Do I have to have Leopard installed before getting Snow Leopard?
Thanks
Steve
I can assure you nobody knows.
Nobody knows if the installer will force users to have Leopard installed first but my guess is that Snow Leopard will not require that Leopard be installed...will cost a full 129 to everyone that doesn't have some Leopard proof-of-purchase.
Or if the installer has some mechanism that prevents someone from installing Snow Leopard on a blank HD...someone will undoubtedly find a way to circumvent it.
What about from previous OS upgrades? Panther for example...Could you install that from any version of os x?
Steve
Yes...every OS X installation CD/DVD could install on top of a previous OS...each 129 US dollars.
10.1 was an exception to the rule and was free to those that had 10.0. You needed proof-of-purchase to get 10.1 and it the installer made sure you had 10.0.x installed before installing. But you could not install 10.1 if you only had, say, Mac OS 8 or 9.
You can be fairly sure that Snow Leopard will install on top of any previous Mac OS X version...what's uncertain is how they'll handle the pricing. Is it going to be 129 US dollars for everyone? Or are Leopard users going to get a discount? Or is Snow Leopard going to cost less than 129 US dollars for everyone...and people that didn't buy Leopard are going to get an awesome deal out of it all? Dunno.
Yes...every OS X installation CD/DVD could install on top of a previous OS...each 129 US dollars.
10.1 was an exception to the rule and was free to those that had 10.0. You needed proof-of-purchase to get 10.1 and it the installer made sure you had 10.0.x installed before installing. But you could not install 10.1 if you only had, say, Mac OS 8 or 9.
You can be fairly sure that Snow Leopard will install on top of any previous Mac OS X version...what's uncertain is how they'll handle the pricing. Is it going to be 129 US dollars for everyone? Or are Leopard users going to get a discount? Or is Snow Leopard going to cost less than 129 US dollars for everyone...and people that didn't buy Leopard are going to get an awesome deal out of it all? Dunno.
I thought 10.6 was free to anyone who started with 10.5
Kinda sucks, I might skip if it's not gonna be a major improvement over Leopard.
Well, 10.6 might be the release that receives the most criticism. Heck, if you thought the criticism was bad for 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 which actually saw a lot of innovative end-user features, you haven't seen nothing yet.
By far the most common complaint from people that don't have Leopard is "WHAT!? Product X requires 10.5!?!? WTF"
What these people failed to understand is that even if they didn't find end-user features worth spending 129 dollars on, the new OS brought a world of improvements to developers...and the unlisted, hidden feature is that the end-user is getting higher quality 3rd-party apps.
The same will be true of 10.6. Joe Schmoe will look at 10.6 and see nothing worth upgrading to, but the unlisted, hidden feature is that 3rd-party apps will use Grand Central and OpenCL to do things that aren't available in previous Mac OS X versions and will be missing out on these faster applications that may require 10.6.
Well, 10.6 might be the release that receives the most criticism. Heck, if you thought the criticism was bad for 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 which actually saw a lot of innovative end-user features, you haven't seen nothing yet.
By far the most common complaint from people that don't have Leopard is "WHAT!? Product X requires 10.5!?!? WTF"
What these people failed to understand is that even if they didn't find end-user features worth spending 129 dollars on, the new OS brought a world of improvements to developers...and the unlisted, hidden feature is that the end-user is getting higher quality 3rd-party apps.
The same will be true of 10.6. Joe Schmoe will look at 10.6 and see nothing worth upgrading to, but the unlisted, hidden feature is that 3rd-party apps will use Grand Central and OpenCL to do things that aren't available in previous Mac OS X versions and will be missing out on these faster applications that may require 10.6.
Well it depends on how much Apple will charge and how they market it.
If they only charge 49.99 for it (doubt that but you never know) and market it as more as an under the hood upgrade, then people will not hope and expect to see bells and whistles.
Well it depends on how much Apple will charge and how they market it.
If they only charge 49.99 for it (doubt that but you never know) and market it as more as an under the hood upgrade, then people will not hope and expect to see bells and whistles.
Competing against Windows 7 for example (as pc users may see it)
Comments
Do I have to have Leopard installed before getting Snow Leopard?
