Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
10/24/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
08/31/09
1) They underestimated the work getting it fully integrated; not just 'there if you know how to get to it', but fully productized and easy enough for their audience to use. And taking into account all the new failure and configuration paths.
2) It's not really something blingy that they can explain to most of their customer base. How many people are using their MacBook or iMac and going 'dang, this file system is really just adequate' and tossing the OS in disgust?
3) So they just never had enough manpower to dedicate to it full time when they could have those people working on something else like MMS in the iPhone or the iTablet or a thousand other things. The best people for this job would have been the ones who were desperately trying to get 10.6 out and had their hands full of other stuff like the Finder rewrite.
08/31/09
09/01/09
Argument #3 doesn't quite make sense, since Apple keeps their project teams so discrete.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Apple wouldn't have to worry so much about GPL since still owns the Darwin kernel and can license it under whatever it wants.
Also it can just write the file system support as a kmod and not link it in directly (just means you can't boot from ZFS file system).
08/31/09
08/31/09
-------------------------------------------------
In 2008, Apple announced that we would see ZFS as part of Snow Leopard Server, but a year later our copies are shipping with ZFS nowhere to be found.
-------------------------------------------------
see that part about Snow Leopard SERVER........
08/31/09
08/31/09
Actually It slipped my mind by the time I got to the end of it.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
"ZFS" became "ZDF" half way through.
08/31/09
Thanks for the catch, fixed.
08/31/09
08/31/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
06/09/09
Windows 7 >>> No Leopard
06/09/09
Which, I haven't seen demo'd yet.
06/09/09
Leopard wasn't a service pack like many asserted (it actually added features), but this is since it adds nothing.
06/09/09
And if you'll notice, they're only charging $29 for the upgrade. Which last I knew was far better than ANYTHING Microsoft had put forth, and considering how bad VISTA is, they had really better cut their customers a huge financial break.
I don't consider major system re-writes to be just a service pack. I consider a service pack to be a roll-up of existing system patches already to market, plus a few new ones. Apple just released 10.5.7 recently which was some 450 megs?
Not to mention, the new OS takes up 6 gigs less space than than 10.5 does. Something Neither Vista or Windows 7 can claim.
06/09/09
If MS released a package similar to SL it would be free. The major rewrite you are talking about is something that they had promised to devs forever ago. WTF do you think cocoa was for... Jesus wake up
The OS takes up 6gb less because they killed PPC support AND SP2 for Vista did clean up space.
What's the point in even responding... Go drink some more kool aid fanboi.
06/09/09
If Vista ran "Just fine" then Microsoft wouldn't have had to spend $300 million on a marketing campaign to rebrand Vista as Mojave.
XP is a superior OS to Vista. Period. I'm not "drinking the kooliad". As for how they recovered 6 gig of OS space, if you'd actually bothered to do your homework you'd know why it's smaller. They even said so during the keynote yesterday. If you think Cocoa and PPC support was 6 gig worth of code, you're insane.
Let's take a look at Vista objectively compared to XP. The same applications run slower, and use more memory running under Vista than XP. There were lawsuits filed against Microsoft over its Vista Ready program.
When installing a program that requires administrative access to do so, it will prompt you to cancel your install and re-start it as administrator. OSX simply pops up a prompt and asks you to type in your password. XP doesn't even bother you with this at all. I really liked XP as an OS. It was far superior to 2000 Pro.
But, no, I don't "Fail" the moment I talk about how bad Vista runs. Only pathetic wannabes throw out words like "fail" and "Kool-aid" when trying to make a point. Which, in you're case you haven't made any point.
As for SP2 for Vista cleaning up space... No, not really. It merely cleans up archived versions of files it replaces. Overall it uses about an additional 1 gig of drive space after installation.
But, what the hell do I know? Obviously I'm just a "failed" fanboi drinking the "kool-aid" because I can appreciate that OSX is a good OS, and definitely a superior one to Vista. Windows 7? Not so much, and I can't say that I will consider Snow Leopard better than Windows 7. Right now it is likely I won't.
Sorry, I don't worship at the altar of Microsoft. When they release a shitty product, I call them on it. Same goes for Apple, or even crummy Linux distributions.
06/09/09
But, we'll see I guess. I'll end up buying both.