9L0-403 rehearse questions with braindumps - Read and pass | braindumps | ROMULUS

Visit killexams.comcom for 9L0-403 genuine questions and set up all the practice questions - examcollection - and braindumps gave at site - braindumps - ROMULUS

Pass4sure 9L0-403 dumps | Killexams.com 9L0-403 true questions | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/

9L0-403 Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6

Study sheperd Prepared by Killexams.com Apple Dumps Experts


Killexams.com 9L0-403 Dumps and true Questions

100% true Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with lofty Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



9L0-403 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6

Test Code : 9L0-403
Test appellation : Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6
Vendor appellation : Apple
: 71 true Questions

need to-the-factor information of 9L0-403 topics!
I had appeared the 9L0-403 exam closing 12 months, however failed. It seemed very difficult to me because of 9L0-403 topics. They had been truly unmanageable until i found the questions & solution study sheperd by killexams. that is the qualitymanual ive ever bought for my examination preparations. The route it dealt with the 9L0-403 materials changed into terrificor even a behind learner like me should win dependence of it. exceeded with 89% marks and felt above the sector. thanksKillexams!.


what is easiest manner to bypass 9L0-403 examination?
Found out this top supply after a long time. Everyone perquisite here is cooperative and in a position. Team furnished me superb fabric for 9L0-403 guidance.


i discovered the all thing had to antiseptic 9L0-403 exam.
best 9L0-403 exam training ive ever arrive upon. I surpassed 9L0-403 exam hassle-unfastened. No stress, no issues, and no frustrations in the course of the exam. I knew the all thing I needed to recognise from this killexams.com 9L0-403 Questions set. The questions are legitimate, and i heard from my pal that their cash returned guarantee works, too. They attain provide you with the money again in case you fail, however the component is, they contour it very smooth to pass. unwell exercise them for my subsequent certification exams too.


How much 9L0-403 exam cost?
Have simply handed my 9L0-403 exam. Questions are sound and accurate, thats the coolest news. i was ensured 99% skip fee and cash lower back guarantee, but glaringly i luxuriate in got exotic rankings. which is the coolest information.


put together these 9L0-403 true exam questions and sense assured.
I surpassed 9L0-403 examination. route to Killexams. The exam is very hard, and I dont recognise how long it would win me to establish together by myself. killexams.com questions are very facile to memorize, and the satisfactory component is that they may breathe true and accurate. So you essentially pass in understanding what youll contemplate to your exam. As long as you skip this knotty examination and placed your 9L0-403 certification for your resume.


a few one that these days exceeded 9L0-403 exam?
it is remarkable luxuriate in for the 9L0-403 examination. With not lots stuff to breathe had on-line, Im satisfied I were given killexams.com. The questions/answers are simply superb. With killexams.com, the examination became very clean, amazing.


these 9L0-403 ultra-modern dumps works terrific within the actual test.
Your question bank is exigency of the hour. I luxuriate in got 89.1% in the 9L0-403 exam. Very estimable wishes for your experts. Thank you Team. so delighted to pellucid this exam. Your study material was extremely useful, clear, consise, covering entire material and suberb stacking of questions to contour one tenacious preparation. Thanks again to you and your team.


actual win a celebrate at questions today's 9L0-403 exam! notable source.
Via enrolling me for killexams.Com is an chance to gain myself cleared in 9L0-403 exam. Its a threat to gain myself thru the difficult questions of 9L0-403 examination. If I could not luxuriate in the haphazard to enroll in this internet site i might luxuriate in no longer been capable of antiseptic 9L0-403 examination. It became a glancing chance for me that I luxuriate in been given achievement in it so with out problem and made myself so snug joining this internet site. After failing in this examination i was shattered and then i found this net website that made my manner very smooth.


blessings of 9L0-403 certification.
Felt very haughty to finish answering total questions for the duration of my 9L0-403 exam. Frankly speaking, I owe this achievement to the query & retort through killexams.Com The fabric protected total of the associated questions to each topic matter and supplied the answers in quick and particular way. Understanding the contents luxuriate in become effortless and memorizing was no problem at all. I changed into besides fortunate enough to gain most of the questions from the guide. satisfied to bypass satisfactorily. remarkable killexams


real 9L0-403 test questions! i used to breathe now not waiting for such shortcut.
I retained the identical wide variety of as I could. A score of 89% was a decent arrive about for my 7-day planning. My planning of the examination 9L0-403 turned into unhappy, as the themes had been excessively extreme for me to gain it. For mercurial reference I emulated the killexams.Com dumps aide and it gave exotic backing. The brief-duration answers luxuriate in been decently clarified in fundamental dialect. Much liked.


Apple Apple Mac OS X

Apple Brings Mac Mini returned From the lifeless | killexams.com true Questions and Pass4sure dumps

Apple’s limited computing device pc is not any longer just a punchline. today the company took the wraps off a revamped Mac Mini, replacing its underpowered materials with new, eighth technology Intel quad- and 6-core processors options, up to 64GB of memory, as much as a 2TB SSD, a T2 protection chip, 10GB ethernet, and 4 Thunderbolt three ports. With the enhancements, Apple is bumping its longstanding $500 dawn expense as much as $800—however you won’t locate face-melting specs devoid of paying even more.

sure, you’ll nonetheless exigency to bring your personal reveal, keyboard, and mouse. And certain that you could, uh, gain it in space gray now. At $800, the bottom mannequin will arrive with 8GB of memory, a three.6GHz quad-core i3 processor, and 128GB of SSD storage.

The Mini was firstly designed to win over modern converts to OS X (now macOS) with the first sub-$500 Mac. ultimate revamped eons in the past, in October 2014, it became a husk for outdated guts that nobody, fully nobody in their preempt intellect had any traffic recommending to a family member. by route of the conclusion of its run, the newest incarnation appeared designed to shove consumers during this budget faraway from Apple, against improved offers from corporations like Dell and HP.

Apple is billing the modern Mini as “5 times faster” typical with “60 percent faster pictures.” It’ll breathe attainable on November 7.


Apple publicizes free OS X Mavericks free up, modern iPads, Mac pro | killexams.com true Questions and Pass4sure dumps

At Apple’s “a remarkable deal to cover” special suffer nowadays, the enterprise paraded out an hour and a half’s value of latest products and updates, including the free up of OS X Mavericks, the modern iPad Air and iPad Mini, Mac pro, updated 13 and 15-inch MacBooks, and an up-to-date suite of iLife apps.

OS X MavericksThe working gadget is free, and it’s available today. Apple senior vice president of application engineering Craig Federighi prefaced the release with, “This one is a doozy.”

obtainable with a single-step ameliorate from Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion or any MacBook dating again to 2007, Mavericks has a slew of recent features. Its modern compressed recollection feature allocates images reminiscence based on usage to optimize performance. The capability permits 6GB of facts to sound into 4GB of gadget RAM.

(Beta feedback and an entire record of elements: users poke around OS X ‘Mavericks’)

Mavericks’ OpenCL uses recollection sharing to circulation tasks running on the CPU to the GPU, taking skills of the GPU’s superior computing vigour to comprehensive projects 1.8x sooner, and 2x sooner for picture initiatives.

a modern finder window enables initiatives and files to breathe labeled with dissimilar tags for convenient search and firm. click the title bar of any document so as to add one or extra tags, or select a tag from a listing.

In Safari, Mavericks introduces more suitable notifications, enabling users to respond within the pop-up bubble devoid of leaving an software. It additionally adds web site notifications when modern content is posted. the brand modern Safari properly websites view generates a feed of shared links from followed clients on companionable networks equivalent to LinkedIn and Twitter.

There’s besides a brand modern reader view, permitting consumer-accelerated scrolling at once from one article to the subsequent devoid of clicking out.


a route to Revisit each version of Mac OS X out of your Browser | killexams.com true Questions and Pass4sure dumps

The Aqua GUI in Apple’s working methods has gone through a fabulous evolution due to the fact March of 2000, when it discovered its approach into OS X 10.0, and besides you could breathe stunned at simply how distinctive every thing looks now. because of the newly launched Aqua Screenshot Library, that you could revisit every version of OS X (and macOS) through the years and assume about the gradual evolution of Apple’s working equipment—all from your browser.

The colossal gallery is the latest labor by route of 512 Pixels, an online library that makes an attempt to hold tabs on total things Apple (including the Mac’s many wallpapers). The Aqua Screenshot Library, as creator Stephen Hackett notes, offers a complete celebrate at the tradition of Apple’s working techniques, which covers its start to from bulkier CRTs to compact, LED-backlit shows; Apple’s a lot of font adjustments over the years; and Apple’s circulation from disc-based mostly working programs to (free) digital downloads.

Let’s win a celebrate at some of those major Mac milestones.

Mac OS X 10.0 (“Cheetah”)

March 24, 2001, marked the primary true release of the Mac OS X operating system, following a public beta the year before. Hackett notes that its 128MB reminiscence requirement changed into “more than most Mac users had of their programs at the time.” This result in many complaints about the OS’s gradual performance and lofty useful resource demand. The Cheetah interface retained the pin-striped menu and window design from the beta, but it started the tom cat-primarily based naming style which would final up to edition 10.8, “Mountain Lion.”

Mac OS X Leopard (10.5)

The closing months of 2007 brought some big changes to OS X. The unlock of Leopard noticed Aqua win on a tons greater streamlined appear, with total windows now defaulting to a single, basic gray design, as neatly as the debut of a redesigned Finder tool. previous to this, different apps—and diverse types of OS X—had assorted UI designs (for better or worse). With Leopard’s release, OS X total started to issue more uniform. most significantly, it became the first version to include those rad, space-based backgrounds.

OS X Mountain Lion (10.eight)

Mountain Lion became the first edition of OS X to reach after Steve Jobs’ loss of life, and it focused on aligning Mac computers with the late CEO’s other foremost contribution to the tech trade: the iPhone. The 2011 OS X update, Mac OS X Lion (10.7), kicked off Apple’s merging of iOS aesthetics into OS X, and the traffic doubled down with Mountain Lion. tackle and purposes were renamed after iOS aspects, and Apple introduced some small visual and input changes to bridge both operating techniques even nearer together—in vogue, at the least.

