Apple's Snow Leopard disc will install on Tiger Macs

[AppleInsider]

Though users of older Intel-based Macs were led to believe they would have to spend $169 to migrate from Tiger to Snow Leopard, new reports state the $29 upgrade disc will work just fine.

In his review of Snow Leopard, Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal, Mossberg reveals that those who have been hesitant to upgrade their Mac will be able to take advantage of Snow Leopard's bargain price, without the need to install the intermediate Leopard operating system first.

"For owners of Intel-based Macs who are still using the older Tiger version of the Mac OS, Apple is officially making Snow Leopard available only in a "boxed set" that includes other software and costs $169," Mossberg said. "The reasoning is that these folks never paid the $129 back in 2007 to upgrade to Leopard. But here’s a tip: Apple concedes that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade will work properly on these Tiger-equipped Macs, so you can save the extra $140."

Wired also confirmed that they were able to upgrade a system directly from Tiger to Snow Leopard. In addition, it is possible to completely erase a hard drive and install Snow Leopard without a pre-existing operating system in place, enabling users to bypass the possible headaches of an upgrade and go with a clean install instead. Wired said many users upgrading from Tiger should probably consider backing up their files from Tiger and doing a clean install instead.

"Of course, the transition isn’t guaranteed to be as smooth as it would be from Leopard to Snow Leopard," the report said of the Tiger to Snow Leopard upgrade, "and that’s because some older, Tiger-only third-party applications need to be upgraded to newer versions that work with Leopard or Snow Leopard."

Originally released in April 2005, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger is more than a little long in the tooth at this point, especially considering the astounding success of its follow-up, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[minderbinder]

Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).

Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.

But probably not.

Doubt we'll even see most of them admit they were wrong on this one. But here's your chance.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Though users of older Intel-based Macs were led to believe they would have to spend $169 to upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard, new reports state the $29 upgrade disc will work just fine.

In his review of Snow Leopard, Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal, Mossberg reveals that those who have been hesitant to upgrade their Mac will be able to take advantage of Snow Leopard's bargain price, without the need to install the intermediate Leopard operating system first.

"For owners of Intel-based Macs who are still using the older Tiger version of the Mac OS, Apple is officially making Snow Leopard available only in a "boxed set" that includes other software and costs $169," Mossberg said. "The reasoning is that these folks never paid the $129 back in 2007 to upgrade to Leopard. But here’s a tip: Apple concedes that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade will work properly on these Tiger-equipped Macs, so you can save the extra $140."

Wired also confirmed that they were able to upgrade a system directly from Tiger to Snow Leopard. In addition, it is possible to completely erase a hard drive and install Snow Leopard without a pre-existing operating system in place, enabling users to bypass the possible headaches of an upgrade and go with a clean install instead. Wired said many users upgrading from Tiger should probably consider backing up their files from Tiger and doing a clean install instead.

"Of course, the transition isn’t guaranteed to be as smooth as it would be from Leopard to Snow Leopard," the report said of the Tiger to Snow Leopard upgrade, "and that’s because some older, Tiger-only third-party applications need to be upgraded to newer versions that work with Leopard or Snow Leopard."

Originally released in April 2005, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger is more than a little long in the tooth at this point, especially considering the astounding success of its follow-up, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

For those of us who did buy Leopard and have thus paid the piper, let's not degrade ourselves by taking the low road that so many naysayers have done in the past.

If it works for them, so be it. Let's hope they are grateful and express their thanks properly.

But as my medical prof use to say, "Wishful thinking yound man. Wishful thinking."

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).

Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.

But probably not.

Doubt we'll even see most of them admit they were wrong on this one. But here's your chance.

You beat me to my backup response.

Have a good day. I hope we do.

[Chintan100]

Isnt Apple the single best tech company of all time?

[.mac]

Microsoft should learn some thing from this

sweet apple :love:

[webpoet73]

Well, I suppose Apple really wants all Intel-Mac users on Snow Leopard... odd they are trying to force iWork and iLife on Tiger users via this "box set." Isn't that kind of un-Apple?

[slinberg]

I'm upgrading from Tiger on the MBP and Leopard on the tower, and I did go ahead and order the Leopard box set last week to fulfill the upgrade conditions for the $29 SL upgrade. I'm glad to hear that the upgrade path will work on a clean HD with no OS, though... I bought a new HD to install on and I didn't want to have to go through an unnecessary Leopard install just to get SL running.

