the construction of this comprehensive Movie object. regard playing an MP3 file with QuickTime, for example. QuickTime must create its internal Movie remonstrate representation of the MP3 file before it can start 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 yield this process less painful by doing the scanning and parsing incrementally in the background. You can espy this in many QuickTime-based player applications in the configuration 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 district from left to right.

    QuickTime 7 doing more work than necessary

    QuickTime 7 doing more work than necessary

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

    The smart is, the QuickTime 7 API lacks a artery to express this benevolent of intent. There is no artery to voice to QuickTime 7, "Just open this file as quickly as possible 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 choose 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 shameful is to explicitly express your intent not to achieve anything QuickTime X cannot handle. Furthermore, any attempt to discharge an operation that lies outside your previously expressed intent will intuition QTKit to raise an exception.

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

    Indeed, there are many reasons to achieve what it takes to win 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 shameful that's desired.) QuickTime X furthermore supports GPU-accelerated playback of H.264, but, in this initial release, only on Macs equipped with an NVIDIA 9400M GPU (i.e., some 2009 iMacs and several models of MacBooks from 2008 and 2009). Finally, QuickTime X includes comprehensive ColorSync uphold for video, which is long overdue.

    The X factor

    This is just the start of a long journey for QuickTime X, and seemingly not a very auspicious one, at that. A QuickTime engine with no editing support? No plug-ins? It seems ridiculous to release it at all. But this has been Apple's 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 prick Studio. Thus far, It remains stuck in 32-bit. To voice that Apple is "highly motivated" to extend the capabilities of QuickTime X would exist an understatement.

    Nevertheless, don't await Apple to rush forward foolishly. Duplicating the functionality of a continually developed, 18-year-old API will not betide overnight. It will Take years, and it will exist even longer before every distinguished Mac OS X application is updated to utilize 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 remarkable understanding to utilize as the only artery an application tracks files. regard what happens if an application opens a file based on a path string, then the user moves that file somewhere else while it's silent being edited. When the application is instructed to rescue the file, if it only has the file path to work with, it will discontinuance up creating a novel file in the brokendown 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 serve 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 furthermore refer to local files, but in that case they absorb shameful the identical disadvantages as file paths.

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

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

    Here's an case 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 shameful the desirable attributes of an FSRef.

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

    There's furthermore a novel on-disk representation called a Bookmark (not to exist confused with a browser bookmark) which is fancy 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 furthermore possible to attach capricious metadata to each Bookmark. For example, if an application wants to support 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 appliance for the job.

    I mention shameful of this not because I await file system APIs to exist shameful that attractive to people without my particular fascination with this fragment of the operating system, but because, fancy Core Text before it, it's an indication of exactly how immature Mac OS X really is as a platform. Even after seven major releases, Mac OS X is silent struggling to scurry out from the shadow of its three ancestors: NeXTSTEP, classic Mac OS, and BSD Unix. Or perhaps it just goes to demonstrate how ruthlessly Apple's core OS team is driven to supersede brokendown 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 configuration of Mac applications that are written or modified to utilize these novel 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 wonderful Mac OS X citizenTextEdit: a wonderful 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 intuition that developers might choose to alter their existing, working application to utilize these novel APIs.

    Doing more with more

    Moore's Law is widely cited in technology circles—and furthermore widely misunderstood. It's most often used as shorthand for "computers double in hasten 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 appropriate onto a square inch of silicon doubles every 12 months.

    Moore later revised that to two years, but the time age is not what people win 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 establish that aside for now. For a more thorough discussion of Moore's Law, please read this classic article by Jon Stokes.)

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

    Moore's Law continues, at least for now, but their aptitude to yield code hasten faster with each novel extend 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 furthermore long since reached the point of diminishing returns, given the limits of instruction-level parallelism in common application code.

    And yet we've silent got shameful these novel transistors raining down on us, more every year. The challenge is to find novel ways to utilize them to actually yield computers faster.

    Thus far, the semiconductor industry's reply has been to give us more of what they already have. Where once a CPU contained a lone rational processing unit, now CPUs in even the lowliest desktop computers contain two processor cores, with high-end models sporting two chips with eight rational cores each. Granted, the cores themselves are furthermore getting faster, usually by doing more at the identical clock hasten 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 hasten your application twice as swiftly as a single-core CPU. In fact, your application probably won't hasten any faster at shameful unless it was written to Take handicap of more than just a lone rational CPU. Presented with a glut of transistors, chipmakers absorb turned around and provided more computing resources than programmers know what to achieve 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 shameful this newfound silicon; helping them achieve more with more.