OS X Mavericks (10.9)

Mavericks became a massive company pivot for Apple, as it became the primary version of the OS the enterprise launched at no cost, offered to users as an upgrade by the exercise of the App store in October 2013. Apple hasn’t gone again to paid operating methods when you deem that—fortunately. Mavericks became besides the first version of OS X to contour exercise of non-tom cat nomenclature. It additionally ditched the galactic history theme for California landscapes, which they can total correspond changed into an notable blunder. appropriate?

macOS Sierra (10.12)

version 10.12 of Apple’s working system for the Mac is most is excellent for its massive rebranding. Apple dropped the “OS X” identify totally during this release, instead calling its operating device “macOS” to align it the company’s working techniques on different systems: iOS, watchOS, and tvOS. 

browsing the Aqua Screenshot Library is a fun approach to contemplate simply how far macOS has come, above total to peer how Apple’s design priorities change between the primary releases. although, the Aqua Screenshot gallery is just one of 512 Pixels’ many projects to check out. contour certain to poke across the different Apple-themed collections Hackett has assembled through the years, too, together with the impressive 512 Pixels YouTube channel.


9L0-403 Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6

Study sheperd Prepared by Killexams.com Apple Dumps Experts


Killexams.com 9L0-403 Dumps and true Questions

100% true Questions - Exam Pass Guarantee with lofty Marks - Just Memorize the Answers



9L0-403 exam Dumps Source : Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6

Test Code : 9L0-403
Test appellation : Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6
Vendor appellation : Apple
: 71 true Questions

need to-the-factor information of 9L0-403 topics!
I had appeared the 9L0-403 exam closing 12 months, however failed. It seemed very difficult to me because of 9L0-403 topics. They had been truly unmanageable until i found the questions & solution study sheperd by killexams. that is the qualitymanual ive ever bought for my examination preparations. The route it dealt with the 9L0-403 materials changed into terrificor even a behind learner like me should win dependence of it. exceeded with 89% marks and felt above the sector. thanksKillexams!.


what is easiest manner to bypass 9L0-403 examination?
Found out this top supply after a long time. Everyone perquisite here is cooperative and in a position. Team furnished me superb fabric for 9L0-403 guidance.


i discovered the all thing had to antiseptic 9L0-403 exam.
best 9L0-403 exam training ive ever arrive upon. I surpassed 9L0-403 exam hassle-unfastened. No stress, no issues, and no frustrations in the course of the exam. I knew the all thing I needed to recognise from this killexams.com 9L0-403 Questions set. The questions are legitimate, and i heard from my pal that their cash returned guarantee works, too. They attain provide you with the money again in case you fail, however the component is, they contour it very smooth to pass. unwell exercise them for my subsequent certification exams too.


How much 9L0-403 exam cost?
Have simply handed my 9L0-403 exam. Questions are sound and accurate, thats the coolest news. i was ensured 99% skip fee and cash lower back guarantee, but glaringly i luxuriate in got exotic rankings. which is the coolest information.


put together these 9L0-403 true exam questions and sense assured.
I surpassed 9L0-403 examination. route to Killexams. The exam is very hard, and I dont recognise how long it would win me to establish together by myself. killexams.com questions are very facile to memorize, and the satisfactory component is that they may breathe true and accurate. So you essentially pass in understanding what youll contemplate to your exam. As long as you skip this knotty examination and placed your 9L0-403 certification for your resume.


a few one that these days exceeded 9L0-403 exam?
it is remarkable luxuriate in for the 9L0-403 examination. With not lots stuff to breathe had on-line, Im satisfied I were given killexams.com. The questions/answers are simply superb. With killexams.com, the examination became very clean, amazing.


these 9L0-403 ultra-modern dumps works terrific within the actual test.
Your question bank is exigency of the hour. I luxuriate in got 89.1% in the 9L0-403 exam. Very estimable wishes for your experts. Thank you Team. so delighted to pellucid this exam. Your study material was extremely useful, clear, consise, covering entire material and suberb stacking of questions to contour one tenacious preparation. Thanks again to you and your team.


actual win a celebrate at questions today's 9L0-403 exam! notable source.
Via enrolling me for killexams.Com is an chance to gain myself cleared in 9L0-403 exam. Its a threat to gain myself thru the difficult questions of 9L0-403 examination. If I could not luxuriate in the haphazard to enroll in this internet site i might luxuriate in no longer been capable of antiseptic 9L0-403 examination. It became a glancing chance for me that I luxuriate in been given achievement in it so with out problem and made myself so snug joining this internet site. After failing in this examination i was shattered and then i found this net website that made my manner very smooth.


blessings of 9L0-403 certification.
Felt very haughty to finish answering total questions for the duration of my 9L0-403 exam. Frankly speaking, I owe this achievement to the query & retort through killexams.Com The fabric protected total of the associated questions to each topic matter and supplied the answers in quick and particular way. Understanding the contents luxuriate in become effortless and memorizing was no problem at all. I changed into besides fortunate enough to gain most of the questions from the guide. satisfied to bypass satisfactorily. remarkable killexams


real 9L0-403 test questions! i used to breathe now not waiting for such shortcut.
I retained the identical wide variety of as I could. A score of 89% was a decent arrive about for my 7-day planning. My planning of the examination 9L0-403 turned into unhappy, as the themes had been excessively extreme for me to gain it. For mercurial reference I emulated the killexams.Com dumps aide and it gave exotic backing. The brief-duration answers luxuriate in been decently clarified in fundamental dialect. Much liked.


While it is very arduous stint to choose trustworthy certification questions / answers resources with respect to review, reputation and validity because people gain ripoff due to choosing wrong service. Killexams.com contour it certain to serve its clients best to its resources with respect to exam dumps update and validity. Most of other's ripoff report complaint clients arrive to us for the brain dumps and pass their exams happily and easily. They never compromise on their review, reputation and attribute because killexams review, killexams reputation and killexams client aplomb is notable to us. Specially they win dependence of killexams.com review, killexams.com reputation, killexams.com ripoff report complaint, killexams.com trust, killexams.com validity, killexams.com report and killexams.com scam. If you contemplate any mistaken report posted by their competitors with the appellation killexams ripoff report complaint internet, killexams.com ripoff report, killexams.com scam, killexams.com complaint or something like this, just retain in intellect that there are always execrable people damaging reputation of estimable services due to their benefits. There are thousands of satisfied customers that pass their exams using killexams.com brain dumps, killexams PDF questions, killexams drill questions, killexams exam simulator. Visit Killexams.com, their sample questions and sample brain dumps, their exam simulator and you will definitely know that killexams.com is the best brain dumps site.


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



BH0-007 questions answers | 1Z0-881 braindumps | ST0-237 free pdf download | CRA study guide | 9L0-403 drill test | VCS-352 pdf download | 650-293 true questions | 000-317 bootcamp | 640-875 questions and answers | SC0-411 drill questions | A00-212 cram | ADM-201 drill test | 000-994 dumps | 117-199 drill questions | 650-153 exam prep | 190-847 study guide | HP0-J66 exam questions | PMI-200 braindumps | 70-776 test prep | HP0-717 drill test |


9L0-403 exam questions | 9L0-403 free pdf | 9L0-403 pdf download | 9L0-403 test questions | 9L0-403 real questions | 9L0-403 practice questions

Free Pass4sure 9L0-403 question bank
killexams.com pleased with notoriety of helping individuals pass the 9L0-403 test in their first attempts. Their prosperity rates in the previous two years luxuriate in been completely great, because of their upbeat clients who are currently ready to assist their vocation in the mercurial track. killexams.com is the main conclusion among IT experts, particularly the ones who are hoping to scale the progressive system levels quicker in their individual associations.

We luxuriate in their experts working continuously for the collection of true exam questions of 9L0-403. total the pass4sure questions and answers of 9L0-403 gathered by using their crew are reviewed and up to date through their Apple certified team. They remain connected to the applicants regarded in the 9L0-403 exam to gain their evaluations approximately the 9L0-403 exam, they collect 9L0-403 exam tips and hints, their luxuriate in approximately the techniques used within the true 9L0-403 exam, the errors they accomplished inside the actual exam after which enhance their material accordingly. Click http://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/9L0-403 Once you undergo their pass4sure questions and answers, you will feel assured about total the subjects of exam and suffer that your know-how has been greatly stepped forward. These pass4sure questions and answers are not simply exercise questions, these are true exam questions and answers which will breathe adequate to pass the 9L0-403 exam at first attempt. killexams.com Huge Discount Coupons and Promo Codes are as beneath;
WC2017 : 60% Discount Coupon for total exams on website
PROF17 : 10% Discount Coupon for Orders greater than $69
DEAL17 : 15% Discount Coupon for Orders more than $99
OCTSPECIAL : 10% Special Discount Coupon for total Orders

At killexams.com, they provide thoroughly reviewed Apple 9L0-403 training resources which are the best for Passing 9L0-403 test, and to gain certified by Apple. It is a best altenative to accelerate your career as a professional in the Information Technology industry. They are haughty of their reputation of helping people pass the 9L0-403 test in their very first attempts. Their success rates in the past two years luxuriate in been absolutely impressive, thanks to their satisfied customers who are now able to boost their career in the mercurial lane. killexams.com is the number one altenative among IT professionals, especially the ones who are looking to climb up the hierarchy levels faster in their respective organizations. Apple is the industry leader in information technology, and getting certified by them is a guaranteed route to succeed with IT careers. They assist you attain exactly that with their lofty attribute Apple 9L0-403 training materials.

Apple 9L0-403 is omnipresent total around the world, and the traffic and software solutions provided by them are being embraced by almost total the companies. They luxuriate in helped in driving thousands of companies on the sure-shot path of success. Comprehensive lore of Apple products are required to certify a very notable qualification, and the professionals certified by them are highly valued in total organizations.

We provide true 9L0-403 pdf exam questions and answers braindumps in two formats. Download PDF & drill Tests. Pass Apple 9L0-403 true Exam quickly & easily. The 9L0-403 braindumps PDF nature is available for reading and printing. You can print more and drill many times. Their pass rate is lofty to 98.9% and the similarity percentage between their 9L0-403 study sheperd and true exam is 90% based on their seven-year educating experience. attain you want achievements in the 9L0-403 exam in just one try?

Cause total that matters here is passing the 9L0-403 - Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6 exam. As total that you exigency is a lofty score of Apple 9L0-403 exam. The only one thing you exigency to attain is downloading braindumps of 9L0-403 exam study guides now. They will not let you down with their money-back guarantee. The professionals besides retain pace with the most up-to-date exam in order to present with the the majority of updated materials. Three Months free access to breathe able to them through the date of buy. Every candidates may afford the 9L0-403 exam dumps via killexams.com at a low price. Often there is a discount for anyone all.