Kudos, Apple.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by .mac

Microsoft should learn some thing from this

sweet apple :love:

like what? for most people its more economical to buy a new PC with a new version of Windows and buy a retail copy of Windows

[Hudson1]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

Well, I suppose Apple really wants all Intel-Mac users on Snow Leopard... odd they are trying to force iWork and iLife on Tiger users via this "box set." Isn't that kind of un-Apple?

Maybe, maybe not. We don't know to what extent Apple has tested old versions of iLife with Snow Leopard. What we do know is that iLife 09, according to Apple, required OS X 10.5 (which means no one running Tiger would already have iLife 09). My guess is they want to somewhat force the issue on keeping outdated versions of their own software away from Snow Leopard and therefore are not allowing iLife 08 and earlier to mix with SL.

[jetset]

This is awesome news. The flood of SL netbook hackintoshes is going to be epic
Hurry up with that tablet Mapple!

[bobrik]

I think there is a huge difference between "is technically possible" (to upgrade from Tiger to SL using the $29 upgrade) and "is allowed by the license" (of the upgrade). Until I hear some confirmation that the SL upgrade license does not preclude Tiger users from upgrading, I am not buying the $29 SL upgrade.

[Hattig]

Originally Posted by webpoet73

Well, I suppose Apple really wants all Intel-Mac users on Snow Leopard... odd they are trying to force iWork and iLife on Tiger users via this "box set." Isn't that kind of un-Apple?

Well it does mean that all 2006 Apple hardware buyers who might be using iWork '06 and iLife '06 will also get those updated to modern equivalents.

And yes, I think Apple would prefer all users on Snow Leopard where possible. Us PowerPC Tiger users will fade away as we upgrade our hardware in the next year, or the usage needs just don't need SL.

[Ronbo]

If it hadn't been this way, then if you have had to wipe and reinstall, you'd have to install 10.5 first, then 10.6. This way, you can wipe and simply install 10.6. So although they really do believe the $29 price is for guys who already bought 10.5, they're not so hard-core about it that they want to sabotage your experience.

Pretty decent of them, I'd say.

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by bobrik

I think there is a huge difference between "is technically possible" (to upgrade from Tiger to SL using the $29 upgrade) and "is allowed by the license" (of the upgrade). Until I hear some confirmation that the SL upgrade license does not preclude Tiger users from upgrading, I am not buying the $29 SL upgrade.

You have an intel Mac and you're still running 10.4??

[azentropy]

I'm guessing there were not enough Intel/Tiger users to make it worth restricting the install of SL. The probably didn't spend any time in QA, but probably best to do a clean install anyway.

[noirdesir]

Any OS X install disk will allow installation on an unlimited number of computers (from a practical point of view, but not from a legal or moral point of view).
Any Snow Leopard disk will install on any disk (regardless of pre-existing Leopard installation). But suddenly is morally ok, to install it without owning a Leopard license?

[Rot'nApple]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"For owners of Intel-based Macs who are still using the older Tiger version of the Mac OS, Apple is officially making Snow Leopard available only in a "boxed set" that includes other software and costs $169," Mossberg said. "The reasoning is that these folks never paid the $129 back in 2007 to upgrade to Leopard. But here’s a tip: Apple concedes that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade will work properly on these Tiger-equipped Macs, so you can save the extra $140."

Hmm... Purchased Leopard Family pack for multiple Macs at home solely because the software I needed for a project at the time was written and had functionality requiring OS 10.5 or so they say.

If the above quote is true, by my calculations, purchase of the $29.00 upgrade to SL vs the Family Pack upgrade will work just fine on my multiple Macs as well as knowledge that future OS releases to be installed on family of Macs does not require Family Pack.

Way to go Apple for single handedly debunking the mythical concept of the need for the "Family Pack"!

Either that or Apple owes me a refund! Bad Apple!!

[Ronbo]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Us PowerPC Tiger users will fade away as we upgrade our hardware in the next year, or the usage needs just don't need SL.

No offense, but this just seems weird. The 10.5 users on PPC, I can understand them feeling bad about not being able to get SL (I've got a tower at home that'll be feeling left out). But a PPC user on 10.4??? If you want to get the cool feeling of a new OS, get Leopard. After all, most of the fun new stuff from a user's standpoint is there, not SL.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).

Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.

But probably not.

Doubt we'll even see most of them admit they were wrong on this one. But here's your chance.