    To that end, Snow Leopard includes two significant novel APIs backed by several smaller, but equally distinguished 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, please tangle up on the topic before continuing.) In it, I described how Leopard used LLVM to provide dramatically more efficient JIT-compiled software implementations of OpenGL functions. I ended with the following admonition:

    Don't exist misled by its humble utilize in Leopard; Apple has 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 novel 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 novel 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 furthermore shameful command-line and source-compatible—in theory, anyway. Clang does not yet uphold some of the more esoteric features of GCC. Clang furthermore only supports C, Objective-C, and a slight bit of C++ (Clang(uage), win it?) whereas GCC supports many more. Apple is committed to complete C++ uphold for Clang, and hopes to work out the remaining GCC incompatibilities during Snow Leopard's lifetime.

    Clang brings with it the two headline attributes you await in a hot, novel 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 fancy Adium and Growl, Clang compiles nearly three times faster than GCC 4.2. As for the hasten 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 furthermore more developer-friendly than its GCC predecessors. I concede that this topic doesn't absorb much to achieve with taking handicap of multiple CPU cores and so on, but it's certain to exist the first thing that a developer actually notices when using Clang. Indulge me.

    For starters, Clang is embeddable, so Xcode can utilize the identical compiler infrastructure for interactive features within the IDE (symbol look-up, code completion, etc.) as it uses to compile the final executable. Clang furthermore 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 lucid what the problem is, especially if you're novel to C programming. Yes, shameful you hotshots already know what the problem is (especially if you saw this case at WWDC), but I regard everyone can correspond that this error, generated by Clang, is a lot more helpful:

    Clang mistake message for an unknown type

    Maybe a novice silent wouldn't know what to do, but at least it's lucid 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. Take this mistake from GCC:

    GCC mistake message for detestable 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 detestable operands

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

    Clang mistake message for missing semicolon

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

    OH HAI I create UR BUGOH HAI I create UR BUG

    Aside from the whimsy of the slight 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 dispatch the mutableCopy message in the final line potentially dangerous.

    I'm certain Apple is going hog-wild running the static analyzer on shameful of its applications and the operating system itself. The prospect of an automated artery to ascertain 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 fragment of the credit.

    Master of the house

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

    After years of struggling with the disconnect between the goals of the GCC project and its own compiler needs, Apple has finally prick the apron strings. OK, granted, GCC 4.2 is silent the default compiler in Snow Leopard, but this is a transitional phase. Clang is the recommended compiler, and the focus of shameful 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 espy 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 Take closures and anonymous functions for granted, those who work 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 configuration the foundation of some other attractive technologies to exist discussed later.

    Perhaps the simplest artery to elaborate blocks is that they yield functions another configuration of data. C-derived languages already absorb function pointers, which can exist passed around fancy data, but these can only point to functions created at compile time. The only artery to influence the behavior of such a function is by passing different arguments to the function or by setting global variables which are then accessed from within the function. Both of these approaches absorb tall 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 shameful of your attractive situation into a context remonstrate 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 shameful quite a pain.

    As for the utilize of global variables, in addition to being a well-known anti-pattern, it's furthermore not thread-safe. To yield it so requires locks or some other configuration of mutual exclusion to forestall multiple invocations of the identical function 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 shameful of these problems by allowing functional blobs of code—blocks—to exist defined at runtime. It's easiest to understand with an example. I'm going to start by using JavaScript, which has a bit friendlier syntax, but the concepts are the same.

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

    Here I've created a function 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 muster to multiplier(5) would recur the value 10.

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

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

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

    By comparing the JavaScript code to the C version, I hope you can espy how it works. In the C example, that slight caret ^ is the key to the syntax for blocks. It's benevolent of ugly, but it's very C-like in that it parallels the existing C syntax for function pointers, with ^ in dwelling of *, as this case illustrates:

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

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

    Now then, does this imply that C is suddenly a dynamic, high-level language fancy JavaScript or Lisp? Hardly. The existing distinction between the stack and the heap, the rules governing automatic and static variables, and so on are shameful silent in complete effect. Plus, now there's a whole novel set of rules for how blocks interact with each of these things. There's even a novel __block storage ilk credit to further control the scope and lifetime of values used in blocks.

    All of that said, blocks are silent a huge win in C. Thanks to blocks, the friendlier APIs long enjoyed by dynamic languages are now possible in C-derived languages. For example, suppose you want to apply some operation to every line in a file. To achieve so in a low-level language fancy C requires some amount of boilerplate code to open and read from the file, handle any errors, read each line into a buffer, and spotless 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 fragment in bold is an abstract representation of what you're planning to achieve to each line of the file. The ease 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 fancy to exist able to achieve is factor it out into a function that you can call. But then you're faced with the problem of how to express the operation you'd fancy to discharge on each line of the file. In the middle of each shroud of boilerplate may exist many lines of code expressing the operation to exist applied. This code may reference or modify local variables which are affected by the runtime behavior of the program, so traditional function pointers won't work. What to do?