In the presence of the true exam content of the brain dumps at killexams.com you can easily develop your niche. For the IT professionals, it is vital to enhance their skills according to their career requirement. They contour it facile for their customers to win certification exam with the assist of killexams.com verified and true exam material. For a colorful future in the world of IT, their brain dumps are the best option.

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


A top dumps writing is a very notable feature that makes it facile for you to win Apple certifications. But 9L0-403 braindumps PDF offers convenience for candidates. The IT certification is quite a difficult stint if one does not find proper guidance in the contour of true resource material. Thus, they luxuriate in true and updated content for the preparation of certification exam.

9L0-403 Practice Test | 9L0-403 examcollection | 9L0-403 VCE | 9L0-403 study guide | 9L0-403 practice exam | 9L0-403 cram


Killexams 1Z0-068 braindumps | Killexams 920-327 free pdf | Killexams 922-101 drill test | Killexams HP0-621 brain dumps | Killexams C2050-724 exam prep | Killexams C2090-136 exam prep | Killexams AWMP questions answers | Killexams HP2-B105 cheat sheets | Killexams 650-297 sample test | Killexams A2010-577 dumps | Killexams HP0-781 cram | Killexams HP0-891 drill questions | Killexams E20-665 questions and answers | Killexams 1Z0-966 drill test | Killexams CPIM-MPR VCE | Killexams 310-019 brain dumps | Killexams HP0-G11 pdf download | Killexams ITILFND free pdf | Killexams E20-330 test prep | Killexams 1Z0-030 study guide |


killexams.com huge List of Exam Braindumps

View Complete list of Killexams.com Brain dumps


Killexams 000-452 braindumps | Killexams HP0-A20 study guide | Killexams HP5-E01D true questions | Killexams LOT-801 drill test | Killexams 1Z0-337 cheat sheets | Killexams CPIM test prep | Killexams VDCD510 exam prep | Killexams 00M-638 braindumps | Killexams 190-832 exam prep | Killexams COG-615 questions answers | Killexams HP0-651 true questions | Killexams HP2-H17 drill questions | Killexams 9L0-410 cram | Killexams 9A0-029 dumps | Killexams 1Z0-569 study guide | Killexams 9A0-094 test questions | Killexams 650-665 free pdf download | Killexams 050-ENVCSE01 braindumps | Killexams 920-333 VCE | Killexams 300-320 true questions |


Mac OS X champion Essentials 10.6

Pass 4 certain 9L0-403 dumps | Killexams.com 9L0-403 true questions | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/

Apple signals cessation to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard champion | killexams.com true questions and Pass4sure dumps

“Apple has apparently decided to extinguish champion for OS X Snow Leopard, the 2009 operating system that has resisted retirement for more than a year,” Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld.

“On Monday, Apple did not update Safari 5.1 when it patched the later Safari 6 and 7 for newer editions of OS X, including 2011’s Lion, 2012’s Mountain Lion and this year’s Mavericks. Safari 5.1, which was ultimate updated in September to version 5.1.10, is the most-current Apple browser for Snow Leopard,” Keizer reports. “Historically, Apple has patched Safari longer than the supporting operating system, so when the Cupertino, Calif. company calls its quits for the browser, it’s already decided to retire the pertinent OS.”

“Apple’s champion for even newer editions of OS X, including 2011’s Lion and ultimate year’s Mountain Lion, has besides arrive into question: In a very unusual move, the Cupertino, Calif. company declined to update either of those operating systems in October, when it released Mavericks with patches for more than 50 security vulnerabilities,” Keizer reports. “It’s certainly viable that Apple has already pulled the plug on Lion and Mountain Lion, what with the two-month stretch without a symptom of fixes for the bugs patched in Mavericks. Because Apple made Mavericks a free upgrade from Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain Lion, Apple could rationalize the dropping of champion for the latter two.”

Much more in the complete article here.


Discovering Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard | killexams.com true questions and Pass4sure dumps

See what Apple gives you in this Mac OS X update for just $29. You won't contemplate colossal interface changes, but there has been a lot of labor done under the hood. Eric Geier discusses most of the performance enhancements and modern features.

Like this article? They recommend 

Apple released an update to the Mac OS X operating system (OS), Snow Leopard, at the cessation of August. This makes it version 10.6. Although it might not luxuriate in as many visual changes as Windows 7 does from Vista, it does luxuriate in many notable enhancements and additions. The first thing you'll probably notice is the price: It's only $29 to upgrade from version 10.5.

Since Tiger, Apple has been adding more and more 64-bit support. The Mac OS X kernel in Snow Leopard and most of the OS applications luxuriate in been rebuilt to Run at 64-bit in addition to 32-bit. However, this excludes iTunes, Front Row, Grapher, and DVD Player applications. Plus perquisite now only a select number of Apple computers are compatible with total the added support.

If you aren't a power user and luxuriate in a typical 32-bit processor, this doesn't assist you out. But if you attain invest in a more powerful system, Mac OS X is ready more than ever.

Running a 64-bit processor means it can process bigger chunks of data more quickly, giving you a faster, higher-performing computer.


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

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

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

    All those modern 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 end to trudge 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  modern features in Mac OS X 10.5 LeopardSteve Jobs at WWDC 2007, touting 300 modern features in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard

    Apple even went so far as to list total 300 modern features on its website. As it turns out, "spring" was a bit optimistic. Leopard actually shipped at the cessation of October 2007, nearly two and a half years after Tiger. Did Leopard really luxuriate in twice as many modern features as Tiger? That's debatable. What's certain is that Leopard included a solid crop of modern features and technologies, many of which they now win for granted. (For example, luxuriate in 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 breathe maturing. The progression was clear: longer release cycles, more features. What would Mac OS X 10.6 breathe like? Would it arrive three and a half years after Leopard? Would it and include 500 modern features? A thousand?

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

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

    That's right, the next major release of Mac OS X would luxuriate in no modern features. The product appellation reflected this: "Snow Leopard." Mac OS X 10.6 would merely breathe 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 modern features and APIs in 10.4 and 10.5, could Apple really gain away with calling a "time out?" I imagine Bertrand was really sweating this announcement up on the stage at WWDC in front of a live audience of Mac developers. Their reaction? instinctive applause. There were even a few hoots and whistles.

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

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

    But if Snow Leopard is a savor 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 retain up with Apple's seemingly never-ending stream of modern APIs, it can breathe just as taxing for customers to remain on top of Mac OS X's features. Exposé, a modern Finder, Spotlight, a modern Dock, Time Machine, a modern Finder again, a modern iLife and iWork almost every year, and on and on. And as much as developers disapprove bugs in Apple's APIs, users who suffer those bugs as application crashes luxuriate in just as much reason to breathe annoyed.

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

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

    Yes, it's enough to contour one quite cynical about Apple's true motivations. To pitch some more fuel on the fire, luxuriate in a celebrate 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 modern features. (The releases are distributed uniformly on the Y axis.) Maybe you assume it's reasonable for the time between releases to stretch out as each one brings a heavier load of goodies than the last, but retain in intellect the analytic consequence of such a curve over the longhorn haul.

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

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

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

    And let's not forget the "Mac OS X" technologies that they later learned were developed for the iPhone and just happened to breathe announced for the Mac first (because the iPhone was quiet a secret), like 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 general since the iPhone arrived on the scene. And so, on top of everything else, Snow Leopard is tasked with restoring some luster to Mac OS X.

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

    It's enough to rotate 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 ultimate four major releases luxuriate in total been $129, with no special pricing for upgrades. After eight years of this kindly of fiscal disciplining, Leopard users may well breathe tempted to desist reading perquisite now and just proceed 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 ability to ameliorate the OS with each release, and boom, instant purchase.

    Still here? Good, because there's something else you exigency 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 Run on Macs with Intel CPUs. Sorry (again), PowerPC fans, but this is the cessation of the line for you. The transition to Intel was announced over four years ago, and the ultimate modern 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 modern features" stance (and the accompanying exigency of added visual flair) is working against it. For those running Leopard on a PowerPC-based Mac, there's precious limited in Snow Leopard to assist shove them over the (likely) four-digit price wall of a modern Mac. For PowerPC Mac owners, the threshold for a modern Mac purchase remains mostly unchanged. When their outmoded Mac breaks or seems too slow, they'll proceed out and buy a modern one, and it'll arrive with Snow Leopard pre-installed.

    If Snow Leopard does cessation up motivating modern Mac purchases by PowerPC owners, it will probably breathe 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 champion on the Mac platform.

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

    Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard will breathe available as an upgrade to Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard in September 2009 [...] The Snow Leopard lone user license will breathe available for a suggested retail price of $29 (US) and the Snow Leopard Family Pack, a lone household, five-user license, will breathe 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 breathe 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 breathe free with your modern Mac, $29 if you're already running Leopard, or $169 if you luxuriate in an Intel Mac running Tiger. People upgrading from Tiger will gain the latest version of iLife and iWork in the deal (if that's the preempt term), whether they want them or not. It certain seems like there's an obvious set in this lineup for a $129 offering of Snow Leopard on its own. Then again, perhaps it total comes down to how, exactly, Apple enforces the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade policy.

    (As an aside to non-Mac users, note that the non-server version of Mac OS X has no per-user serial number and no activation scheme of any kind, and never has. "Registration" with Apple during the Mac OS X install process is entirely optional and is only used to collect demographic information. Failing to register (or entering entirely bogus registration information) has no outcome on your ability to Run the OS. This is considered a genuine advantage of Mac OS X, but it besides means that Apple has no trustworthy 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 nature of thing before, and it bypasses any proof-of-purchase annoyances. It would, however, interlard a modern problem. In the event of a arduous drive failure or simple conclusion to reinstall from scratch, owners of the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade would breathe 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 luxuriate in 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 blank arduous drive.

    To breathe 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 conclusion is a refreshing change: rewarding honest people with a hassle-free product rather than trying to chastise dishonest people by treating everyone like a criminal. This "honor system" upgrade enforcement policy partially explains the colossal jump to $169 for the Mac Box Set, which ends up re-framed as an honest person's route to gain iLife and iWork at their accustomed prices, plus Snow Leopard for $11 more.

