Gene Munster doesn't know what he is talking about.
First of all, Snow Leopard will not "put a dent in sales of Microsoft Windows" simply because Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X for any PC not built for Apple. Unless you own a Mac, you cannot buy and use Snow Leopard on a PC.
I think Snow Leopard is will put a larger dent in non-Mac PC sales. Not a noticable one by overall unit sales, but with unit sales for specific categories, like the over $1000 machines. This is where Apple is slaughtering its opponents. HP, Dell and Acer will continue to dominate the overall unit sales and MS will have their largest and fastest adoption of Win7 ever, but SL sets some powerful seeds that will work in Apple?s favor in the years to come.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo
I think his point about Exchange is that having seamless exchange support built-in to Apple's own applications (rather than having to suffer with Entourage) removes a HUGE barrier to entry in Corporate Environments.
It?s a nice addition, but I?m not so sure it will be a huge win for business. Entourage is more business oriented in design than Mail. It?s setup a lot more like Outlook with the calendar, contacts and mail all within the same app window. I Find Apple?s approach to be cumbersome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahrens
A 64 bit operating system provides a wider "bandwidth" of information, in other words, it can process twice as much information as the older 32 bit OSes could, making it (and apps optimized for 64 bit) much faster. It can also address up to (I think) 32 gigs of RAM.
[?]
All this in one version of the OS. Windows has a 64 bit version, but one must buy it separately from the 32 bit version, and I think it costs more. With Snow Leopard, one will have both a 32 AND a 64 bit OS, both installed on the same machine, all-in-one - and on a footprint that is 6 gigs smaller than the present Leopard.
I think Prince McLean or someone else at AI needs to put out another article about the benefits of the 64-bit applications, 64-bit CPU, and 64-bit kernel, along with some comparison tests of how Snow Leopard is faster and more efficient.
Yeah get over it and put it on Craigslist then buy a New MacBook Pro you got 3 choices now! 13", 15" and 17"!
And the 15 and 17" can be ordered with matte screens. If you're wanting a 13" MBP, i'd wait a little longer. I'm hoping they'll offer the matte screen with it, too.
Does Munster know anything? Is he just pumping the stock
I agree - I mean, I admit I'm an Apple fanboi, love watching Apple's successes and the innovation which comes out of Cupertino, but Munster is just over-the-top on most of his predictions. Gene, come back down to reality, would ya?!
You may not have attributed the quote, but mine was the only post that included that sentence.
And I repeat that your explanation is not really applicable, since Apple's OS includes those enhancements you say are needed - BECAUSE they are needed to make it work! Why else write a 64 bit OS? That's like saying cars' ability to drive faster than a horse can run is useless unless it includes a way to steer the vehicle, when the maker obviously included a steering wheel!
What a ridiculous statement! Apple is writing these enhancements into their OS specifically to drive speed and take advantage of the ability of the CPU to push more data through per cycle. Otherwise, what would that additional pipe capacity be worth?
That's like saying that higher horsepower engines just "happened" to coincide with the ability of cars to drive faster!
Take a deep breath. It isn't even clear what you're arguing about.
64 bit calculations are not quicker for the majority of tasks. The reason why 64 bit apps are quicker is because of optimizations that occurred along side of the 64 bit transition, not because of the 64 bit support.
It is baffling why this simple clarification is causing so much consternation.
Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that....
This is just nitpicking isn't it?
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."..
I don't think this is accurate at all.
All other reporting is that your Mac will only automatically boot into 64 bit mode if you have the 64 bit EFI, and then use as *examples* the 2008 and 2009 XServes. There are many other Macs with 64 bit processors and 64 bit EFI, the last two iterations of the Mac Pro for example, and the last two iterations of the iMac.
"The release of Snow Leopard is not about new features; rather, it is about keeping Mac users up to date with the latest technology vs. Windows XP and Vista users on antiquated technology in our opinion," the note reads.