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

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

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

    Even when the volume of boilerplate is small, the simplicity and clarity bonus is silent worthwhile. regard the simplest possible 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 slight 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. achieve something 10 times! I never want to screw that up again. Blocks can help. If they just invest a slight trouble 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 capricious shroud of code a specific number of times is shameful but idiot-proof:

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

    And remember, the shroud controversy to repeat() can contain exactly the identical benevolent 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 novel APIs that utilize blocks in Snow Leopard. Many of these APIs would not exist possible at shameful without blocks, and shameful of them are more elegant and concise than they would exist otherwise.

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

    Concurrency in the actual world: a prelude

    The struggle to yield efficient utilize of a big 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 understanding of creating a PC platform unconstrained by legacy limitations and entirely prepared for the coming abundance of independent computing units on the desktop. To that end, exist created the BeBox, a dual-CPU desktop computer, and BeOS, a brand-new operating system.

    The signature tangle 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 yield me demonstrate another graph) could play multiple videos simultaneously while furthermore playing several audio tracks from a CD—some backwards— and shameful the while, the user interface remained completely responsive.

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

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

    Parallel programming is notoriously hard, with the manual management of POSIX-style threads representing the deep discontinuance of that pool. The best programmers in the world are hard-pressed to create big multithreaded programs in low-level languages fancy C or C++ without finding themselves impaled on the spikes of deadlock, race conditions, and other perils inherent in the utilize of in multiple simultaneous threads of execution that participate the identical 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 unpretentious
 of transistorsA wide-open unpretentious of transistors

    And woe exist unto the user if that pegged CPU core is running the main thread of a GUI application on Mac OS X. A CPU-saturated main thread means no novel user inputs are being pulled off the event queue by the application. A few seconds of that and an brokendown 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 achieve with, most of it completely idle, and shameful the while the user is utterly blocked in his attempts to utilize the current application. What's Snow Leopard's answer? Read on…

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

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

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

    There's no requisite to link in a novel library to utilize GCD in your program. Just #include <dispatch/dispatch.h> and you're off to the races. The fact that GCD is a C library means that it can exist used from shameful 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 fancy the checkout line at the supermarket, for those who don't know and don't want to follow the link.) Dequeuing the job means handing it off to a thread where it will execute and achieve its actual work.

    Though GCD queues will hand tasks off to threads in FIFO order, several tasks from the identical 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. furthermore note that even though there were three tasks enqueued, only two threads were used. This is an distinguished feature of GCD which we'll dispute shortly.

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

    The animation above shows threads appearing as work needs to exist done, and disappearing as they're no longer needed. Where achieve these threads arrive from and where achieve they depart 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 hasten on a thread, the thread goes back into the pool.

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

    Let's voice 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 case of creating too many or too few threads? Trick question! The reply 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 await 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 establish in flight at any given time is best determined by a single, globally awake entity. In Snow Leopard, that entity is GCD. It will support 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 utilize of the available hardware. GCD knows how many cores the system has, and it knows how many threads are currently executing tasks. When a queue no longer needs a thread, it's returned to the pool where GCD can hand it out to another queue that has a 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 shameful 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 furthermore relatively costly to create. Creating a novel thread for each job would exist the worst possible scenario. Every time GCD can utilize a thread to execute more than one task, it's a win for overall system efficiency.

    Remember the problem of the programmer trying to design 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 utilize 500 concurrent tasks, then he can depart ahead and create 500 GCD queues and ration his work among them. GCD will design out how many actual threads to create to achieve the work. Furthermore it will adjust the number of threads dynamically as the conditions on the system change.

    But perhaps most importantly, as novel hardware is released with more and more CPU cores, the programmer does not requisite to change his application at all. Thanks to GCD, it will transparently Take handicap of any and shameful 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 complicated directed acyclic graphs. (Actually, they can exist cyclic too, but then the behavior is undefined. Don't achieve that.) Queue hierarchies can exist used to funnel tasks from disparate subsystems into a narrower set of centrally controlled queues, or to obligate a set of natural queues to delegate to a serial queue, effectively serializing them shameful indirectly.

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

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


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

    GCD embodies a philosophy that is at the contradictory discontinuance of the spectrum from BeOS's "pervasive multithreading" design. Rather than achieving responsiveness by getting every possible component of an application running concurrently on its own thread (and paying a massive price in terms of complicated data sharing and locking concerns), GCD encourages a much more limited, hierarchical approach: a main application thread where shameful 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 regard about how best to split the work of their application into multiple concurrent threads (though when they're ready to achieve that, GCD will exist willing and able to help). At its most basic level, GCD aims to cheer developers to scurry from thinking synchronously to thinking asynchronous. Something fancy this: "Write your application as usual, but if there's any fragment of its operation that can reasonably exist expected to Take more than a few seconds to complete, then for the treasure of Zarzycki, win 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 achieve they silent espy the beach ball in Mac OS X applications? Why don't shameful applications already execute shameful of their potentially long-running tasks on background threads?