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

    Installation

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

    To eliminate as many variables as possible, I installed both Leopard and Snow Leopard from one arduous disk onto another (empty) one. It should breathe renowned that this change negates some of Snow Leopard's most notable 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 contemplate 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 small (5:49 vs. 3:20) and again, modern installations on blank disks are not the norm. But the shorter wait for Spotlight indexing is worth noting because it's the first indication most users will gain that Snow Leopard means traffic 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 Run on Intel Macs. Okay Apple, they gain 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 limited harsh, even foolhardy. What's going to betide when total those users upgrade to Snow Leopard and then double-click what they've probably long since forgotten is a PowerPC application? Perhaps surprisingly, this is what happens:

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

    That's what I saw when I tried to launch Disk Inventory X on Snow Leopard, an application that, yes, I had long since forgotten was PowerPC-only. After I clicked the "Install" button, I actually expected to breathe 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 exercise of the install-on-demand approach to system software components, but the facility used to install Rosetta appears quite robust. Upon clicking "Install," an XML property list containing a vast catalog of available Mac OS X packages was downloaded. Snow Leopard uses the same facility to download and install printer drivers on demand, saving another trip to the installer DVD. I hope this technique gains even wider exercise 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; contemplate 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 breathe equal to 109 (1,000,000,000) bytes, whereas the Leopard Finder—and, it should breathe noted, every version of the Finder before it—equates 1 GB to 230 (1,073,741,824) bytes. This has the outcome of making your arduous disk suddenly issue larger after installing Snow Leopard. For example, my "1 TB" arduous drive shows up in the Leopard Finder as having a capacity of 931.19 GB. In Snow Leopard, it's 999.86 GB. As you might luxuriate in guessed, arduous disk manufacturers exercise the powers-of-ten system. It's total quite a mess, really. Though I arrive down pretty firmly on the powers-of-two side of the fence, I can't failing Apple too much for wanting to match up nicely with the long-established (but quiet dumb, intellect you) arduous disk vendors' capacity measurement standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    So, where's the data? The limited "@" at the cessation 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 luxuriate in some extended attributes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And certain enough, as they saw, the resource fork does indeed accommodate the compressed data. Still, why the resource fork? It's total piece of Apple's usual, ingenious backward-compatibility gymnastics. A recent sample is the route that arduous links to directories expose 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 contour pre-Snow Leopard systems read and interpret the compressed data, which is stored in ways that did not exist at the time those earlier operating systems were written. But rather than letting applications (and users) running on pre-10.6 systems choke on—or worse, corrupt through modification—the unexpectedly compressed file contents, Apple has chosen to camouflage the compressed data instead.

    And where can the complete contents of a potentially big file breathe hidden in such a route that pre-Snow Leopard systems can quiet 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 attain the same. So while it may breathe a limited bit spooky to contemplate total those "empty" 0 KB files when looking at a Snow Leopard disk from a pre-Snow Leopard OS, the haphazard of data loss is small, even if you trudge or copy one of the files.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You may breathe wondering, if this is total about data compression, how does storing eight uncompressed bytes plus a 17-byte preamble in an extended ascribe save any disk space? The retort to that lies in how HFS+ allocates disk space. When storing information in a data or resource fork, HFS+ allocates space in multiples of the file system's allocation screen size (4 KB, by default). So those eight bytes will win up a minimum of 4,096 bytes if stored in the traditional way. When allocating disk space for extended attributes, however, the allocation screen 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 ascribe is over 4,000 bytes.

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

    Granted, several levels of caching throughout the OS and hardware labor mightily to camouflage these delays. But those bits luxuriate in to arrive off the disk at some point to fill those caches. Compression means that fewer bits luxuriate in to breathe transferred. Given the almost comical glut of CPU resources on a modern multi-core Mac under standard use, the total time needed to transfer a compressed payload from the disk and exercise the CPU to decompress its contents into recollection will quiet usually breathe far less than the time it'd win to transfer the data in uncompressed form.

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

    If there's one thing that slows down a arduous disk more than transferring a big amount of data, it's stirring its heads from one piece of the disk to another. Every trudge 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 total real, physical, stirring parts, and it's incredible that they attain their dance as quickly and efficiently as they do, but physics has its limits. These motions are the true performance killers for rotational storage like arduous disks.

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

    Extended attributes in HFS+ are implemented as named forks in the Attributes File. But unlike resource forks, which can breathe 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 confine of about 128 bytes per attribute. But it besides means that the disk head doesn't exigency to win a trip to another piece of the disk to gain the actual data.

    As you can imagine, the disk blocks that contour up the Catalog and Attributes files are frequently accessed, and therefore more likely than most to breathe in a cache somewhere. total of this conspires to contour 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 quiet less than the allocation screen size for standard data storage, and as long as it total fits within a B-tree node in the Attributes File that the OS has to read in its entirety anyway.

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

    Installer intelligence

    Apple makes two other nosy promises about the installation process:

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

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

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

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

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

    Snow Leopard's modern looks

    I've long yearned for Apple to contour a antiseptic break, at least visually, from Mac OS X's Aqua past. Alas, I will breathe 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 indicate otherwise. The verisimilitude is, Snow Leopard actually changes the appearance of nearly every pixel on your screen—but not in the route 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 leisure of the world—has used a value of 2.2. Though this may not look significant to anyone but professional graphics artists, the inequity is usually pellucid to even a casual observer when viewing the same image on both kinds of displays side by side.

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

    If they notice at all, users will likely suffer this change as a emotion that the Snow Leopard user interface has a bit more contrast than Leopard's. This is reinforced by the modern 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, dependable to form, Apple could not resist adding a few graphical tweaks to the Snow Leopard interface. The most pellucid changes are related to the Dock. First, there's the modern "spotlight" celebrate triggered by a click-and-hold on an application icon in the Dock. (This activates Exposé, but only for the windows belonging to the application that was clicked. More later.)

    Furthermore, any and total pop-up menus on the Dock—and only on the Dock—have a unique celebrate 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 intellect Apple's Hi-Tech appearance theme from the bad-old days of Copland. They're actually considerably more subtle, however. Note the translucent edges which accentuate the rounded corners. The gradient on the selection highlight is besides admirably restrained.

    Nevertheless, this is an entirely modern celebrate for a lone (albeit commonly used) application, and it does clash a bit with the default "slanty, shiny shelf" appearance of the Dock. But I've already had my screech about that, and more. If the oath of Snow Leopard's appearance was to "first, attain no harm," then I assume 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 breathe these: everything fades. Apple has sprinkled Core Animation fairy dust over seemingly every application in Snow Leopard. If any piece of the user interface appears, disappears, or changes in any significant way, it's accompanied by an animation and one or more fades.

    In moderation, such effects are fine. But in several instances, Snow Leopard crosses the line. Or rather, it crosses my line, which, it should breathe 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 limited to savor in Snow Leopard's visual changes.

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

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

    Branding

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

    In the run-up to Snow Leopard's release, Apple stuck to a modified version of Leopard's outer space theme. It was in the keynote slideshows, on the WWDC banners, on the developer release DVDs, and total over the Mac OS X section of Apple's website. The header image from Apple's Mac OS X webpage as of a week before Snow Leopard's release appears below. It's pretty gash and dried: outer space, stars, flush 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 celebrate 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 hem 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 luxuriate in been coalesced.)

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

    Yep, it's a snow leopard. With actual snow on it. It's a bit on the nose for my taste, but it's not without its charms. And it does luxuriate in one colossal thing going for it: it's immediately recognizable as something modern 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 limited haphazard 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 modern product.

    (If you'd like your own picture of Snowy the snow leopard (that's right, I've named him), Apple was kindly 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 total about internal changes, and this is reflected in the content of this review. If you're only interested in the user-visible changes, you can skip ahead, but you'll breathe missing out on the meat of this review and the heart of Apple's modern 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 champion for the then-new PowerPC G5 64-bit CPU. In 2005, Tiger brought with it the ability to create dependable 64-bit processes—as long as they didn't link with any of the GUI libraries. Finally, Leopard in 2007 included champion for 64-bit GUI applications. But again, there was a caveat: 64-bit champion extended to Cocoa applications only. It was, effectively, the cessation 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 reach complete 64-bit nirvana. The diagrams below illustrate.

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

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

    K64

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

    An notable 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 breathe precious few of those on customers' systems on launch day.

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

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

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

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

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

    To switch back to the 32-bit kernel, hold down the "3" and "2" keys during boot, or exercise 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 exercise the 64-bit kernel?

    The first reason has to attain with RAM, and not in the route you might think. Though Leopard uses a 32-bit kernel, Macs running Leopard can accommodate and exercise far more RAM than the 4 GB confine 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 like a problem; after all, should the kernel really exigency more than 4GB of recollection to attain its job? But remember that piece of the kernel's job is to track and manage system memory. The kernel uses a 64-byte structure to track the status of each 4KB page of RAM used on the system.

    That's 64 bytes, not kilobytes. It hardly seems like a lot. But now deem a Mac in the not-too-distant future containing 96GB of RAM. (If this sounds ridiculous to you, assume of how ridiculous the 8GB of RAM in the Mac I'm typing on perquisite now would luxuriate in 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 exigency it today on the desktop, it's already common for servers to luxuriate in 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 chance to leave behind some of the ugliness of the past and include more modern features: more registers, modern addressing modes, non-stack-based floating point capabilities, etc. K64 reaps these benefits. Apple makes the following claims about its performance:

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

    For everyone else, my advice is to breathe cheerful that K64 will breathe ready and waiting for you when you eventually attain exigency it—and tickle attain cheer total the vendors that contour kernel extensions that you dependence about to add K64 champion as soon as possible.

    Finally, this is worth repeating: tickle retain in intellect that you attain not exigency to Run the 64-bit kernel in order to Run 64-bit applications or install more than 4GB of RAM in your Mac. Applications Run 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 viable to install and win advantage of much more than 4GB of RAM.

    64-bit applications

    While Leopard may luxuriate in brought with it champion 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 viable for third-party developers to bear 64-bit (albeit Leopard-only) GUI applications, very few have—sometimes due to ill-fated realities, but most often because there's been no estimable reason to attain 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, assist Viewer, Installer, Terminal, Calculator—you appellation it, it's 64-bit.

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

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

    64-bits or bust

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

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

    QuickTime X

    Apple did something a bit odd in Leopard when it neglected to port the C-based QuickTime API to 64-bit. At the time, it didn't look like such a colossal 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 rotate to proceed 64-bit.

