Amazon offers Apple Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard pre-order

[AppleInsider]

Snow Leopard, the latest update to Apple's Mac OS X operating system, is now available for pre-order from Amazon, in anticipation of its upcoming September release.

As expected, Mac OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard is priced at $29 for the single user license and $49 for the five-license family pack. The upgrade prices are available for users of the current version of Mac OS X, 10.5 Leopard. Snow Leopard will only be available for Mac users on Intel-based computers.

Also available is Mac OS X Server 10.6 Snow Leopard. Priced at $499, Leopard Server is said to be the most significant improvement to the server operating system since Mac OS X Server was launched. Amazon is also selling box sets with Snow Leopard, featuring the OS, iWork and iLife for $169 and the five-license family pack, iWork and iLife for $229.

To create Snow Leopard, Apple said its engineers focused on refining 90 percent of the more than 1,000 projects in Mac OS X. New features include:

A more responsive Finder
Mail that loads messages 85 percent faster and conducts searches up to 90 percent faster
Time Machine with up to 50 percent faster initial backup
A Dock with Expose integration
A 64-bit version of Safari 4 that boosts the performance of the Nitro JavaScript engine by up to 50 percent and is resistant to crashes caused by plug-ins.
The all new QuickTime X, with a redesigned player that allows users to easily view, record, trim and share video to YouTube, MobileMe or iTunes.
Half the size of the previous version and frees up to 6GB of drive space once installed.

For the first time, system applications -- including Finder, Mail, iCal, iChat and Safari -- are 64-bit, and Snow Leopard's support for 64-bit processors makes use of large amounts of RAM, increases performance, and improves security while remaining compatible with 32-bit applications.

With the Snow Leopard Up-to-Date program, many customers who bought an Apple computer this summer will qualify for an even cheaper upgrade. Customers who purchase a qualifying new Mac or a qualifying Apple Certified Refurbished computer on or after June 8, 2009 that does not include Mac OS X Snow Leopard can upgrade to Snow Leopard for $9.95 plus tax. To participate, your completed order form must be postmarked or faxed within 90 days of the date of your purchase of the qualifying Mac or by December 26, 2009, whichever is earlier.

For more on Apple's upcoming operating system, read AppleInsider's extensive Road to Snow Leopard series.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ascii]

Some (many) Mac users I know don't know whether they have Tiger or Leopard or what. I'm sure the upgrade version will cause confusion and returns.

But personally I can't wait. Perhaps there were multiple motivations behind the Snow Leopard improvements - such as making OS X as efficient as possible for the new Tablet maybe. But as a Mac user I am happy to be the beneficiary also!

[JavaCowboy]

I believe that 10.7 will only run on 64-bit Intel chips. Also, I wouldn't put it past Apple to start deprecating Carbon, since by 10.6 they will be eating their own dog food (no more Carbon apps distributed by Apple).

Exciting times!

[dagamer34]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

I believe that 10.7 will only run on 64-bit Intel chips. Also, I wouldn't put it past Apple to start deprecating Carbon, since by 10.6 they will be eating their own dog food (no more Carbon apps distributed by Apple).

Exciting times!

Except for that little app called iTunes...

[psychodoughboy]

I hope we get a release date sooner than the September iPod event. I'm hoping there'll be a new version of iTunes announced at said event as well to round things out to 64bit.

[saarek]

Hmmm I can't preorder in the UK, I have signed up to be notified of it's release but could find no preorder option.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

Except for that little app called iTunes...

Well, the first question of mind is how does one track which apps are Carbon and which are Cocoa, since I doubt you can do "About" to find out what framework one is written in versus the other.

Still, it makes sense since iTunes needs to be compatible with previous versions of OS X, and has a massive code base that was originally acquired from a third party product.

I googled, and all I could find of relevance was this:

http://sprinkleofcocoa.blogspot.com/...not-cocoa.html

A quick look through the application's bundle shows all the signs of a product still deeply welded to Carbon.

That was from 11 months ago, but I doubt a whole lot has changed since then, unless Apple has a Cocoa version of iTunes in their R&D lab somewhere.

[ChrisDaMacMan]

Hurry, i want them to release it soon so I can buy a new laptop!!

[ghostface147]

So how will this $29 update work? Will they follow the Volish method of having Leopard on the machine already and upgrade only, or can we do a full wipe and load? I hope we can wipe and load, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had to have Leopard first and then upgrade.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Also available is Mac OS X Server 10.6 Snow Leopard. Priced at $499, Leopard Server is said to be the most significant improvement to the server operating system since Mac OS X Server was launched.

I think the real story here is that Apple slashed the price of their server software in HALF!
A 10-client license used to cost $499 and unlimited clients $999.

So for $599 for a Mac mini and $499 for OS X Server...you've got a sweet little server.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by ghostface147

So how will this $29 update work? Will they follow the Volish method of having Leopard on the machine already and upgrade only, or can we do a full wipe and load? I hope we can wipe and load, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had to have Leopard first and then upgrade.