Umm, all the OSes run on Intel chips and it's the Wintel market , if we're honest enough to admit it, that drives the hardware market. This statement is somewhat nonsensical.
Finally stopped lurking after not being able to resist this piece of "junk reporting"
That is not what is meant by latest technology vs. antiquated technology. Code is technology, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmsley
Is this worth my money if I am just a regular user that doesn't even take full capacity of my existing system?
Depends on what you mean by a regular user. There will be inherent speed increases, stability, and security for regular users, but it’s still up to you, the consumer, to determine if it’s worth it. That is something that we can’t actually tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
The fact is that no matter how good Windows 7 happens to be, the adoption will be very slow in coming. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, will hit the ground running.
Because Macs are mainly consumer machines targeted toward higher-end customers and because their OS upgrades are considerably cheaper than Windows Apple will likely always have a much faster and higher percentage upgrade take than Windows users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
10.5.0 is more stable than Leopard or Tiger was at a couple point releases in. Usually I say hold off, but I am recommending it. If you want, you can install it on a 2nd partition (or even an external drive) for dual booting to test it out. Time Machine can even move your user account over to it so it’s set up right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronD12
Snow Leopard has a full 64-bit kernel on any 64-bit Mac.
That is not completely true. The 64-bit kernel is there, but not all Macs will be able to access it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviet02
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
The kernel for the Xserve will default to 64-bit, but many Macs are capable of using the 64-bit kernel if they choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally007
I love these digs at Microsoft.
" antiquated technology in our opinion"
how is this guy qualified to state that ?
Windows 7 has TRIM , OpenGL 3.0 , full on 64 bit kernel on any 64 bit machine , something mac does not have nor will have for couple years.
You write that like MS is doing something better than Apple when it’s quite the opposite.
1) The problem with MS’ approach is that you can’t run native 64-bit applications unless you running the 64-bit kernel. Apple’s approach allows you to run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit kernel natively.
2) MS’ doesn’t have universal binaries. If you choose to run the 64-bit kernel and you find that there is a diver that is only available for 32-bit version of Windows you can’t use that HW. Apple has defaulted the booting to 32-bit but the user can change that to 64-bit for most Macs, including every new Mac to come off the line. This is important for those using 64-bit who may have to jump into a 32-bit kernel for some ancient or wayside HW. MS would have you buy new HW or reinstall the 32-bit OS at your expense to resolve this issue. This was a huge problem with Vista, and while mostly resolved it will still be an intermittent problem for years to come with various peripherals.
3) 32-bit apps will run natively alongside 640bit apps regardless of having a 32-bit or 64-bit loaded. This is very important for cross compatibility. While it’s nice to say that my machine is all 64-bit, it’s quite pointless except to impress someone who thinks they are technically inclined but are actually quite ignorant. It’s nicer to know that I’ll have less compatibility issues with apps and HW, and that my OS has been designed to actually be more efficient, not just giving a cool marketing term to make it seem better.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."..
I don't think this is accurate at all.
All other reporting is that your Mac will only automatically boot into 64 bit mode if you have the 64 bit EFI, and then use as *examples* the 2008 and 2009 XServes. There are many other Macs with 64 bit processors and 64 bit EFI, the last two iterations of the Mac Pro for example, and the last two iterations of the iMac.
It?s not completely accurate. Not all Macs are capable to booting into a 64-bit kernel, even if the CPU and EFI is 64-bit. There is an artificial limitation on MacBooks. The Xserve is the only Mac that will boot into 64-bit by default, but if your Mac is on the list for being 64-bit kernel capable then you can also boot into it and also make it the default.
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
When did Apple users become such whiners about price? my IIfx cost me $14,000 back in that day.
Time Machine alone is worth paying whatever the upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is, Not to mention the $169 price for the "Non Upgrade" also includes iWork and iLife. if that is still too much, you can buy Leopard for $97 in some places now then pay the $30 for that upgrade to Snow Leopard. Looking forward to installing this upcoming upgrade.