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

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

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

  • aims to contour a antiseptic rupture 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 notable features in its initial release
  • Maximum available Mac CPU  quicken (MHz)Maximum available Mac CPU quicken (MHz)

    Let's win these one at a time. First, why is a antiseptic rupture 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 perquisite is meant to hammer home this point. Forward-thinking design can only gain you so far. The shape of the world a technology is born into eventually, inevitably dictates its fate. This is especially dependable for long-lived APIs like QuickTime with a tenacious bent towards backward compatibility.

    As the first successful implementation of video on a personal computer, it's frankly incredible that the QuickTime API has lasted as long as it has. But the world has moved on. Just as Mac OS found 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 estimable champion for the GPU-accelerated video playback necessary to manipulate modern video codecs on a handheld (even with a CPU sixteen times the clock quicken of any available in a Mac when QuickTime 1.0 was released). And so, Apple created a tight, modern, GPU-friendly video playback engine that could suitable comfortably within the RAM and CPU constraints of the iPhone.

    Hmm. An aging desktop video API in exigency of a replacement. A fresh, modern video library with estimable 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 imprint the border between the outmoded QuickTime 7 and the modern QuickTime X. It's done this in Snow Leopard by limiting total exercise of QuickTime by 64-bit applications to the QTKit Objective-C framework.

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

    If QuickTime X is so much better, why doesn't QTKit exercise it for everything? The retort is that QuickTime X, like its Mac OS X namesake, has very limited capabilities in its initial release. While QuickTime X supports playback, capture, and exporting, it does not champion general-purpose video editing. It besides supports only "modern" video formats—basically, anything that can breathe 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 champion 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 champion using a plug-in of any kind? You guessed it: QuickTime 7.

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

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

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

    And the retort is revealed. When a 64-bit application using QTKit requires the services of the 32-bit-only QuickTime 7 back-end, QTKit spawns a part 32-bit QTKitServer process to attain the labor and communicate the results back to the originating 64-bit process. If you leave Activity Monitor open while using the modern QuickTime Player application, you can watch the QTKitServer processes arrive and proceed as needed. This is total handled transparently by the QTKit framework; the application itself exigency not breathe aware of these machinations.

    Yes, it's going to breathe a long, long time before QuickTime 7 disappears completely from Mac OS X (at least Apple was kindly enough not to convene it "QuickTime Classic"), but the path forward is clear. With each modern release of Mac OS X, hope the capabilities of QuickTime X to expand, and the number of things that quiet require QuickTime 7 to decrease. In Mac OS X 10.7, for example, I imagine that QuickTime X will gain champion for plug-ins. And surely by Mac OS X 10.8, QuickTime X will luxuriate in complete video editing support. total this will breathe 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 route for a developer to request that QTKit exercise the QuickTime X back-end, there are several circuitous means to influence the decision. The key is the QTKit API, which relies heavily on the concept of intent.

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

    This sounds remarkable until you realize that to attain anything with a media resource in QuickTime requires the construction of this comprehensive Movie object. deem playing an MP3 file with QuickTime, for example. QuickTime must create its internal Movie protest representation of the MP3 file before it can inaugurate 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 contour this process less painful by doing the scanning and parsing incrementally in the background. You can contemplate this in many QuickTime-based player applications in the contour 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 region from left to right.

    QuickTime 7 doing more  labor than necessary

    QuickTime 7 doing more labor than necessary

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

    The cataclysm is, the QuickTime 7 API lacks a route to express this kindly of intent. There is no route to screech to QuickTime 7, "Just open this file as quickly as viable 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 resolve 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 route to breathe eligible for the QuickTime X back-end at total is to explicitly express your intent not to attain anything QuickTime X cannot handle. Furthermore, any attempt to effect an operation that lies outside your previously expressed intent will antecedent QTKit to raise an exception.

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

    Indeed, there are many reasons to attain what it takes to gain 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 squander time preparing its internal representation of the movie for editing and export when playback is total that's desired.) QuickTime X besides supports GPU-accelerated playback of H.264, but, in this initial release, only on Macs equipped with an NVIDIA 9400M GPU (i.e., some 2009 iMacs and several models of MacBooks from 2008 and 2009). Finally, QuickTime X includes comprehensive ColorSync champion 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 route in recent years: steady, deliberate progress. Apple aims to ship no features before their time.

    As anxious as developers may breathe 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 gash Studio. Thus far, It remains stuck in 32-bit. To screech that Apple is "highly motivated" to extend the capabilities of QuickTime X would breathe an understatement.

    Nevertheless, don't hope Apple to rush forward foolishly. Duplicating the functionality of a continually developed, 18-year-old API will not betide overnight. It will win years, and it will breathe even longer before every notable Mac OS X application is updated to exercise QTKit exclusively. Transitions. Gotta savor '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 view to exercise as the only route an application tracks files. deem what happens if an application opens a file based on a path string, then the user moves that file somewhere else while it's quiet being edited. When the application is instructed to save the file, if it only has the file path to labor with, it will cessation up creating a modern file in the outmoded 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 assist 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 luxuriate in become the de facto representation for files that may breathe located somewhere other than the local machine. URLs can besides refer to local files, but in that case they luxuriate in total the same disadvantages as file paths.

    This diversity of data types is reflected in Mac OS X's file system APIs. Some functions win file path as arguments, some hope opaque references to files, and quiet others labor only with URLs. Programs that exercise 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 total levels of the operating system, and no lone one of them is comprehensive. To gain total available information about a file on disk requires making several part calls, each of which may hope a different nature of file reference as an argument.

    Here's an sample 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 luxuriate in been imbued with total the desirable attributes of an FSRef.

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

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

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

    It will breathe a long time before the benefits of these changes trickle down (or is it up?) to end-users in the contour of Mac applications that are written or modified to exercise these modern 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  estimable Mac OS X citizenTextEdit: a estimable Mac OS X citizen

    Of course, the key modifier here is "well-written." Simplifying the file system APIs means that more developers will breathe 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 reason that developers might choose to alter their existing, working application to exercise these modern APIs.

    Doing more with more

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

    Moore later revised that to two years, but the time term is not what people gain 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, tickle read this classic article by Jon Stokes.)

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

    Moore's Law continues, at least for now, but their ability to contour code Run faster with each modern extend in transistor density has slowed considerably. The free lunch is over. CPU clock speeds luxuriate in 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 breathe equipped with a 3.2 GHz CPU.) Adding execution units to a CPU has besides long since reached the point of diminishing returns, given the limits of instruction-level parallelism in common application code.

    And yet we've quiet got total these modern transistors raining down on us, more every year. The challenge is to find modern ways to exercise them to actually contour computers faster.

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

    Unfortunately, generally speaking, a dual-core CPU will not Run your application twice as mercurial as a single-core CPU. In fact, your application probably won't Run any faster at total unless it was written to win advantage of more than just a lone analytic CPU. Presented with a glut of transistors, chipmakers luxuriate in turned around and provided more computing resources than programmers know what to attain 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 route 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 breathe it: helping developers utilize total this newfound silicon; helping them attain more with more.

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

    Don't breathe misled by its humble exercise in Leopard; Apple has imposing 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 modern 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 modern logo, a not-so-subtle homage to a well-known compiler design textbook:

    LLVM! Clang! Rawr!

    LLVM! Clang! Rawr!

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

    Mac OS X compilers

    Mac OS X compilers

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

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

    Clang is besides more developer-friendly than its GCC predecessors. I concede that this topic doesn't luxuriate in much to attain with taking advantage of multiple CPU cores and so on, but it's certain to breathe the first thing that a developer actually notices when using Clang. Indulge me.

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

    GCC error message for an unknown type

    It's not exactly pellucid what the problem is, especially if you're modern to C programming. Yes, total you hotshots already know what the problem is (especially if you saw this sample at WWDC), but I assume everyone can correspond that this error, generated by Clang, is a lot more helpful:

    Clang error message for an unknown type

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

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

    GCC error message for  execrable 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 error message for  execrable operands

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

    GCC error message for missing semicolon

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

    Clang error message for missing semicolon

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

    OH HAI I found UR BUGOH HAI I found UR BUG

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

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

    Master of the house

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

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

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

    Blocks

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

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

    Perhaps the simplest route to clarify blocks is that they contour functions another contour of data. C-derived languages already luxuriate in function pointers, which can breathe passed around like data, but these can only point to functions created at compile time. The only route to influence the conduct 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 luxuriate in colossal disadvantages

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

    As for the exercise of global variables, in addition to being a well-known anti-pattern, it's besides not thread-safe. To contour it so requires locks or some other contour of mutual exclusion to prevent multiple invocations of the same 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 total of these problems by allowing functional blobs of code—blocks—to breathe 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 convene 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 sample 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 contemplate how it works. In the C example, that limited caret ^ is the key to the syntax for blocks. It's kindly of ugly, but it's very C-like in that it parallels the existing C syntax for function pointers, with ^ in set of *, as this sample illustrates:

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

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

    Now then, does this breathe of value that C is suddenly a dynamic, high-level language like JavaScript or Lisp? Hardly. The existing distinction between the stack and the heap, the rules governing automatic and static variables, and so on are total quiet in complete effect. Plus, now there's a all modern set of rules for how blocks interact with each of these things. There's even a modern __block storage nature ascribe to further control the scope and lifetime of values used in blocks.

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

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

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

    What you'd like to breathe able to attain 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 like to effect on each line of the file. In the middle of each screen of boilerplate may breathe many lines of code expressing the operation to breathe applied. This code may reference or modify local variables which are affected by the runtime conduct 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 screen as arguments. This gets total the uninteresting code out of your face.

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

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

    Even when the volume of boilerplate is small, the simplicity and clarity premium is quiet worthwhile. deem the simplest viable 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 limited bug there, don't I? It happens to the best of us. But why should this code breathe more complicated than the sentence describing it. attain something 10 times! I never want to screw that up again. Blocks can help. If they just invest a limited pains 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 arbitrary screen of code a specific number of times is total but idiot-proof:

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

    And remember, the screen dispute to repeat() can accommodate exactly the same kindly of code, literally copied and pasted, that would luxuriate in appeared within a traditional for loop.

    All these possibilities and more luxuriate in 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 modern APIs that exercise blocks in Snow Leopard. Many of these APIs would not breathe viable at total without blocks, and total of them are more elegant and concise than they would breathe otherwise.

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

    Concurrency in the true world: a prelude

    The struggle to contour efficient exercise of a big number of independent computing devices is not new. For decades, the province of high-performance computing has tackled this problem. The challenges faced by people writing software for supercomputers many years ago luxuriate in 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, breathe Inc. was formed around the view 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, breathe created the BeBox, a dual-CPU desktop computer, and BeOS, a brand-new operating system.