As long as you have the original Leopard install disks you can do it either way. Otherwise you would never be able to do a fresh install.

[lenny]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

As long as you have the original Leopard install disks you can do it either way

Why would one need the original Leopard install disks? If you have Leopard installed on your machine, it's just gonna be an upgrade to 10.6

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

Well, the first question of mind is how does one track which apps are Carbon and which are Cocoa, since I doubt you can do "About" to find out what framework one is written in versus the other.

Still, it makes sense since iTunes needs to be compatible with previous versions of OS X, and has a massive code base that was originally acquired from a third party product.

I googled, and all I could find of relevance was this:

http://sprinkleofcocoa.blogspot.com/...not-cocoa.html

That was from 11 months ago, but I doubt a whole lot has changed since then, unless Apple has a Cocoa version of iTunes in their R&D lab somewhere.

Considering how iTunes basically affects much of the things that we do today and undoubtedly will do more tomorrow, you can bet your bottom dollar that iTunes is being re-worked to take advantage of the faster processor.

Apple has never sat back on its laurels before, I don't expect their strategy to change.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by lenny

Why would one need the original Leopard install disks? If you have Leopard installed on your machine, it's just gonna be an upgrade to 10.6

An if your hard drive crashes and you have to replace it, just how would you suggest we do it?

P.S. How did you originally install Leopard. If you bought a new Mac and it came with Leopard installed you were supplied with an install disk.

[houseley]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

An if your hard drive crashes and you have to replace it, just how would you suggest we do it?

You're clever enough to recognise the risk of a HD crash but not smart enough to have backups including a clone of your HD?

[passat2.1]

Originally Posted by saarek

Hmmm I can't preorder in the UK, I have signed up to be notified of it's release but could find no preorder option.

I'm English and live in France there's no pre-order available here either. Actually it is worse than that, the reduced price for existing Leopard Owners offer is not available here or in the UK or in any other country except the US. Is this another example of Apple making special offers only available to Americans while the rest of us have to pay in full to subsidise the USA? Are you watching Apple (Steve Jobs even!) you have loyal customers outside America, treat them properly, we count as well.

[kpluck]

Is there no Snow Leopard, non-upgrade package? The only thing I see is the Mac Pack. What if I have Tiger but don't want the iLife or iWork apps?

-kpluck

[netnothing]

I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?

-Kevin

[ghostface147]

I am just saying that Apple better not have the Volish stupidity to say we have to have Leopard installed first if we want to install SL. I doubt they will, but you never know.

[kent909]

You can currently buy the box set for $169. That gets you OS X Leopard regularly $129 and i Works and iLife both regularly $79. That is a savings of $118. This offer with Snow Leopard which will cost $29 is a savings of $18. Still a savings but clearly a money maker for Amazon. I think I will wait and see what Apple offers upon release.

[MadisonTate]

Originally Posted by passat2.1

I'm English and live in France there's no pre-order available here either. Actually it is worse than that, the reduced price for existing Leopard Owners offer is not available here or in the UK or in any other country except the US. Is this another example of Apple making special offers only available to Americans while the rest of us have to pay in full to subsidise the USA? Are you watching Apple (Steve Jobs even!) you have loyal customers outside America, treat them properly, we count as well.

Yeah, you count, but you don't count in good ol' American English. All of that funny lookin' colorful money. Apple should charge you more just for hurting our eyes! What's that? A picture of The Little Prince on your money? Have you ever seen Superman on a dollar bill? Nobody will ever respect your currency unless you have frumpy old men in wigs on it. Good luck with that whole queen thing. Put a wig on your prince and maybe we'll talk. No wonder you joined the EU and put architectural temples on your money; you haven't got a prayer.

Just teasing, btw.

[Hudson1]

Originally Posted by passat2.1

I'm English and live in France there's no pre-order available here either. Actually it is worse than that, the reduced price for existing Leopard Owners offer is not available here or in the UK or in any other country except the US. Is this another example of Apple making special offers only available to Americans while the rest of us have to pay in full to subsidise the USA? Are you watching Apple (Steve Jobs even!) you have loyal customers outside America, treat them properly, we count as well.

I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program. Since it hasn't been either released or been scheduled for release, I wouldn't worry about not seeing the special upgrade pricing yet.

[lkrupp]

Originally Posted by netnothing

I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?

-Kevin

If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.

[netnothing]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.

Thanks for not addressing my question at all.....but hey, at least you must feel better now that you got all that out, right?

-Kevin

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.

Apple would be foolish to release a version of Safari that wouldn't run Flash. Comparing the situation to the iPhone is spurious, since the iPhone never supported Flash in the first place, so there's no functionality to take away. Removing Flash functionality from Safari after Mac users generally expect it would amount to Apple shooting itself in the foot.

At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:

1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.

This is an acceptable limitation for mobile browsing, but it becomes quite jarring when doing desktop browsing.

Heck, Apple had to distribute the new 64 bit Java plugin recently in order to ensure that Java applets would still work, and Java applets are far less ubiquitous that Flash, so that should tell you something about Apple's thinking.