When did Apple users become such whiners about price? my IIfx cost me $14,000 back in that day.
Time Machine alone is worth paying whatever the upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is, Not to mention the $169 price for the "Non Upgrade" also includes iWork and iLife. if that is still too much, you can buy Leopard for $97 in some places now then pay the $30 for that upgrade to Snow Leopard. Looking forward to installing this upcoming upgrade.
I expect the questions about it being "worth it? for a $129 or $169 upgrade that could be 1/4th of a Mac Mini upgrade, but for 1/20th the cost of a Mac Mini upgrade at only $29 it a bit odd.
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place.
And you don't think you're being at least a little arrogant about saying it like that? I run both Tiger and Leopard and yes, Leopard is nifty, but I'm not convinced that Leopard was $129 nifty.
Depends on what you mean by a regular user. There will be inherent speed increases, stability, and security for regular users, but it?s still up to you, the consumer, to determine if it?s worth it. That is something that we can?t actually tell you.
I was directing my question to other consumers, not Apple.
Er, 64-bit has been around since PPC days, OS X 10.4 etc.
In fact, I read somewhere that Apple has limited machines to 32-bit by default due to a toggle somewhere in the EFI.
Edit: Ok, ya apparently it's just the kernel. Hmmm you could argue Windows is better because at least they offer a completely 64-bit consumer OS. You could also argue that the OS X way is better because it's more flexible (32-bit or 64-bit). Bah.
From what I can tell all Snow Leopard really does is introduce even more inconsistent user interfaces (Quicktime) to OS X.
For $29? Heck yeah. Everything runs faster. Bootup is faster. Safari is faster. All apps launch faster. And there are a LOT of nice things that don't pop out at you. Built-in grammar checker, auto-spell correction. Flash plugin died on me today - guess what? Safari didn't crash - just the Flash plugin. Its like 200+ little tiny features/improvements all over the place.
You have this totally wrong: Win 7 will become pervasive in the installed base of PCs and will reduce the Apple converts, as well.. I have Win 7 installed on a 4 year old, 1 GB sony Vaio and it works great. It is stable, fast and the install went VERY smoothly. I use Win 7/64 on my MBP for business reasons (MS Visio and MS Project) and it a terrific OS. Is it as good as OSX 10.5.8 or 10.6? No, but MS has significantly closed the gap with Win 7. Apple HAD to release Snore(sic) Leopard now to avoid the coming Tsunami. Corporate America has been waiting for 4 years for Win 7, a stable fast version of Vista, and it has arrived. There will be a mass adoption at the corporate level as well.
UAC is still a mess. Want to change the setting from default to make the prompts less intrusive? You HAVE to be logged in with an account that has local admin privileges. That's beyond stupid!
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
You're an arrogant snob, aren't you, to be making sweeping statements about someone being 'foolish' or making assumptions about processors (PPCs? Not). Fwiw to you, I did not criticize SL, I was simply asking some questions about what makes it such a great leap forward. Go away and spend time on something else if you are unable to or incapable of providing a decent answer.
Leopard itself -- let alone SL -- offers little or nothing for 99% of what I do. Granted, it offers some silly eye-candy (e.g., 3-D dock, some new desktop pics, fugly little 'stacks'). I don't use Spaces and Expose, and my Time Capsule is wirelessly connected to 3 Leopard-based Macs already. I find that statistical software such as SPSS, or Windows (using BootCamp with XP)are far snappier with Tiger (perhaps because the software manufacturers haven't bothered to really optimize, who knows). Same with MS Office 2004+Tiger or Safari 3.0+Tiger compared to MS Office 2008+Leopard or Safari 4.0+Leopard.