    A few reasons absorb been mentioned already (e.g., the vicissitude of knowing how many threads to create) but the tall 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 express atomize from coding the actual work of your application to coding shameful this task-management plumbing. And so, especially in borderline cases, fancy an operation that may Take 3 to 5 seconds, developers just achieve it synchronously and scurry onto the next thing.

    Unfortunately, there's a surprising number of very common things that an application can achieve that execute quickly most of the time, but absorb the potential to Take 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 subject to a very long (or at least an "unexamined-by-the-application-developer") timeout. The identical goes for denomination lookups (e.g., DNS or LDAP), which almost always execute instantly, but tangle many applications completely off-guard when they start taking their sweet time to recur a result. Thus, even the most meticulously constructed Mac OS X applications can discontinuance up throwing the beach ball in their visage from time to time.

    With GCD, Apple is adage it doesn't absorb to exist this way. For example, suppose a document-based application has a button that, when clicked, will analyze the current document and array some attractive 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 function cadaver 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 novel state. It shameful follows a very common pattern, and it works remarkable as long as nonexistent of these steps—which are shameful running on the main thread, remember—takes too long. Because after the user presses the button, the main thread of the application needs to handle that user input as swiftly as possible so it can win back to the main event loop to process the next user action.

    The code above works remarkable until a user opens a very big or very complicated document. Suddenly, the "analyze" step doesn't Take 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 big file. And anyway, I really don't want to start reading documentation about threads and adding shameful 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 scurry the document analysis to the background by adding just two lines of code (okay, and two lines of closing braces), shameful located within the existing function? No application-global objects, no thread management, no callbacks, no controversy marshalling, no context objects, not even any additional variables. Behold, 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. shameful of the functions in GCD start with dispatch_, and you can espy four such calls in the blue lines of code above. The key to the minimal invasiveness of this code is revealed in the second controversy to the two dispatch_async() calls. Thus far, I've been discussing "units of work" without specifying how, exactly, GCD models such a thing. The answer, now revealed, should look obvious in retrospect: blocks! The aptitude of blocks to capture the surrounding context is what allows these GCD calls to exist dropped prerogative into some existing code without requiring any additional setup or re-factoring or other contortions in service of the API.

    But the best fragment 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 analyze routine muster and the code to update the application array simply materialize in the desired sequence within the function. In the asynchronous code, miraculously, this is silent the case. Here's how it works.

    The outer dispatch_async() muster puts a job on a global concurrent GCD queue. That task, represented by the shroud passed as the second argument, contains the potentially time-consuming analyze routine call, plus another muster 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 shameful exist done from the main thread in a Cocoa application, so the code in the inner shroud could not exist executed anywhere else. But rather than having the background thread dispatch some benevolent of special-purpose notification back to the main thread when the analyze routine muster completes (and then adding some code to the application to detect and handle this notification), the work that needs to exist done on the main thread to update the array is encapsulated in yet another shroud within the larger one. When the analyze muster is done, the inner shroud is establish onto the main queue where it will (eventually) hasten on the main thread and achieve its work of updating the display.

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

    Believe it or not, it's just as light to Take a serial implementation of a series of independent operations and parallelize it. The code below does work on count elements of data, one after the other, and then summarizes the results once shameful 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 divide job for each factor onto a global concurrent queue. (Again, it's up to GCD to choose how many threads to actually utilize to execute the tasks.)

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

    And there you 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 work required to wait for shameful the independent tests to complete. (The dispatch_apply() muster will not recur until shameful the tasks it has dispatched absorb completed.) Stunning.

    Grand Central Awesome

    Of shameful 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 light to achieve work 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 unravel this problem. Ridiculous.

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

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

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

    Those with some multithreaded programming undergo may exist unimpressed with the GCD. So Apple made a thread pool. tall 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 obscure know-how of asynchronous application design to shameful 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 distinguished novel language feature, and a powerful, pragmatic concurrency API built on top of the novel compilers' uphold for said language feature. shameful this goes a long artery towards helping developers and the OS itself yield maximum utilize of the available hardware.

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

    The numbers bid the tale. While Mac CPUs contain up to four cores (which may demonstrate up as eight rational 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 fancy CPUs, GPUs now arrive 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 uphold the loaded set of instructions available on CPUs, the maximum size of the programs that will hasten is often limited and very small, and not shameful 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 silent 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 wonderful appropriate 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 ilk 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 work around the complete lack of a feature or the unavailability of a particular data type.

    GPU vendor NVIDIA gave it a shot, however, and produced CUDA: a subset of the C language with extensions for vector data types, data storage specifiers that reflect typical GPU 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 achieve the identical for general-purpose computation. In fact, OpenCL is supported by the identical consortium as OpenGL: the ominously named Khronos Group. But yield no mistake, OpenCL is Apple's baby.

    Apple understood that OpenCL's best casual of success was to become an industry standard, not just an Apple technology. To yield 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 shameful arrive together.