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

    Let me disclose you, having lived through this term myself, the suffer 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 suffer quiet doesn't match the responsiveness of BeOS. This is certainly dependable emotionally, if not necessarily literally.

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

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

    Nineteen years after breathe 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 blank lanes on a CPU monitor window.

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

    And woe breathe 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 modern user inputs are being pulled off the event queue by the application. A few seconds of that and an outmoded friend makes its appearance: the spinning beach ball of death.

    Nooooooooo!!!

    Nooooooooo!!! Image from The Iconfactory

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

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

    Snow Leopard's retort to the concurrency conundrum is called imposing Central Dispatch (GCD). As with QuickTime X, the appellation is extremely apt, though this is not entirely pellucid until you understand the technology.

    The first thing to know about GCD is that it's not a modern 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 exigency to link in a modern library to exercise 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 breathe used from total of the C-derived languages supported on Mac OS X: Objective-C, C++, and Objective-C++.

    Queues and threads

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

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

    A imposing Central Dispatch queue in action

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

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

    The animation above shows threads appearing as labor needs to breathe done, and disappearing as they're no longer needed. Where attain these threads arrive from and where attain they proceed 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 Run on a thread, the thread goes back into the pool.

    This is an extremely notable 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 screech a program has a problem that can breathe split into eight separate, independent units of work. If this program then creates four threads on an eight-core machine, is this an sample of creating too many or too few threads? Trick question! The retort is that it depends on what else is happening on the system.

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

    With the exception of programs that can reasonably hope to luxuriate in the entire machine to themselves when they run, there's no route 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 aware entity. In Snow Leopard, that entity is GCD. It will retain zero threads in its pool if there are no queues that luxuriate in tasks to run. As tasks are dequeued, GCD will create and dole out threads in a route that optimizes the exercise of the available hardware. GCD knows how many cores the system has, and it knows how many threads are currently executing tasks. When a queue no longer needs a thread, it's returned to the pool where GCD can hand it out to another queue that has a stint ready to breathe dequeued.

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

    Compare a thread's 512 KB of baggage with GCD queues which luxuriate in 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 besides relatively costly to create. Creating a modern thread for each stint would breathe the worst viable scenario. Every time GCD can exercise a thread to execute more than one task, it's a win for overall system efficiency.

    Remember the problem of the programmer trying to figure out how many threads to create? Using GCD, he doesn't luxuriate in 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 exercise 500 concurrent tasks, then he can proceed ahead and create 500 GCD queues and dispense his labor among them. GCD will figure out how many actual threads to create to attain the work. Furthermore it will adjust the number of threads dynamically as the conditions on the system change.

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

    But wait, there's more! GCD queues can actually breathe arranged in arbitrarily knotty directed acyclic graphs. (Actually, they can breathe cyclic too, but then the conduct is undefined. Don't attain that.) Queue hierarchies can breathe used to funnel tasks from disparate subsystems into a narrower set of centrally controlled queues, or to constrain a set of standard queues to delegate to a serial queue, effectively serializing them total indirectly.

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

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

    Asynchronicity

    Okay, so GCD is a remarkable route to contour efficient exercise 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 opposite cessation of the spectrum from BeOS's "pervasive multithreading" design. Rather than achieving responsiveness by getting every viable component of an application running concurrently on its own thread (and paying a hefty price in terms of knotty data sharing and locking concerns), GCD encourages a much more limited, hierarchical approach: a main application thread where total the user events are processed and the interface is updated, and worker threads doing specific jobs as needed.

    In other words, GCD doesn't require developers to assume about how best to split the labor of their application into multiple concurrent threads (though when they're ready to attain that, GCD will breathe willing and able to help). At its most basic level, GCD aims to cheer developers to trudge from thinking synchronously to thinking asynchronous. Something like this: "Write your application as usual, but if there's any piece of its operation that can reasonably breathe expected to win more than a few seconds to complete, then for the savor of Zarzycki, gain 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 attain they quiet contemplate the beach ball in Mac OS X applications? Why don't total applications already execute total of their potentially long-running tasks on background threads?

    A few reasons luxuriate in been mentioned already (e.g., the hardship of knowing how many threads to create) but the colossal 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 explicit rupture from coding the actual labor of your application to coding total this task-management plumbing. And so, especially in borderline cases, like an operation that may win 3 to 5 seconds, developers just attain it synchronously and trudge onto the next thing.

    Unfortunately, there's a surprising number of very common things that an application can attain that execute quickly most of the time, but luxuriate in the potential to win 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 breathe topic to a very long (or at least an "unexamined-by-the-application-developer") timeout. The same goes for appellation lookups (e.g., DNS or LDAP), which almost always execute instantly, but ensnare many applications completely off-guard when they start taking their sweet time to recur a result. Thus, even the most meticulously constructed Mac OS X applications can cessation up throwing the beach ball in their countenance from time to time.

    With GCD, Apple is saw it doesn't luxuriate in to breathe this way. For example, suppose a document-based application has a button that, when clicked, will dissect the current document and display some nosy 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 carcass 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 breathe updated to reflect this modern state. It total follows a very common pattern, and it works remarkable as long as nothing of these steps—which are total running on the main thread, remember—takes too long. Because after the user presses the button, the main thread of the application needs to manipulate that user input as mercurial as viable so it can gain 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 knotty document. Suddenly, the "analyze" step doesn't win 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 total that extra code to this simple, four-line function. The plumbing would dwarf the code that does the actual work!"

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

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

    There's a hell of a lot of packed into those two lines of code. total of the functions in GCD inaugurate with dispatch_, and you can contemplate four such calls in the blue lines of code above. The key to the minimal invasiveness of this code is revealed in the second dispute 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 ability of blocks to capture the surrounding context is what allows these GCD calls to breathe dropped perquisite into some existing code without requiring any additional setup or re-factoring or other contortions in service of the API.

    But the best piece of this code is how it deals with the problem of detecting when the background stint completes and then showing the result. In the synchronous code, the dissect routine convene and the code to update the application display simply issue in the desired sequence within the function. In the asynchronous code, miraculously, this is quiet the case. Here's how it works.

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

    User interface updates must total breathe done from the main thread in a Cocoa application, so the code in the inner screen could not breathe executed anywhere else. But rather than having the background thread ship some kindly of special-purpose notification back to the main thread when the dissect routine convene completes (and then adding some code to the application to detect and manipulate this notification), the labor that needs to breathe done on the main thread to update the display is encapsulated in yet another screen within the larger one. When the dissect convene is done, the inner screen is establish onto the main queue where it will (eventually) Run on the main thread and attain its labor of updating the display.

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

    Believe it or not, it's just as facile to win a serial implementation of a succession of independent operations and parallelize it. The code below does labor on count elements of data, one after the other, and then summarizes the results once total the elements luxuriate in 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 part stint for each constituent onto a global concurrent queue. (Again, it's up to GCD to resolve how many threads to actually exercise 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 luxuriate in it: a for loop replaced with a concurrency-enabled equivalent with one line of code. No preparation, no additional variables, no impossible decisions about the optimal number of threads, no extra labor required to wait for total the independent tests to complete. (The dispatch_apply() convene will not recur until total the tasks it has dispatched luxuriate in completed.) Stunning.

    Grand Central Awesome

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

    When I first heard about imposing Central Dispatch, I was extremely skeptical. The greatest minds in computer science luxuriate in 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 imposing Central Dispatch doesn't actually address this issue at all. It offers no assist whatsoever in deciding how to split your labor up into independently executable tasks—that is, deciding what pieces can or should breathe executed asynchronously or in parallel. That's quiet entirely up to the developer (and quiet a tough problem). What GCD does instead is much more pragmatic. Once a developer has identified something that can breathe split off into a part task, GCD makes it as facile and non-invasive as viable to actually attain so.

    The exercise of FIFO queues, and especially the being 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 set for developers.

    One of Apple's slogans for imposing 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 segregate 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 breathe better executed off the main thread, even if they're made up of several sequential or otherwise partially interdependent tasks. GCD makes it facile to rupture off the entire unit of labor while maintaining the existing order and dependencies between subtasks.

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

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

    So far, we've seen a few examples of doing more with more: a new, more modern compiler infrastructure that supports an notable modern language feature, and a powerful, pragmatic concurrency API built on top of the modern compilers' champion for said language feature. total this goes a long route towards helping developers and the OS itself contour maximum exercise 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 disclose the tale. While Mac CPUs accommodate up to four cores (which may expose up as eight analytic cores thanks to symmetric multithreading), high-end GPUs accommodate well over 200 processor cores. While CPUs are just now edging over 100 GFLOPS, the best GPUs are capable of over 1,000 GFLOPS. That's one trillion floating-point operations per second. And like 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 luxuriate in evolved from the fixed-function silicon of their ancestors that could not breathe programmed directly at all. They don't champion the flush set of instructions available on CPUs, the maximum size of the programs that will Run is often limited and very small, and not total of the features of the industry-standard IEEE floating-point computation specification are supported.

    Today's GPUs can breathe programmed, but the most common forms of programmability are quiet 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 estimable suitable for GPU hardware. It would breathe 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 nature of execution units, available data formats, instruction sets, recollection architecture, you appellation it. Programmers don't want to breathe exposed to these differences, but it's difficult to labor around the complete exigency 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 province (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 attain the same for general-purpose computation. In fact, OpenCL is supported by the same consortium as OpenGL: the ominously named Khronos Group. But contour no mistake, OpenCL is Apple's baby.

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

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

    The OpenCL difference

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

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

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

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

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

    Certain kinds of algorithms actually Run 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 luxuriate in to Run 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 breathe a true pain. There's MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, and SSE4 to deal with, total with slightly different capabilities, and total of which constrain the programmer to write code like this:

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

    OpenCL's endemic champion for vector types de-clutters the code considerably:

    r1 = m1 * (x1 + x2);

    Similarly, OpenCL's champion for implicit parallelism makes it much easier to win advantage of multiple CPU cores. Rather than writing total the logic to split your data into pieces and dispense those pieces to the parallel-computing hardware, OpenCL lets you write just the code to operate on a lone piece of the data and then ship it, along with the entire screen 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 total pixels in a texture or total vertices in a polygon; the programmer only needs to write code that will exist in the "inner loop," so to speak. An API with champion for this kindly of parallelism that runs on CPUs as well as GPUs fills an notable gap.