I could give you many more examples. Leopard takes far longer to boot up (maybe because it is bloated), hopefully a problem that SL solves. And it takes longer to shut down. I get the rainbow circle a lot with Leopard, rarely with Tiger. These are all some of the reasons why I decided to leave a couple of machines as they were, instead of spending more money on OS upgrades.
The bottom line is, there are many, many users like me. And, to the point of the article, that would imply estimates of selling 5 million copies are probably nonsense.
10.5.0 is more stable than Leopard or Tiger was at a couple point releases in. Usually I say hold off, but I am recommending it. If you want, you can install it on a 2nd partition (or even an external drive) for dual booting to test it out. Time Machine can even move your user account over to it so it?s set up right.
That is a very useful/interesting comment. I might actually try it out. Thanks!
That is a very useful/interesting comment. I might actually try it out. Thanks!
One caveat. New with Snow Leopard is the ability to easily install it on any partition, installing as many copies as you wish on as many partitions as you wish for dual booting works great with all the Betas and I'm sure with the $169 version, too, but we have yet to see what checks the $29 version will do or and if there are work
arounds for installing it on a blank partition or drive.
Comments
Gene Munster doesn't know what he is talking about.
First of all, Snow Leopard will not "put a dent in sales of Microsoft Windows" simply because Apple doesn't licence Mac OS X for any PC not built for Apple. Unless you own a Mac, you cannot buy and use Snow Leopard on a PC.
I think Snow Leopard is will put a larger dent in non-Mac PC sales. Not a noticable one by overall unit sales, but with unit sales for specific categories, like the over $1000 machines. This is where Apple is slaughtering its opponents. HP, Dell and Acer will continue to dominate the overall unit sales and MS will have their largest and fastest adoption of Win7 ever, but SL sets some powerful seeds that will work in Apple?s favor in the years to come.
I think his point about Exchange is that having seamless exchange support built-in to Apple's own applications (rather than having to suffer with Entourage) removes a HUGE barrier to entry in Corporate Environments.
It?s a nice addition, but I?m not so sure it will be a huge win for business. Entourage is more business oriented in design than Mail. It?s setup a lot more like Outlook with the calendar, contacts and mail all within the same app window. I Find Apple?s approach to be cumbersome.
A 64 bit operating system provides a wider "bandwidth" of information, in other words, it can process twice as much information as the older 32 bit OSes could, making it (and apps optimized for 64 bit) much faster. It can also address up to (I think) 32 gigs of RAM.
[?]
All this in one version of the OS. Windows has a 64 bit version, but one must buy it separately from the 32 bit version, and I think it costs more. With Snow Leopard, one will have both a 32 AND a 64 bit OS, both installed on the same machine, all-in-one - and on a footprint that is 6 gigs smaller than the present Leopard.
I think Prince McLean or someone else at AI needs to put out another article about the benefits of the 64-bit applications, 64-bit CPU, and 64-bit kernel, along with some comparison tests of how Snow Leopard is faster and more efficient.
And it it really worth the upgrade?
is safari faster?
Bootup time, is it faster?
does your pc Think a lot(rainbow cirlce)
is iphone and moblie me synching better?
Please reply
Thanks :-)
Is it worth the upgrade? It's $29. It costs less than a year subscription of Most AntiVirus packages for Windows.
Yeah get over it and put it on Craigslist then buy a New MacBook Pro you got 3 choices now! 13", 15" and 17"!
And the 15 and 17" can be ordered with matte screens. If you're wanting a 13" MBP, i'd wait a little longer. I'm hoping they'll offer the matte screen with it, too.
Does Munster know anything? Is he just pumping the stock
I agree - I mean, I admit I'm an Apple fanboi, love watching Apple's successes and the innovation which comes out of Cupertino, but Munster is just over-the-top on most of his predictions. Gene, come back down to reality, would ya?!
You may not have attributed the quote, but mine was the only post that included that sentence.