    OpenCL is a lot fancy 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 furthermore no artery any of the tall GPU vendors would radically alter their hardware to uphold an as-yet-unproven standard, so OpenCL had to work well with GPUs already designed to uphold CUDA, GLSL, and other existing GPU programming languages.

    The OpenCL difference

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

    Early on, writing programs for the GPU often required the utilize of vendor-specific assembly languages that were far removed from the undergo of writing a typical desktop application using a simultaneous 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 silent could not exist bothered to navigate this foreign world.

    And even if the GPU did give a huge hasten 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 create in laptops, cannot hasten languages fancy CUDA at all.

    Apple's key determination in the design of OpenCL was to allow OpenCL programs to hasten not just on GPUs, but on CPUs as well. An OpenCL program can query the hardware it's running on and enumerate shameful 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 furthermore possible to create a lone rational device consisting of any combination of eligible computing resources: two GPUs, a GPU and two CPUs, etc.

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

    Certain kinds of algorithms actually hasten 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 hasten 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, shameful with slightly different capabilities, and shameful of which obligate the programmer to write code fancy this:

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

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

    r1 = m1 * (x1 + x2);

    Similarly, OpenCL's uphold for implicit parallelism makes it much easier to Take handicap of multiple CPU cores. Rather than writing shameful the logic to split your data into pieces and ration 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 dispatch it, along with the entire shroud of data and the desired even of parallelism, to the computing device.

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

    Writing to OpenCL furthermore future-proofs task- or data-parallel code. Just as the identical OpenGL code will win faster and faster as newer, more powerful GPUs are released, so too will OpenCL code discharge better as CPUs and GPUs win 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 Take handicap of them, just as video card makers and OS vendors update their OpenGL drivers to Take handicap 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 identical compiled code discontinuance 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 achieve 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 furthermore 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 even 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 unravel these exact problems.

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

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

    To handle job parallelism and provision threads, OpenCL is built on top of grandiose Central Dispatch. This is such a natural appropriate that it's a bit surprising that the OpenCL API doesn't utilize blocks. I regard Apple decided that it shouldn't press its luck when it comes to getting its home-grown technologies adopted by other vendors. This determination 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 touchstone of software engineering: creating a novel 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 silent exist in numbers that are orders of magnitude lower than the hundreds of processing units in modern GPUs. On the other hand, GPUs silent absorb a ways to depart to tangle up with the power and flexibility of a full-fledged CPU core. But even with shameful the differences, writing code exclusively for either one of those worlds silent smacks of leaving money on the table.

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

    Transistor harvest

    Collectively, the concurrency-enabling features introduced in Snow Leopard delineate 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 hard for end-users to win excited about "plumbing" technologies fancy grandiose Central Dispatch and OpenCL, let lonesome 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 novel icon (Not a fan)QuickTime Player's novel icon (Not a fan) QuickTime Player

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

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

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

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

    Well, there's no requisite to panic. That item in the installer should actually read "QuickTime Player 7." QuickTime 7, the brokendown 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 brokendown blue "Q" icon, the one that many casual users actually regard of as being "QuickTime," that's been replaced with a novel QuickTime-X-savvy version sporting a pudgy novel icon (see above right).

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

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

    It's fancy a combination of the window treatment of the excellent NicePlayer application and the full-screen playback controls from the brokendown QuickTime Player. I'm a bit bothered by two things. First, the ever-so-slightly clipped corners look fancy a detestable idea. Am I just supposed 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 fragment of the frame? Yes, you can scurry 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 treasure the compactness of this approach, but it'd exist nice if the title bar overlap could exist disabled and the controls could exist dragged off the movie entirely and docked to the bottom or something.

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

    The novel 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 configuration a timeline, with adjustable stops at each discontinuance for trimming.

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

    QuickTime Player has learned another novel trick: screen recording. The controls are limited, so more demanding users will silent absorb a requisite for a full-featured screen recorder, but QuickTime Player gets the job done.

    Screen recording in QuickTime PlayerScreen recording in QuickTime Player

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

    Audio recordingAudio recording

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

    Unfortunately, the list of things you can't achieve with the novel QuickTime Player is quite long. You can't cut, copy, and paste capricious 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 complete set of available QuickTime audio and video codecs. shameful of these things were possible with the brokendown 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 credit their absence in the novel QuickTime Player to the previously discussed limitations of QuickTime X. But the novel 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 fancy trimming, plus some previously "Pro"-only features fancy full-screen playback. Also, the novel 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 astonish waiting for you if you install the optional QuickTime Player 7. When I did so, what I got was the brokendown QuickTime Player—somewhat insultingly installed in the "Utilities" folder—with shameful 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 shameful "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 shameful 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 novel appearance of some aspects of the Dock are accompanied by some novel 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 identical result. You can then continue that identical 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 win in the wont of doing it.