Thanks
Steve
I can assure you nobody knows.
Nobody knows if the installer will force users to have Leopard installed first but my guess is that Snow Leopard will not require that Leopard be installed...will cost a full 129 to everyone that doesn't have some Leopard proof-of-purchase.
Or if the installer has some mechanism that prevents someone from installing Snow Leopard on a blank HD...someone will undoubtedly find a way to circumvent it.
Steve
What about from previous OS upgrades? Panther for example...Could you install that from any version of os x?
Steve
Yes...every OS X installation CD/DVD could install on top of a previous OS...each 129 US dollars.
10.1 was an exception to the rule and was free to those that had 10.0. You needed proof-of-purchase to get 10.1 and it the installer made sure you had 10.0.x installed before installing. But you could not install 10.1 if you only had, say, Mac OS 8 or 9.
You can be fairly sure that Snow Leopard will install on top of any previous Mac OS X version...what's uncertain is how they'll handle the pricing. Is it going to be 129 US dollars for everyone? Or are Leopard users going to get a discount? Or is Snow Leopard going to cost less than 129 US dollars for everyone...and people that didn't buy Leopard are going to get an awesome deal out of it all? Dunno.
Yes...every OS X installation CD/DVD could install on top of a previous OS...each 129 US dollars.
10.1 was an exception to the rule and was free to those that had 10.0. You needed proof-of-purchase to get 10.1 and it the installer made sure you had 10.0.x installed before installing. But you could not install 10.1 if you only had, say, Mac OS 8 or 9.
You can be fairly sure that Snow Leopard will install on top of any previous Mac OS X version...what's uncertain is how they'll handle the pricing. Is it going to be 129 US dollars for everyone? Or are Leopard users going to get a discount? Or is Snow Leopard going to cost less than 129 US dollars for everyone...and people that didn't buy Leopard are going to get an awesome deal out of it all? Dunno.
Got it...Thank you very much.
Steve
Kinda sucks, I might skip if it's not gonna be a major improvement over Leopard.
I thought 10.6 was free to anyone who started with 10.5
Kinda sucks, I might skip if it's not gonna be a major improvement over Leopard.
Well, 10.6 might be the release that receives the most criticism. Heck, if you thought the criticism was bad for 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 which actually saw a lot of innovative end-user features, you haven't seen nothing yet.
By far the most common complaint from people that don't have Leopard is "WHAT!? Product X requires 10.5!?!? WTF"
What these people failed to understand is that even if they didn't find end-user features worth spending 129 dollars on, the new OS brought a world of improvements to developers...and the unlisted, hidden feature is that the end-user is getting higher quality 3rd-party apps.
The same will be true of 10.6. Joe Schmoe will look at 10.6 and see nothing worth upgrading to, but the unlisted, hidden feature is that 3rd-party apps will use Grand Central and OpenCL to do things that aren't available in previous Mac OS X versions and will be missing out on these faster applications that may require 10.6.
Well, 10.6 might be the release that receives the most criticism. Heck, if you thought the criticism was bad for 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 which actually saw a lot of innovative end-user features, you haven't seen nothing yet.
By far the most common complaint from people that don't have Leopard is "WHAT!? Product X requires 10.5!?!? WTF"
What these people failed to understand is that even if they didn't find end-user features worth spending 129 dollars on, the new OS brought a world of improvements to developers...and the unlisted, hidden feature is that the end-user is getting higher quality 3rd-party apps.
The same will be true of 10.6. Joe Schmoe will look at 10.6 and see nothing worth upgrading to, but the unlisted, hidden feature is that 3rd-party apps will use Grand Central and OpenCL to do things that aren't available in previous Mac OS X versions and will be missing out on these faster applications that may require 10.6.
Well it depends on how much Apple will charge and how they market it.
If they only charge 49.99 for it (doubt that but you never know) and market it as more as an under the hood upgrade, then people will not hope and expect to see bells and whistles.
Well it depends on how much Apple will charge and how they market it.
If they only charge 49.99 for it (doubt that but you never know) and market it as more as an under the hood upgrade, then people will not hope and expect to see bells and whistles.
Competing against Windows 7 for example (as pc users may see it)