And I repeat that your explanation is not really applicable, since Apple's OS includes those enhancements you say are needed - BECAUSE they are needed to make it work! Why else write a 64 bit OS? That's like saying cars' ability to drive faster than a horse can run is useless unless it includes a way to steer the vehicle, when the maker obviously included a steering wheel!
What a ridiculous statement! Apple is writing these enhancements into their OS specifically to drive speed and take advantage of the ability of the CPU to push more data through per cycle. Otherwise, what would that additional pipe capacity be worth?
That's like saying that higher horsepower engines just "happened" to coincide with the ability of cars to drive faster!
Take a deep breath. It isn't even clear what you're arguing about.
64 bit calculations are not quicker for the majority of tasks. The reason why 64 bit apps are quicker is because of optimizations that occurred along side of the 64 bit transition, not because of the 64 bit support.
It is baffling why this simple clarification is causing so much consternation.
Careful with your casual assumptions. While I have OS10.5 on three of my Macs, two other machines at home are till running Tiger. The upgrade cost for that is not $29; it's a lot more than that....
This is just nitpicking isn't it?
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."..
I don't think this is accurate at all.
All other reporting is that your Mac will only automatically boot into 64 bit mode if you have the 64 bit EFI, and then use as *examples* the 2008 and 2009 XServes. There are many other Macs with 64 bit processors and 64 bit EFI, the last two iterations of the Mac Pro for example, and the last two iterations of the iMac.
"The release of Snow Leopard is not about new features; rather, it is about keeping Mac users up to date with the latest technology vs. Windows XP and Vista users on antiquated technology in our opinion," the note reads.
Umm, all the OSes run on Intel chips and it's the Wintel market , if we're honest enough to admit it, that drives the hardware market. This statement is somewhat nonsensical.
Finally stopped lurking after not being able to resist this piece of "junk reporting"
That is not what is meant by latest technology vs. antiquated technology. Code is technology, too.
Is this worth my money if I am just a regular user that doesn't even take full capacity of my existing system?
Depends on what you mean by a regular user. There will be inherent speed increases, stability, and security for regular users, but it’s still up to you, the consumer, to determine if it’s worth it. That is something that we can’t actually tell you.
The fact is that no matter how good Windows 7 happens to be, the adoption will be very slow in coming. Snow Leopard, on the other hand, will hit the ground running.
Because Macs are mainly consumer machines targeted toward higher-end customers and because their OS upgrades are considerably cheaper than Windows Apple will likely always have a much faster and higher percentage upgrade take than Windows users.
Speaking for myself, from what I've seen and read so far, I'll probably wait until the inevitable initial bugs are sorted out, and a couple of versions go by. Say, until it gets to 10.6.2.
10.5.0 is more stable than Leopard or Tiger was at a couple point releases in. Usually I say hold off, but I am recommending it. If you want, you can install it on a 2nd partition (or even an external drive) for dual booting to test it out. Time Machine can even move your user account over to it so it’s set up right.
Snow Leopard has a full 64-bit kernel on any 64-bit Mac.
That is not completely true. The 64-bit kernel is there, but not all Macs will be able to access it.
I don't think that is true, the kernel will not be 64 bit except for the server edition.
The kernel for the Xserve will default to 64-bit, but many Macs are capable of using the 64-bit kernel if they choose.
I love these digs at Microsoft.
" antiquated technology in our opinion"
how is this guy qualified to state that ?
Windows 7 has TRIM , OpenGL 3.0 , full on 64 bit kernel on any 64 bit machine , something mac does not have nor will have for couple years.
You write that like MS is doing something better than Apple when it’s quite the opposite.
1) The problem with MS’ approach is that you can’t run native 64-bit applications unless you running the 64-bit kernel. Apple’s approach allows you to run a 64-bit application on a 32-bit kernel natively.