Therefore, I imagine that there will be a 32-bit plugin emulation layer in Safari 64-bit, since Adobe has thus far only released an alpha of a 64-bit plugin for Linux:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...10FAQ_64-bit01

I'm guessing a lot of the complexity comes from the fact that Flash has a lot of low-level C++ code that's more difficult to maintain, making the transition to 64-bit more difficult.

[netnothing]

Originally Posted by netnothing

I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?

-Kevin

After doing a little searching, this post seems to answer the question:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...1#733003010041

Under Snow Leopard, Safari 4 is 64-bit and plugins are sandboxed (allowing Safari 4 to run 32-bit plugins and preventing them from taking down the entire browser).

-Kevin

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by ghostface147

So how will this $29 update work? Will they follow the Volish method of having Leopard on the machine already and upgrade only, or can we do a full wipe and load? I hope we can wipe and load, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had to have Leopard first and then upgrade.

The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.

Originally Posted by kpluck

Is there no Snow Leopard, non-upgrade package? The only thing I see is the Mac Pack. What if I have Tiger but don't want the iLife or iWork apps?

the Tiger users Mac Pack is essentially the leopard upgrade switched out to the SL parts as needed. and no you can't get it without iLife or iWork. be honestly consider that you would have paid $129 for leopard. for $40 more you get two software suites that retail for $160 total and the $30 upgrade. quite a bargain really.

Originally Posted by ghostface147

I am just saying that Apple better not have the Volish stupidity to say we have to have Leopard installed first if we want to install SL. I doubt they will, but you never know.

I disagree about the stupidity issue. Apple has been very open that this is, more than before, really a giant tweaking/fine tuning, not a rewrite.

Originally Posted by Hudson1

I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program.

of course it isn't. Apple has never been one to make one thing for one market and something for all the rest. Case in point, Verizon didn't get the US iphone contract cause they aren't GSM

the only thing that is US only is Amazon taking pre-orders. the US is still the biggest market for Apple (especially through Amazon) so they would want to have a clue of how many copies they need on hand for orders. this is the best way to figure out that. just like they did with Harry Potter, the Twilight books etc.

[Zoolook]

Are there any references saying what the performance increase will be on a 32-bit machine? I am on a 2006 MacBook with 32-bit CoreDuo CPU.

[newbee]

Originally Posted by netnothing

I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?

-Kevin

My understanding is that with Snow Leopard you'll be able to run 32 or 64 bit applications, kinda like they did with the transition from OS 9 to OS 10 ... run both until the rest of the world catches up.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by houseley

You're clever enough to recognise the risk of a HD crash but not smart enough to have backups including a clone of your HD?

Right now I have my systems backed up via MobileMe, Retrospect'd on alternating days to 2 internal vaulted digital tape drives in two separate but attached buildings, Time Machined to two separate drives and a library of now over 1200 CD/DVDs, as well as an on-line daily back up to one the same servers used by many of the Fortune 500.

And yet, I am clever enough to conduct a fresh re-install if and when I have a HD crash. Why? That is our policy, as our years of experience has taught us that one can never really know why an HD crashes.

And as our mother taught us, why would you put another load of dirty laundry to the same wash water.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:

1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.

Should you be doing any of that at work?

[mjrmd]

The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by mjrmd

The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.

Not on Vista. You can only install a Vista upgrade from within the original OS install...

OK, so there are many well documented workarounds, but they intended the upgrade versions of Vista to never have the ability to install on a clean HDD.

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by charlituna

The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.

Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.

I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by PG4G

Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.

I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.

They have always done so before.

Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?

And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by mjrmd

The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.

I gather that you are new to the Mac.

This is not something new to Apple.

[JasonD]

How will folks who have a MacBook Air (with no optical drive) upgrade? I guess they be forced to get an external drive.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by JasonD

How will folks who have a MacBook Air (with no optical drive) upgrade? I guess they be forced to get an external drive.

As every MacBook Air owners know, i.e, the same way they have always done before

Install wirelessly with Remote Disc.
Without a built-in optical drive, how do you install new applications? Simply use Remote Disc. This innovative feature of Mac OS X lets you wirelessly “borrow” the optical drive of a nearby Mac or PC. So you can install applications from a CD or DVD and have full access to an optical drive without having to lug one around. http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html

And if you are really curious, check it out. Not really complicated. http://www.apple.com/macbookair/incl...tml#remotedisc

[PG4G]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

They have always done so before.

Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?

And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.

I expect them to release in a full upgrade with clean install option. As you say, as a beta tester, I should know that. However, the weird ideas that Apple is giving people over this "you must buy a box set or have Leopard" is giving me enough room to say "its possible that the $29 upgrade will be an upgrade-from-previous-leopard-install only."

I sincerely hope not, and I don't expect that to be the case Abster2core, I'm just covering my bases.

[lenny]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

An if your hard drive crashes and you have to replace it, just how would you suggest we do it?

Time Machine backup..?