Just simply being correct doesn’t absolve you from also making stating opinions as facts "based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation”, assuming that is what your did. If not, then good on you.

It’s one thing to speculate and quite another to say with absolute certainty that it could not be done. Since Apple has never used any authentication for consumer OS X upgrades it’s not to imagine to imagine they wouldn’t do it this time, though the new price point does throw a new variable into the mix. I’m glad we don’t have to put in the old disc to verify or have Leopard pre-installed but nothing was certain until we got proof.

[bobrik]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

You have an intel Mac and you're still running 10.4??

Yeah, that's what I got with my Intel MBP 3,1 back in June 2007. To shell out $129 for Leopard that originally had to be released in June 2007 but got delayed by 4 months, without an up-to-date program available, would leave a bitter taste in my mouth (and wallet).

[melevittfl]

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

If the above quote is true, by my calculations, purchase of the $29.00 upgrade to SL vs the Family Pack upgrade will work just fine on my multiple Macs as well as knowledge that future OS releases to be installed on family of Macs does not require Family Pack.

Way to go Apple for single handedly debunking the mythical concept of the need for the "Family Pack"!

Either that or Apple owes me a refund! Bad Apple!!

Well, there is no technical check that prevents you from buying the single license version of Snow Leopard and installing it on many Macs. However you're breaking the law and being dis-honest, if that sort of thing matters to you.

Personally, I like that Apple doesn't spend CPU cycles or engineering resources in building elaborate license checks into their software. It saves me time and means they have more time/money to focus on features that add value to me.

However, if too many people end up abusing their trust, they may decide they need to start doing so and that would be a shame.

[Logisticaldron]

Originally Posted by azentropy

I'm guessing there were not enough Intel/Tiger users to make it worth restricting the install of SL. The probably didn't spend any time in QA, but probably best to do a clean install anyway.

There is over a year-and-a-half since the first Intel Mac was launched and Leopard was released, but I think you are right. The OS upgrade rate for Mac users is pretty high for PCs so it was probably more trouble than it’s worth to have nearly 2 years of original Leopard users plus all the ones that upgraded to Leopard from Tiger have to deal with that. And remember that Mac sales have done nothing but accelerate each year.

[DominikB]

EULA anyone?

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by bobrik

I think there is a huge difference between "is technically possible" (to upgrade from Tiger to SL using the $29 upgrade) and "is allowed by the license" (of the upgrade). Until I hear some confirmation that the SL upgrade license does not preclude Tiger users from upgrading, I am not buying the $29 SL upgrade.

it's like back in the 1990's when a lot of MS software you just put in all 1's for the license key and it took it

[charlituna]

Originally Posted by bobrik

I think there is a huge difference between "is technically possible" (to upgrade from Tiger to SL using the $29 upgrade) and "is allowed by the license" (of the upgrade). Until I hear some confirmation that the SL upgrade license does not preclude Tiger users from upgrading, I am not buying the $29 SL upgrade.

very noble of you. although most folks here would probably say you are being stupid and wasting your money.

but it is nice to see that some folks will play by the rules.

Originally Posted by DominikB

EULA anyone?

the answer there is anything from stupid to immoral to potentially not legally binding (cause it's not printed out on the box for you to read before you buy etc)

there are those that just don't care. they will buy a single upgrade to use on 20 hackintoshes and say that they bought the software so no one can tell them what to do with it.

[eldernorm]

Many of you sound like you have to deal with Microsoft instead of Apple.

OH, it isnt perfect, OH it isnt free. OH, Apple did not warn me that technology advances......

Please. use the software........ enjoy the software.....

Just a thought.
en

[stuffe]

Originally Posted by Ronbo

If it hadn't been this way, then if you have had to wipe and reinstall, you'd have to install 10.5 first, then 10.6. This way, you can wipe and simply install 10.6. So although they really do believe the $29 price is for guys who already bought 10.5, they're not so hard-core about it that they want to sabotage your experience.

Pretty decent of them, I'd say.

I bought my macbook with Tiger, and got Leopard free (well, $10) on the up-to-date program. If I try and install Leopard from scratch, it will (if it cannot find a 10.4 install to work from) request my Tiger DVD to be inserted as proof.

This way I cannot resell my Tiger disks (why would I want to...), but I can still install with having to install the old version first.

Why have they removed this simple hassle free check from the SL install? I wonder if the SL up-to-date disks show this behaviour...

I suspect they don't really care much about the revenue from OS sales, and are happy to turn a blind eye to users who install SL over anything - so long as they are doing it on a Mac...