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

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

    In the screenshot above, you'll notice that nonexistent of the minimized windows materialize in my Dock. That's thanks to another welcome addition: the aptitude 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 win 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 appropriate 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 minuscule "back" navigation button appears once you descend.

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

    The option to support 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 furthermore retaining the aptitude to drag items into that folder. This was the default behavior for docked folders for the first six years of Mac OS X's life, but it changed in Leopard. Snow Leopard does not help 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 item to a docked folder alias looks fancy it will work (the icon highlights) but upon release, the dragged item simply springs back to its original location. I really hoped this one would win 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 demonstrate that its version number had been updated to 10.6. The more attractive 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 detestable feelings frequently spilled over into the parallel debate over API supremacy: Carbon vs. Cocoa.

    "The Finder sucks because it's a Carbon app. What they requisite is a Cocoa Finder! Surely that will unravel shameful their woes." Well, Snow Leopard features a 64-bit Finder, and as they shameful 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 novel features… except for maybe one or two. And so, the "new" Cocoa Finder looks and works almost exactly fancy the brokendown Carbon Finder. The biggest indicator of its "Cocoa-ness" is the extensive utilize of Core Animation transitions. For example, when a Finder window does its schizophrenic transformation from a sidebar-bedecked browser window to its minimally-adorned form, it no longer happens in a blink. Instead, the sidebar slides away and fades, the toolbar shrinks, and everything tucks in to configuration its novel shape.

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

    The number-one feature request from massive column-view users has finally been implemented: sortable columns. The sort order applies to shameful 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 district 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 minuscule slider to control the size of the icons.

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

    This may look a bit odd—how often achieve people change icon sizes?—but it makes much more sense in the context of previewing images in the Finder. This utilize case is made even more relevant 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. establish it shameful together and you can smoothly zoom a minuscule PDF icon, for example, into the impressively high-fidelity preview shown below, complete with the aptitude to circle pages. One press of the space bar and you'll progress to the even larger and more supple Quick keep 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 win icon view to stick for the windows where it's most useful, I regard that odd slight slider is actually going to win 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 furthermore has a few enhancements—accidental, incidental, or otherwise. The drag district for each list view item 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 certain whether this change in behavior is intentional or if it's just an unexamined consequence of the underlying control used for list view in the novel 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 appropriate the widest value in the column. Date headers will progressively shrink to demonstrate 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 work 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 slight 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 win 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 depart a long artery towards making the desktop environment feel more solid. A wonderful case 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 reject to evict a disk if your current working directory in a command-line shell is on that disk. benevolent of cool, but furthermore benevolent of annoying.)

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

    Forcible ejection in progressForcible ejection in progress

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


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

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

    There furthermore 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 look 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 fright that one of these files will someday win a 200-character filename that will overlap with a neighboring file's name.

    The worst incarnation of this behavior happens along the prerogative edge of the screen where mounted volumes materialize on the desktop. (Incidentally, this is not the default; if you want to espy disks on your desktop, you must enable this preference in the Finder.) When I mount a novel disk, I'm often surprised to espy where it ends up appearing. If there are any icons remotely immediate to the prerogative edge of the screen, the disk icon will reject to materialize 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 win to its pre-Snow-Leopard feature set and even of polish, it's quite an achievement for a Cocoa Finder to match or exceed its predecessor in its very first release. I'm certain the Carbon vs. Cocoa warriors would absorb had a territory day with that statement, were Carbon not establish out to pasture in Leopard. But it was, and to the victor depart the spoils.


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

    The tall caveat is that it will only work with a server running Exchange 2007 (Service Pack 1, Update Rollup 4) or later. While I'm certain Microsoft greatly appreciates any additional upgrade revenue this determination provides, it means that for users whose workplaces are silent 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 uphold seems to work 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, shameful I had to enter in the Mail application was my complete name, e-mail address, and password, and it automatically discovered shameful relevant settings and configured iCal and Address reserve for me.

    Exchange setup: surprisingly easyExchange setup: surprisingly easy

    Windows users are no doubt accustomed to this benevolent 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 create 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 furthermore includes the bare minimum number of controls and displays to win the job done.

    Meeting availability checker Enlarge / Meeting availability checker

    The integration into Mail and Address reserve 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 quiver the emotion that there are Exchange features that remain inaccessible from Mac OS X clients. For example, how achieve I reserve a "resource" in a meeting? If there's a artery to achieve so, I couldn't ascertain 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 regard that being able to dispatch and receive mail, create and respond to meeting invitations, and utilize the global corporate address reserve is enough for any Mac user to win along reasonably well in an Exchange-centric environment.


    The thing is, there's not really much to voice about performance in Snow Leopard. Dozens of benchmark graphs lead to the identical 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 expose some impressive numbers, it's the artery these minuscule changes combine to help the real-world undergo of using the system that really makes a difference.