    Writing to OpenCL besides future-proofs task- or data-parallel code. Just as the same OpenGL code will gain faster and faster as newer, more powerful GPUs are released, so too will OpenCL code effect better as CPUs and GPUs gain 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 win advantage of them, just as video card makers and OS vendors update their OpenGL drivers to win advantage of faster GPUs. Meanwhile, the application developer's code remains unchanged. Not even a recompile is required.

    Here breathe dragons (and trains)

    How, you may wonder, can the same compiled code cessation 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 attain so would require translating the device-independent OpenCL code to the instruction set of the target computing device at runtime. When running on a GPU, OpenCL must besides ship the data and the newly translated code over to the video card and collect the results at the end. When running on the CPU, OpenCL must 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 luxuriate in 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 total of its pains on a lone device-independent code optimizer. There's no longer any exigency 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, remember Core Image? That's another API that needs to compile code just-in-time and ship it off to execute on parallel hardware like GPUs and multi-core CPUs. In Snow Leopard, Core Image has been re-implemented using OpenCL, producing a hefty 25% overall performance boost.)

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

    The top of the pyramid

    Though the underlying technologies, Clang, blocks and imposing Central Dispatch, will undoubtedly breathe more widely used by developers, OpenCL represents the culmination of that particular technological thread in Snow Leopard. This is the gold standard of software engineering: creating a modern public API by edifice 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 quiet exist in numbers that are orders of magnitude lower than the hundreds of processing units in modern GPUs. On the other hand, GPUs quiet luxuriate in a ways to proceed to ensnare up with the power and flexibility of a full-fledged CPU core. But even with total the differences, writing code exclusively for either one of those worlds quiet smacks of leaving money on the table.

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

    Transistor harvest

    Collectively, the concurrency-enabling features introduced in Snow Leopard limn the biggest boost to asynchronous and parallel software progress in any Mac OS X release—perhaps in any desktop operating system release ever. It may breathe arduous for end-users to gain excited about "plumbing" technologies like imposing Central Dispatch and OpenCL, let solitary 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 breathe because they stand on the shoulders of giants.

    QuickTime Player's  modern icon (Not a fan)QuickTime Player's modern 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 exigency 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 sense 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 contemplate 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 breathe an optional install?

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

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

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

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

    Second, the floating playback controls obscure the movie. What if I'm scrubbing around looking for something in that piece of the frame? Yes, you can trudge 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 breathe moved. I treasure the compactness of this approach, but it'd breathe nice if the title bar overlap could breathe disabled and the controls could breathe dragged off the movie entirely and docked to the bottom or something.

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

    The modern 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 contour a timeline, with adjustable stops at each cessation for trimming.

    Trimming in the  modern QuickTime Player Enlarge / Trimming in the modern 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 luxuriate in to marvel exactly how useful the fancy timeline appearances are. The audio waveform is quite small and compressed, and the limited horizontal space of the in-window display means a movie can only expose a handful of video frames in its timeline. Also, if there's any ability to attain fine adjustments using something other than extremely heedful mouse movements (which are necessarily topic to a limited resolution) then I couldn't find it. Final gash Pro this is not.

    QuickTime Player has learned another modern trick: screen recording. The controls are limited, so more demanding users will quiet luxuriate in a exigency for a full-featured screen recorder, but QuickTime Player gets the job done.

    Screen recording in QuickTime PlayerScreen recording in QuickTime Player

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

    Audio recordingAudio recording

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

    Unfortunately, the list of things you can't attain with the modern QuickTime Player is quite long. You can't cut, copy, and paste arbitrary portions of a movie (trimming only affects the ends); you can't extract or delete individual tracks or overlay one track onto another (optionally scaling to fit); you can't export a movie by choosing from the complete set of available QuickTime audio and video codecs. total of these things were viable with the outmoded 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 ascribe their absence in the modern QuickTime Player to the previously discussed limitations of QuickTime X. But the modern QuickTime Player is built on top of QTKit, which serves as a front-end for both QuickTime X and QuickTime 7. And it does, after all, feature some limited editing features like trimming, plus some previously "Pro"-only features like full-screen playback. Also, the modern 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 dumbfound waiting for you if you install the optional QuickTime Player 7. When I did so, what I got was the outmoded QuickTime Player—somewhat insultingly installed in the "Utilities" folder—with total of its "Pro" features permanently unlocked. Yes, the tyranny of QuickTime Pro seems to breathe 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 luxuriate in total "pro" features unlocked for everyone. I installed Snow Leopard onto an blank disk, and QuickTime 7 was not automatically installed (as it is when the installer detects an existing QuickTime Pro license on the target disk). After booting from my fresh Snow Leopard volume, I manually installed the "QuickTime 7" optional component using the Snow Leopard installer disk.

    The result for me was a QuickTime Player 7 application with total pro features unlocked and with no visible QuickTime Pro registration information. I did, however, luxuriate in 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 modern appearance of some aspects of the Dock are accompanied by some modern functionality as well. Clicking and holding on a running application's Dock icon now triggers Expos�, but only for the windows belonging to that application. Dragging a file onto a docked application icon and holding it there for a bit produces the same result. You can then continue that same drag onto one of the Exposé window thumbnails and hover there a bit to bring that window to the front and drop the file into it. It's a pretty handy technique, once you gain in the usage of doing it.

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

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

    In the screenshot above, you'll notice that nothing of the minimized windows issue in my Dock. That's thanks to another welcome addition: the ability to minimize windows "into" the application icon. You'll find the setting for this in the Dock's preference pane.

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

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

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

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

    The option to retain 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 luxuriate in it open in the Finder, while besides retaining the ability to drag items into that folder. This was the default conduct for docked folders for the first six years of Mac OS X's life, but it changed in Leopard. Snow Leopard does not ameliorate matters.

    Docking an alias to a folder provides the single-click-open behavior, but items cannot breathe 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 particular to a docked folder alias looks like it will labor (the icon highlights) but upon release, the dragged particular simply springs back to its original location. I really hoped this one would gain 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 expose that its version number had been updated to 10.6. The more nosy 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 execrable 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 exigency is a Cocoa Finder! Surely that will unravel total their woes." Well, Snow Leopard features a 64-bit Finder, and as they total know, Carbon was not ported to 64-bit. Et voila! A Cocoa Finder in Snow Leopard. (More on the woes in a bit.)

    The conversion to Cocoa followed the Snow Leopard formula: no modern features… except for maybe one or two. And so, the "new" Cocoa Finder looks and works almost exactly like the outmoded Carbon Finder. The biggest indicator of its "Cocoa-ness" is the extensive exercise 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 contour its modern shape.

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

    The number-one feature request from hefty column-view users has finally been implemented: sortable columns. The sort order applies to total columns at once, which isn't as nice as per-column sorting, but it's much better than nothing at all. The sort order can breathe set using a menu command (each of which has a keyboard shortcut) or by right-clicking in an unoccupied region 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 small slider to control the size of the icons.

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

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

    The icon previews themselves luxuriate in been enhanced to better match the abilities available in Quick Look. establish it total together and you can smoothly zoom a small PDF icon, for example, into the impressively high-fidelity preview shown below, complete with the ability to rotate pages. One press of the space bar and you'll progress to the even larger and more springy Quick celebrate 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 luxuriate in 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 gain icon view to stick for the windows where it's most useful, I assume that odd limited slider is actually going to gain a lot of use.

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

    List view besides has a few enhancements—accidental, incidental, or otherwise. The drag region for each list view particular now spans the entire line. In Leopard, though the entire line was highlighted, only the file appellation or icon portion could breathe 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 conduct is intentional or if it's just an unexamined consequence of the underlying control used for list view in the modern Cocoa Finder. Either way, thumbs up.

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

    Searching using the Finder's browser view is greatly improved by the implementation of one of those limited things that many users luxuriate in been clamoring for year after year. There's now a preference to select the default scope of the search province in the Finder window toolbar. Can I gain 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 proceed a long route towards making the desktop environment feel more solid. A estimable sample 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. kindly of cool, but besides kindly of annoying.)

    Another viable user response to a disk-in-use error 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 gain information about the offending application in one dialog, an option to constrain ejection in the other, but neither one presented both choices? It's a mystery to me, but presumably it's related to exactly what information the Finder has about the contention for the disk. (As always, the lsof command is available if you want to figure it out the old-fashioned way.)

    Ummm…Ummm…

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

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

    There besides remains some weirdness in the operation of the icon grid. In a view where grid snap is turned on (or is enabled transiently by holding down the command key during a drag) icons 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 gain a 200-character filename that will overlap with a neighboring file's name.

    The worst incarnation of this conduct happens along the perquisite edge of the screen where mounted volumes issue on the desktop. (Incidentally, this is not the default; if you want to contemplate disks on your desktop, you must enable this preference in the Finder.) When I mount a modern disk, I'm often surprised to contemplate where it ends up appearing. If there are any icons remotely proximate to the perquisite edge of the screen, the disk icon will reject to issue there. Again, the Finder is not avoiding any actual appellation or icon overlapping. It appears to breathe 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 gain 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 luxuriate in had a province day with that statement, were Carbon not establish out to pasture in Leopard. But it was, and to the victor proceed the spoils.

    Exchange

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

    The colossal caveat is that it will only labor 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 conclusion provides, it means that for users whose workplaces are quiet running older versions of Exchange, Snow Leopard's "Exchange support" might as well not exist.

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

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

    Exchange setup: surprisingly easyExchange setup: surprisingly easy

    Windows users are no doubt accustomed to this kindly 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 found in Outlook on Windows, you're in for a bit of a shock. For example, here's the "detail" view of a meeting in iCal.

    iCal event detailiCal event detail

    Clicking the "edit" button hardly reveals more.

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

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

    Meeting availability checker Enlarge / Meeting availability checker

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

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

    Performance

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

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

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

    This holistic approach to performance improvement is not likely to knock anyone's socks off, but every time you Run 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 breathe of value the time between the selection of the Shutdown or Restart command and when the system turns off or begins its modern boot cycle. Leopard doesn't win long at total to attain this; only a few dozen of seconds when there are no applications open. But in Snow Leopard, it's so mercurial 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 quiet dwarf Snow Leopard's speedup, but that's mostly because Mac OS X was so excruciatingly sluggish in its early years. It's facile to create a colossal performance delta when you're starting from something abysmally slow. The fact that Snow Leopard achieves consistent, measurable improvements over the already-speedy Leopard is total the more impressive.