[tawilson]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).

Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.

My guess is that it's a honeypot for Psystar. They'll opt for the $29 copies so that they can either increase their margin/lower the price, at which point Apple will tear them a new one in court as it is a clear-cut upgrade.

[Hudson1]

Originally Posted by DominikB

EULA anyone?

Nowhere have I seen the EULA posted for the 10.6 upgrade disks. Until anyone actually has seen it and read it... it's only speculative as to what it says.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by tawilson

My guess is that it's a honeypot for Psystar. They'll opt for the $29 copies so that they can either increase their margin/lower the price, at which point Apple will tear them a new one in court as it is a clear-cut upgrade.

on Macrumors in the hackintosh thread there is already buzz that SL will be a lot more friendly to generic PC hardware

[Bageljoey]

Originally Posted by charlituna

very noble of you. although most folks here would probably say you are being stupid and wasting your money.

but it is nice to see that some folks will play by the rules.

I have always known that single license discs from Apple would work on multiple computers in my home. Many times I have thought about forgoing the family license when upgrading, but in the end it never seemed worth it. I have found the upgrade prices reasonable and the "extra" $20 or $40 or whatever seemed like a small enough to keep me legal.

I don't know if it is "noble" or me, but I'm not sure if you have the authority to speak for "most people." It is the same way with iTunes. I could find the music for free and so could millions of others, but so many dont. Are you calling all of them "stupid" too?

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

Any OS X install disk will allow installation on an unlimited number of computers (from a practical point of view, but not from a legal or moral point of view).
Any Snow Leopard disk will install on any disk (regardless of pre-existing Leopard installation). But suddenly is morally ok, to install it without owning a Leopard license?

Yes you can wipe and install on most Macs regardless of what OS (assuming Intel CPU) but I think the point is it will 'upgrade' Tiger leaving files intact.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

on Macrumors in the hackintosh thread there is already buzz that SL will be a lot more friendly to generic PC hardware

Not arguing with you, but it seems odd to me if this is the case. This was the perfect moment to do something that would make it harder!

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Bageljoey

I have always known that single license discs from Apple would work on multiple computers in my home. Many times I have thought about forgoing the family license when upgrading, but in the end it never seemed worth it. I have found the upgrade prices reasonable and the "extra" $20 or $40 or whatever seemed like a small enough to keep me legal.

Partial Quote

Same here and same for Family Packs of iWorks and iLife disks in this house.

[melevittfl]

Originally Posted by charlituna

to potentially not legally binding (cause it's not printed out on the box for you to read before you buy etc)

The law in the United States is pretty settled on that question and EULAs are legally binding, even if they aren't printed on the box.

You may not like it, I don't, but that's the way the law stands. But don't just pretend it's not true on an internet forum, write your congress critter....

[Rockyridge]

I am glad that I only have to pay money not to have to put up with all the waste from Redmond.

I really appreciate being able to fudge when in a pinch. So much that I try a little harder to keep things clean.

So Apple's being nice turns out to be smart business for me...

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by bobrik

Yeah, that's what I got with my Intel MBP 3,1 back in June 2007. To shell out $129 for Leopard that originally had to be released in June 2007 but got delayed by 4 months, without an up-to-date program available, would leave a bitter taste in my mouth (and wallet).

I cannot say it would have worked but in similar situations I have called Apple Customer Service and had a chat. I had purchased an FCPro Suite upgrade a six months before another one came out. It would have cost me a bundle to upgrade again and I was outside the protected time period. The lady I spoke to reviewed my purchases over the last umpteen years and noted the Apple Care I had. She then made me an offer to upgrade for basically the cost of the manuals and shipping and I gratefully accepted.

[sjcan77]

I think it is safe to add that there are 2 Snow Leopard DVDs ... the upgrading set and the full OS set. So, even though someone would be able to install Snow Leopard on an Intel Tiger MAC, the person better buy the full program ... the news seemed to indicate you would be able to do so with the DVD for upgrade... I don't believe you can. Please let me know if I am wrong.

GS

[PaulMJohnson]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Partial Quote

Same here and same for Family Packs of iWorks and iLife disks in this house.

Same in my house for iWork, though when I bought the family pack it was a mistake since I only owned one Mac at the time and just picked up the wrong box.

I did feel strangely virtuous when I installed it on my new Mac a year later though.

Something must be wrong with me - I was brought up to be evil.