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

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

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

    This holistic approach to performance improvement is not likely to knock anyone's socks off, but every time you hasten 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 imply the time between the selection of the Shutdown or Restart command and when the system turns off or begins its novel boot cycle. Leopard doesn't Take long at shameful to achieve this; only a few dozen of seconds when there are no applications open. But in Snow Leopard, it's so swiftly 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 silent dwarf Snow Leopard's speedup, but that's mostly because Mac OS X was so excruciatingly sluggish in its early years. It's light to create a tall 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 shameful the more impressive.

    And yes, for the seventh consecutive time, a novel release of Mac OS X is faster on the identical hardware than its predecessor. (And for the first time ever, it's smaller, too.) What more can you request for, really? Even that brokendown 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 brokendown days—and quiver it as swiftly 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 accurate in Leopard as well. It just goes to demonstrate how far Mac OS X has arrive on the performance front. These days, they shameful just Take 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 benevolent of "all grab bag," if you know what I mean. Apple's even got its own incarnation in the configuration of a giant webpage of "refinements." I'll probably overlap with some of those, but there'll exist a few novel ones here as well.

    New columns in open/save dialogs

    The list view in open and rescue dialog boxed now supports more than just "Name" and "Date Modified" columns. Right-click on any column to win a preference of additional columns to display. I've wanted this feature for a long time, and I'm happy 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 aptitude to talk to a wide purview of scanners. I plugged in my Epson Stylus CX7800, a device that previously required the utilize of third-party software in order to utilize the scanning feature, and Image Capture detected it immediately.

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

    Image Capture is furthermore not a detestable slight scanning application. It has pretty wonderful automatic remonstrate detection, including uphold for multiple objects, obviating the requisite to manually crop items. Given the sometimes-questionable property of third-party printer and scanner drivers for Mac OS X, the aptitude to utilize a bundled application is welcome.

    System Preferences bit wars

    System Preferences, fancy virtually shameful 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 shameful 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 fancy 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 shameful of the first-party preference panes are compiled for both 64-bit and 32-bit operation, System Preferences does not requisite to relaunch again for the duration of its use. This raises the question, why not absorb System Preferences launch in 32-bit mode shameful 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 distinguished to the Web undergo that relaunching in 32-bit mode is not really an option. You'd probably requisite to relaunch as soon as you visited your first webpage. But Apple does want Safari to hasten 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 hasten 32-bit plug-ins in divide 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 profit of isolating potentially buggy plug-ins. According to the automated crash reporting built into Mac OS X, Apple has said that the number one intuition of crashes is Web browser plug-ins. That's not the number one intuition of crashes in Safari, intelligence you, it's the number one intuition when considering shameful crashes of shameful applications in Mac OS X. (And though it was not mentioned by name, I regard they shameful know the primary culprit.)

    As you can espy above, the QuickTime browser plug-in gets the identical treatment as glance and other third-party 32-bit Safari plug-ins. shameful 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 casual to function correctly.

    While this is silent 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 profit of truly divide processes with a significantly less radical change to the Safari application itself.

    Resolution independence

    When they final left Mac OS X in its seemingly interminable march towards a truly scalable user interface, it was almost ready for prime time. I'm penniless to voice 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 fancy 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 silent recollect 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 shameful the time. On the other hand, it's not fancy 200-DPI monitors are raining from the sky either. But I'd really fancy to espy Apple win going on this. It will undoubtedly Take a long time for everything to keep and work correctly, so let's win 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 divide panes. This was invaluable for referencing some earlier text in the scrollback while furthermore 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 win on board the train to splittersville.)

    Terminal in Snow Leopard furthermore defaults to the novel Menlo font. But balky to earlier reports, the One accurate Monospaced Font, Monaco, is most definitely silent 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 divide "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 shameful finally depart more than two years without their muscle recollection being disrupted.

    Before stirring 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. benevolent of creepy, but useful.

    Core location

    One more gift from the iPhone, Core Location, allows Macs to design 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 hasten 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 furthermore been rearranged. Now, instead of a single, long list of system-wide keyboard shortcuts, they're arranged into categories. This reduces clutter, but it furthermore 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 fancy to leave my Mac Pro turned on 24 hours a day, especially during the summer in my un-air-conditioned house. But I achieve want to absorb access to the files on my Mac when I'm elsewhere—at work, on the road, etc. It is possible to wake a sleeping Mac remotely, but doing so requires being on the identical local network.

    My solution has been to leave a smaller, more power-efficient laptop on at shameful times on the identical network as my Mac Pro. To wake my Mac Pro remotely, I ssh into the laptop, then dispatch 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 achieve this without leaving any of my computers running shameful day. When a Mac running Snow Leopard is establish to sleep, it attempts to hand off ownership of its IP address to its router. (This only works with an AirPort Extreme foundation 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 shameful my Macs asleep and silent absorb access to their contents anytime, anywhere.