2) MS’ doesn’t have universal binaries. If you choose to run the 64-bit kernel and you find that there is a diver that is only available for 32-bit version of Windows you can’t use that HW. Apple has defaulted the booting to 32-bit but the user can change that to 64-bit for most Macs, including every new Mac to come off the line. This is important for those using 64-bit who may have to jump into a 32-bit kernel for some ancient or wayside HW. MS would have you buy new HW or reinstall the 32-bit OS at your expense to resolve this issue. This was a huge problem with Vista, and while mostly resolved it will still be an intermittent problem for years to come with various peripherals.
3) 32-bit apps will run natively alongside 640bit apps regardless of having a 32-bit or 64-bit loaded. This is very important for cross compatibility. While it’s nice to say that my machine is all 64-bit, it’s quite pointless except to impress someone who thinks they are technically inclined but are actually quite ignorant. It’s nicer to know that I’ll have less compatibility issues with apps and HW, and that my OS has been designed to actually be more efficient, not just giving a cool marketing term to make it seem better.
From LowEndMac: "...at present the 2008 and 2009 Xserves are the only Mac that will automatically boot into 64-bit mode. All other Macs with a Core 2 Duo or better CPU are capable of 64-bit operation but won't use it unless you hold down the "6" and "4" keys during startup."..
I don't think this is accurate at all.
All other reporting is that your Mac will only automatically boot into 64 bit mode if you have the 64 bit EFI, and then use as *examples* the 2008 and 2009 XServes. There are many other Macs with 64 bit processors and 64 bit EFI, the last two iterations of the Mac Pro for example, and the last two iterations of the iMac.
It?s not completely accurate. Not all Macs are capable to booting into a 64-bit kernel, even if the CPU and EFI is 64-bit. There is an artificial limitation on MacBooks. The Xserve is the only Mac that will boot into 64-bit by default, but if your Mac is on the list for being 64-bit kernel capable then you can also boot into it and also make it the default.
This is just nitpicking isn't it?
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
When did Apple users become such whiners about price? my IIfx cost me $14,000 back in that day.
Time Machine alone is worth paying whatever the upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is, Not to mention the $169 price for the "Non Upgrade" also includes iWork and iLife. if that is still too much, you can buy Leopard for $97 in some places now then pay the $30 for that upgrade to Snow Leopard. Looking forward to installing this upcoming upgrade.
When did Apple users become such whiners about price? my IIfx cost me $14,000 back in that day.
Time Machine alone is worth paying whatever the upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is, Not to mention the $169 price for the "Non Upgrade" also includes iWork and iLife. if that is still too much, you can buy Leopard for $97 in some places now then pay the $30 for that upgrade to Snow Leopard. Looking forward to installing this upcoming upgrade.
I expect the questions about it being "worth it? for a $129 or $169 upgrade that could be 1/4th of a Mac Mini upgrade, but for 1/20th the cost of a Mac Mini upgrade at only $29 it a bit odd.
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place.
And you don't think you're being at least a little arrogant about saying it like that? I run both Tiger and Leopard and yes, Leopard is nifty, but I'm not convinced that Leopard was $129 nifty.
I was directing my question to other consumers, not Apple.
"Now with Snow Leopard, the Mac has out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007, something even Windows PCs don't have."
You can almost see the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" advert about that!
64 bit.
Er, 64-bit has been around since PPC days, OS X 10.4 etc.
In fact, I read somewhere that Apple has limited machines to 32-bit by default due to a toggle somewhere in the EFI.
Edit: Ok, ya apparently it's just the kernel. Hmmm you could argue Windows is better because at least they offer a completely 64-bit consumer OS. You could also argue that the OS X way is better because it's more flexible (32-bit or 64-bit). Bah.
From what I can tell all Snow Leopard really does is introduce even more inconsistent user interfaces (Quicktime) to OS X.
And it it really worth the upgrade?
is safari faster?
Bootup time, is it faster?
does your pc Think a lot(rainbow cirlce)
is iphone and moblie me synching better?