    And yes, for the seventh consecutive time, a modern release of Mac OS X is faster on the same hardware than its predecessor. (And for the first time ever, it's smaller, too.) What more can you query for, really? Even that outmoded 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 outmoded days—and tremble it as mercurial as you can. Your cursor will never breathe more than a few millimeters from the window's grab handle; it tracks your frantic motion perfectly. On most Macs, this is actually dependable in Leopard as well. It just goes to expose how far Mac OS X has arrive on the performance front. These days, they total just win it for granted, which is exactly the route 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 kindly of "all grab bag," if you know what I mean. Apple's even got its own incarnation in the contour of a giant webpage of "refinements." I'll probably overlap with some of those, but there'll breathe a few modern ones here as well.

    New columns in open/save dialogs

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

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

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

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

    Image Capture is besides not a execrable limited scanning application. It has pretty estimable automatic protest detection, including champion for multiple objects, obviating the exigency to manually crop items. Given the sometimes-questionable attribute of third-party printer and scanner drivers for Mac OS X, the ability to exercise a bundled application is welcome.

    System Preferences bit wars

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

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

    Click "OK" and System Preferences will relaunch in 32-bit mode, which is conveniently indicated in the title bar. Since total of the first-party preference panes are compiled for both 64-bit and 32-bit operation, System Preferences does not exigency to relaunch again for the duration of its use. This raises the question, why not luxuriate in System Preferences launch in 32-bit mode total the time? I suspect it's just another route 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 notable to the Web suffer that relaunching in 32-bit mode is not really an option. You'd probably exigency to relaunch as soon as you visited your first webpage. But Apple does want Safari to Run 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 Run 32-bit plug-ins in part 32-bit processes as needed.

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

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

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

    While this is quiet 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 breathe believed, isolating plug-ins may generate most of the capitalize of truly part processes with a significantly less radical change to the Safari application itself.

    Resolution independence

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

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

    Yep, it's a bummer. I quiet remember Apple advising developers to luxuriate in their applications ready for resolution independence by 2008. That's one of the few dates that the Jobs-II-era Apple has not been able to hit, and it's getting later total the time. On the other hand, it's not like 200-DPI monitors are raining from the sky either. But I'd really like to contemplate Apple gain going on this. It will undoubtedly win a long time for everything to celebrate and labor correctly, so let's gain started.

    Terminal splitters

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

    Arbitrary splitters, baby!Arbitrary splitters, baby!

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

    Terminal in Snow Leopard besides defaults to the modern Menlo font. But wayward to earlier reports, the One dependable Monospaced Font, Monaco, is most definitely quiet 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 part "Keyboard" and "Mouse" panes, "International" becomes "Language & Text," and the "Internet & Network" section becomes "Internet & Wireless" and adopts the Bluetooth preference pane.

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

    Before stirring on, System Preferences has one shapely 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. kindly of creepy, but useful.

    Core location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Snow Leopard provides a route to attain this without leaving any of my computers running total 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 ground station from 2007 or later, or a Time Capsule from 2008 or later with the latest (7.4.2) firmware installed.) The router then listens for any attempt to connect to the IP address. When one occurs, it wakes up the original owner, hands back the IP address, and forwards traffic appropriately.

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

    Back to my hack

    As has become traditional, this modern 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 gain the worst of it. They've actually been unsupported and non-functional in 64-bit applications since Leopard. That wasn't such a colossal 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 exigency of an officially sanctioned extension mechanism, developers looking to enhance its functionality luxuriate in most often resorted to the exercise 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 viable to manually set Safari to launch in 32-bit mode—Get Info on the application in the Finder and click a checkbox—ideally, this is not something developers want to constrain users to do.

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

    Though I design to Run Safari in its default 64-bit mode, I'll really miss Saft, a Safari extension I exercise 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 celebrate up "noodles" in Wikipedia). I'm hoping that ingenious developers will find a route to overcome this modern 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 rupture with each major operating system update as a matter of course. And each time, those determined fellows at Unsanity, against total odds, manage to retain 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 luxuriate in to wait too long for a Snow-Leopard-compatible version.

    The general 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, part processes. Even contextual menu plug-ins in the Finder luxuriate in been disabled, replaced by an enhanced, but quiet less-powerful Services API. Again, I luxuriate in faith that developers will adapt. But the waiting is the hardest part.

    ZFS MIA

    It looks like we'll total breathe waiting a while longer for a file system in shining armor to supplant 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, champion 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 ultimate year. When asked about a ZFS-savvy implementation of Time Machine, the reply was encouraging: "This one is notable 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 flawless suitable for Time Machine, but the most notable is its ability to ship only the block-level changes during each backup. As Time Machine is currently implemented, if you contour a small 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 besides bring vastly increased robustness for data and metadata, a pooled storage model, constant-time snapshots and clones, and a pony. People sometimes query what, exactly, is wrong with HFS+. Aside from its obvious exigency 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 breathe 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 part locations on the disk) and to allow for better concurrency.

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

    Apple gets by year after year, tacking modern features onto HFS+ with duct tape and a prayer, but at a certain point there simply has to breathe 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 companionable exercise as a technological one. Creating a platform, even more so. total of Snow Leopard's considerable technical achievements are not just designed to capitalize users; they're besides intended to goad, persuade, and otherwise herd developers in the direction that Apple feels will breathe most advantageous for the future of the platform.

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

    The accustomed route to overcome this kindly of upgrade hesitation has been to pack the OS with modern features. modern features sell, and the more copies of the modern operating system in use, the more motivated developers are to update their applications to not just Run on the modern OS, but besides win advantage of its modern abilities.

    A major operating system upgrade with "no modern features" must play by a different set of rules. Every party involved expects some counterbalance to the exigency of modern features. In Snow Leopard, developers stand to gather the biggest benefits thanks to an impressive set of modern 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 contour it facile for developers to trudge 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 luxuriate in already been reports of modern bugs introduced to existing APIs in Snow Leopard. This is the exact opposite of Snow Leopard's implied engage to users and developers that it would concentrate on making existing features faster and more robust without introducing modern functionality and the accompanying modern bugs.

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

    There's been one other "no modern features" release of Mac OS X. Mac OS X 10.1, released a mere six months after version 10.0, was handed out for free by Apple at the 2001 Seybold publishing conference and, later, at Apple retail stores. It was besides available from Apple's online store for $19.95 (along with a copy of Mac OS 9.2.1 for exercise 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 attain 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 breathe certain that total the software you dependence about is compatible. But don't wait too long, because at $29 for the upgrade, I hope Snow Leopard adoption to breathe quite rapid. Software that will Run only on Snow Leopard may breathe here before you know it.

    Should you buy Mac OS X Snow Leopard? If you're already running Leopard, then the retort is a resounding "yes." If you're quiet running Tiger, well, then it's probably time for a modern 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 modern Intel-style "tick-tock" release strategy for Mac OS X: radical modern 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 nature of plan, but I assume there's a lot to recommend it.

    Snow Leopard is a unique and glorious release, unlike any that luxuriate in arrive before it in both scope and intention. At some point, Mac OS X will surely exigency to gain 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 contour it debilitated and peculiar engineered away.

    Snowy eyes Looking back

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


  • Direct Download of over 5500 Certification Exams

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





    References :


    Dropmark : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/11544757
    Wordpress : http://wp.me/p7SJ6L-wL
    Scribd : https://www.scribd.com/document/358696233/Pass4sure-9L0-403-Practice-Tests-with-Real-Questions
    Issu : https://issuu.com/trutrainers/docs/9l0-403
    weSRCH : https://www.wesrch.com/business/prpdfBU1HWO000DGJU
    Dropmark-Text : http://killexams.dropmark.com/367904/12075542
    Blogspot : http://killexams-braindumps.blogspot.com/2017/11/pass4sure-9l0-403-dumps-and-practice.html
    Youtube : https://youtu.be/QZH-rC_x9n4
    RSS Feed : http://feeds.feedburner.com/killexams/eIoK
    Vimeo : https://vimeo.com/243991831
    Google+ : https://plus.google.com/112153555852933435691/posts/PJt8o1Ly9Aw?hl=en
    publitas.com : https://view.publitas.com/trutrainers-inc/where-can-i-get-help-to-pass-9l0-403-exam
    Calameo : http://en.calameo.com/account/book#
    Box.net : https://app.box.com/s/pbjklbelfsa57a08cibfupg37wkic35p
    zoho.com : https://docs.zoho.com/file/5kgmr80db5e4863494b11809741cd3d8b6f2d






    Back to Main Page





    Killexams 9L0-403 exams | Killexams 9L0-403 cert | Pass4Sure 9L0-403 questions | Pass4sure 9L0-403 | pass-guaratee 9L0-403 | best 9L0-403 test preparation | best 9L0-403 training guides | 9L0-403 examcollection | killexams | killexams 9L0-403 review | killexams 9L0-403 legit | kill 9L0-403 example | kill 9L0-403 example journalism | kill exams 9L0-403 reviews | kill exam ripoff report | review 9L0-403 | review 9L0-403 quizlet | review 9L0-403 login | review 9L0-403 archives | review 9L0-403 sheet | legitimate 9L0-403 | legit 9L0-403 | legitimacy 9L0-403 | legitimation 9L0-403 | legit 9L0-403 check | legitimate 9L0-403 program | legitimize 9L0-403 | legitimate 9L0-403 business | legitimate 9L0-403 definition | legit 9L0-403 site | legit online banking | legit 9L0-403 website | legitimacy 9L0-403 definition | >pass 4 sure | pass for sure | p4s | pass4sure certification | pass4sure exam | IT certification | IT Exam | 9L0-403 material provider | pass4sure login | pass4sure 9L0-403 exams | pass4sure 9L0-403 reviews | pass4sure aws | pass4sure 9L0-403 security | pass4sure coupon | pass4sure 9L0-403 dumps | pass4sure cissp | pass4sure 9L0-403 braindumps | pass4sure 9L0-403 test | pass4sure 9L0-403 torrent | pass4sure 9L0-403 download | pass4surekey | pass4sure cap | pass4sure free | examsoft | examsoft login | exams | exams free | examsolutions | exams4pilots | examsoft download | exams questions | examslocal | exams practice |

    www.pass4surez.com | www.killcerts.com | www.search4exams.com | http://tractaricurteadearges.ro/