    Back to my hack

    As has become traditional, this novel 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 win the worst of it. They've actually been unsupported and non-functional in 64-bit applications since Leopard. That wasn't such a tall deal when Mac OS X shipped with a whopping two 64-bit applications. But now, with almost every application in Snow Leopard going 64-bit, it's suddenly very significant.

    Thanks to Safari's lack of an officially sanctioned extension mechanism, developers looking to enhance its functionality absorb most often resorted to the utilize of Input Managers and SIMBL (which is an Input-Manager-based framework). A 64-bit Safari puts a damper on that entire market. Though it is possible 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 obligate users to do.

    Happily, at least one commonly used Safari enhancement has the wonderful 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 procedure to hasten Safari in its default 64-bit mode, I'll really miss Saft, a Safari extension I utilize for session restoration (yes, I know Safari has this feature, but it's activated manually—the horror) and address bar shortcuts (e.g., "w noodles" to keep up "noodles" in Wikipedia). I'm hoping that shrewd developers will find a artery to overcome this novel challenge. They always look 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 shameful odds, manage to support 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, divide processes. Even contextual menu plug-ins in the Finder absorb been disabled, replaced by an enhanced, but silent less-powerful Services API. Again, I absorb faith that developers will adapt. But the waiting is the hardest part.


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

    That's a shame because Time Machine veritably cries out for some ZFS magic. What's more, Apple seems to agree, as evidenced by a post from an Apple employee to a ZFS mailing list final year. When asked about a ZFS-savvy implementation of Time Machine, the reply was encouraging: "This one is distinguished and likely will arrive 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 appropriate for Time Machine, but the most distinguished is its aptitude to dispatch only the block-level changes during each backup. As Time Machine is currently implemented, if you yield a minuscule 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 big 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 furthermore bring vastly increased robustness for data and metadata, a pooled storage model, constant-time snapshots and clones, and a pony. People sometimes request what, exactly, is wrong with HFS+. Aside from its obvious lack of the features just listed, HFS+ is limited in many ways by its dated design, which is based on HFS, a twenty-five year-old file system.

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

    Practically speaking, regard about those times when you hasten 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 betide 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 shameful the time with HFS+ disks in Mac OS X when various bits of metadata win corrupted or become out of date.

    Apple gets by year after year, tacking novel features onto HFS+ with duct tape and a prayer, but at a certain 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 gregarious exercise as a technological one. Creating a platform, even more so. shameful of Snow Leopard's considerable technical achievements are not just designed to profit users; they're furthermore intended to goad, persuade, and otherwise herd developers in the direction that Apple feels will exist most advantageous 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 silent some cost to the consumer—in time, worry, software updates, etc.—when performing a major operating system upgrade. The identical goes for developers who must, at the very least, certify that their existing applications hasten correctly on the novel OS.

    The accustomed artery to overcome this benevolent of upgrade hesitation has been to pack the OS with novel features. novel features sell, and the more copies of the novel operating system in use, the more motivated developers are to update their applications to not just hasten on the novel OS, but furthermore Take handicap of its novel abilities.

    A major operating system upgrade with "no novel features" must play by a different set of rules. Every party involved expects some counterbalance to the lack of novel features. In Snow Leopard, developers stand to harvest the biggest benefits thanks to an impressive set of novel 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 yield it light for developers to scurry 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 novel bugs introduced to existing APIs in Snow Leopard. This is the exact contradictory of Snow Leopard's implied vow to users and developers that it would concentrate on making existing features faster and more robust without introducing novel functionality and the accompanying novel bugs.

    On the other side of the coin, I imagine shameful the teams at Apple that worked on Snow Leopard absolutely reveled in the occasion 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 benevolent of release valve every few years, lest the entire code foundation depart off into the weeds.

    There's been one other "no novel 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 furthermore available from Apple's online store for $19.95 (along with a copy of Mac OS 9.2.1 for utilize in the Classic environment). This was a different time for Mac OS X. Versions 10.0 and 10.1 were slow, incomplete, and extremely immature; the transition from classic Mac OS was far from over.

    Judged as a modern incarnation of the 10.1 release, Snow Leopard looks pretty darned good. The pricing is similar, and the benefits—to developers and to users—are greater. So is the risk. But again, that has more to achieve 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 certain that shameful the software you supervision about is compatible. But don't wait too long, because at $29 for the upgrade, I await Snow Leopard adoption to exist quite rapid. Software that will hasten 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 reply is a resounding "yes." If you're silent running Tiger, well, then it's probably time for a novel Mac anyway. When you buy one, it'll arrive with Snow Leopard.

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

    Snow Leopard is a unique and ravishing release, unlike any that absorb arrive before it in both scope and intention. At some point, Mac OS X will surely requisite to win 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 yield it infirm and odd engineered away.

    Snowy eyes Looking back

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

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

  • 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
    About Killexams exam dumps | |