Please reply
Thanks :-)
For $29? Heck yeah. Everything runs faster. Bootup is faster. Safari is faster. All apps launch faster. And there are a LOT of nice things that don't pop out at you. Built-in grammar checker, auto-spell correction. Flash plugin died on me today - guess what? Safari didn't crash - just the Flash plugin. Its like 200+ little tiny features/improvements all over the place.
You have this totally wrong: Win 7 will become pervasive in the installed base of PCs and will reduce the Apple converts, as well.. I have Win 7 installed on a 4 year old, 1 GB sony Vaio and it works great. It is stable, fast and the install went VERY smoothly. I use Win 7/64 on my MBP for business reasons (MS Visio and MS Project) and it a terrific OS. Is it as good as OSX 10.5.8 or 10.6? No, but MS has significantly closed the gap with Win 7. Apple HAD to release Snore(sic) Leopard now to avoid the coming Tsunami. Corporate America has been waiting for 4 years for Win 7, a stable fast version of Vista, and it has arrived. There will be a mass adoption at the corporate level as well.
UAC is still a mess. Want to change the setting from default to make the prompts less intrusive? You HAVE to be logged in with an account that has local admin privileges. That's beyond stupid!
This is just nitpicking isn't it?
If you have machines running Tiger, then they are either PPCs (unable to take advantage of the upgrade), or you are pretty foolish for not upgrading them to regular Leopard in the first place. Even the last gasps of the PowerPC architecture macs can run Leopard about the same speed as they run Tiger.
All intel based machines should be running some form of Leopard, that's the whole point of the Leopard/Snow Leopard set. The same modern OS technologies but for old/new hardware. Tiger is about as relevant as Panther at this stage.
Besides, to criticise what's probably the cheapest OS upgrade in history over price is a bit much anyway. Whatever the cost is, it's cheaper than it's ever been before and that's pretty much the whole point.
You're an arrogant snob, aren't you, to be making sweeping statements about someone being 'foolish' or making assumptions about processors (PPCs? Not). Fwiw to you, I did not criticize SL, I was simply asking some questions about what makes it such a great leap forward. Go away and spend time on something else if you are unable to or incapable of providing a decent answer.
Leopard itself -- let alone SL -- offers little or nothing for 99% of what I do. Granted, it offers some silly eye-candy (e.g., 3-D dock, some new desktop pics, fugly little 'stacks'). I don't use Spaces and Expose, and my Time Capsule is wirelessly connected to 3 Leopard-based Macs already. I find that statistical software such as SPSS, or Windows (using BootCamp with XP)are far snappier with Tiger (perhaps because the software manufacturers haven't bothered to really optimize, who knows). Same with MS Office 2004+Tiger or Safari 3.0+Tiger compared to MS Office 2008+Leopard or Safari 4.0+Leopard.
I could give you many more examples. Leopard takes far longer to boot up (maybe because it is bloated), hopefully a problem that SL solves. And it takes longer to shut down. I get the rainbow circle a lot with Leopard, rarely with Tiger. These are all some of the reasons why I decided to leave a couple of machines as they were, instead of spending more money on OS upgrades.
The bottom line is, there are many, many users like me. And, to the point of the article, that would imply estimates of selling 5 million copies are probably nonsense.
10.5.0 is more stable than Leopard or Tiger was at a couple point releases in. Usually I say hold off, but I am recommending it. If you want, you can install it on a 2nd partition (or even an external drive) for dual booting to test it out. Time Machine can even move your user account over to it so it?s set up right.
That is a very useful/interesting comment. I might actually try it out. Thanks!
That is a very useful/interesting comment. I might actually try it out. Thanks!
One caveat. New with Snow Leopard is the ability to easily install it on any partition, installing as many copies as you wish on as many partitions as you wish for dual booting works great with all the Betas and I'm sure with the $169 version, too, but we have yet to see what checks the $29 version will do or and if there are work
arounds for installing it on a blank partition or drive.