In June 2008, Steve Jobs said that Snow Leopard will be released in about a year. So that makes Apple's deadline to be around June 2009.
But the key word here is "about".
Apple will want to make it appear that they are ahead of schedule. Plus, they want to be ahead of Windows 7 to grab market share before the new version comes out.
So its quite possible that the release of Snow Leopard would be ahead of June and maybe even months ahead of June. This would time perfectly with a new iMac and Mac Mini.
This kind of thinking is setting yourself up for disappointment. Past experience shows pretty definitively that when Apple gives an expected release date, it is as accurate as they can estimate. If something unexpected comes up during development, it WILL be late.
Therefore, the more realistic interpretation of the "about" is June 2009 or later, not June 2009 or earlier.
not really bothered. Its Apple's decision when they want to release products, seems to be dictated now by the community not Apple them selves, which i guess is another reason they are ditching mac world because it puts pressure on them to have products ready for then.
I am however a little pissed that i bought iwork 9 days ago and cant see an upgrade price
Relying on the mobile versions of Intel's CPUs in supposedly desktop computers like the Mini and the iMac have been and will continue to be the main problem. First of all mobile versions will always be slower. They are are also always more expensive and usually come out months later than the desktop versions. Am I the only one that wishes Apple would stop sacrificing speed and price just to get that "slim" form factor?
The fact that other companies have been selling Core i7 computers for over 3 months now shows just how far Apple is behind. The Core i7 is a huge jump in performance and it is inexcusable that Apple refuses to sell any desktop Macs with desktop quality parts. Hell, call it a Mini Pro or an iMac Pro and make it a little bigger or fatter if you have to, but give us a decent performing desktop computer at true desktop prices for a change.
Relying on the mobile versions of Intel's CPUs in supposedly desktop computers like the Mini and the iMac have been and will continue to be the main problem. First of all mobile versions will always be slower. They are are also always more expensive and usually come out months later than the desktop versions. Am I the only one that wishes Apple would stop sacrificing speed and price just to get that "slim" form factor?
The fact that other companies have been selling Core i7 computers for over 3 months now shows just how far Apple is behind. The Core i7 is a huge jump in performance and it is inexcusable that Apple refuses to sell any desktop Macs with desktop quality parts. Hell, call it a Mini Pro or an iMac Pro and make it a little bigger or fatter if you have to, but give us a decent performing desktop computer at true desktop prices for a change.
Why insist on calling them "Desktop" and "Mobile" chips? Let's be more realistic and realize that there are "Hot/Powerhungry" chips, that are by their nature the highest performance available. Then there are "Cool/Efficient" chips, which happen to be a bit slower. Either one could be put in any platform. Perhaps this serves to show why Apple makes the choices they do. They are more concerned with efficiency and form (heat issues) than with making sure that you have more power t your disposal than you will use.
I would say it is a good bet that Apple will have a special event within a month, they have been making the trade shows less important to the product updates for some time and this fits with that strategy. Also it is a good bet that they will not wait till WWDC for the release of the Mini, PM, and iMac. So the question is which if any of these would warrant a "silent" update and which would need a special event? I would say the iMac update gets a special event, the PM update will be later and could be a simple press release. The Mini could piggy back the iMac or be a silent, not sure on this one.
I would say it is a good bet that Apple will have a special event within a month, they have been making the trade shows less important to the product updates for some time and this fits with that strategy. Also it is a good bet that they will not wait till WWDC for the release of the Mini, PM, and iMac. So the question is which if any of these would warrant a "silent" update and which would need a special event? I would say the iMac update gets a special event, the PM update will be later and could be a simple press release. The Mini could piggy back the iMac or be a silent, not sure on this one.
Nehalem Xenon chips are due in March.
I predict there will be a special event in March, or late February at the earliest, and the entire desktop line up will get updated.
And that'll be it for year for desktop machines. The laptops will get a refresh in the fall.
not really bothered. Its Apple's decision when they want to release products, seems to be dictated now by the community not Apple them selves, which i guess is another reason they are ditching mac world because it puts pressure on them to have products ready for then.
I am however a little pissed that i bought iwork 9 days ago and cant see an upgrade price
oh well.
Tell them you didn't agree to the software agreement and want your money back.
Everyone who's on a mac should know iWork and iLife 09 virtually every jan by now.
It's funny that Apple chooses to update JUST their MOST EXPENSIVE, FLAGSHIP PORTABLE in the midst of the recession... Hmm... something tells me they'd sell a lot more iMacs or Minis.
I, for one, am ready to buy a new iMac. When Snow Leopard is out, so should a new iMac, and at that point, I'll get one. Prolly a 20" or 24" depending on screen quality; 28 inches is just overkill for me.
Most people are in agreement that the next iMac and mini will be using the MCP79 chipset with integrated graphics, right? But coupling it with a separate graphics chip does not make sense in a desktop.
Its primary advantage in a laptop is to be able to switch to it (albeit inconveniently) to conserve battery power. great. makes perfect sense for a laptop. However, not so much for a desktop which gets a constant direct power source and is never on battery power.
Now, the iMac 24" uses a graphics card called the MXM that connects to the system like a PCIe slot in a regular desktop (16 x to boot). What if they put that slot in all the iMacs and minis? The higher end configs would have it populated with a nice graphics card while the lower end ones can do just fine with the integrated 9400M. Then Apple would have a BTO option with one or several graphics options.
Bring the Mac mini to the Apple TV footprint and make it 50% taller and give the same 8GB ceiling the MBP 17 has and you'll have yourself a nice semi upgradable home media machine.
Why insist on calling them "Desktop" and "Mobile" chips? Let's be more realistic and realize that there are "Hot/Powerhungry" chips, that are by their nature the highest performance available. Then there are "Cool/Efficient" chips, which happen to be a bit slower. Either one could be put in any platform. Perhaps this serves to show why Apple makes the choices they do. They are more concerned with efficiency and form (heat issues) than with making sure that you have more power t your disposal than you will use.
More than a bit slower, very much slower in fact. When you also factor in the slower mobile version of the GPU and a very slow 2.5" drive in the Mini, you are basically describing a laptop without a screen. There are reasons for cooler & more energy efficient designs in laptops because conserving battery power is important. When I have a freaking desptop that is always getting juice, I am much more concerned about raw speed. The fact that the mobile versions are not only slower but also more expensive further infuriates me. Apple needs to stop this foolish pursuit of ultra-slim nonsense with very few ports and practically no expandability in desktop computers and realize some of us actually use our computers to get work done!
You do realize that you can easily buy a Core i7 PC for around $1000 that kills even the Mac Pro in just about every benchmark right? How do you think the Mini and iMac would compare? Apple used to blame IBM and Motorola for their slow upgrade cycle. We now know that was a load of crap since Apple seems as slow as ever to introduce new models or refresh them. How long is going to take before we have a quad core in something more affordable than a $2300 Mac Pro? By the time we see a Core i7 Mac, PCs will probably be using Core i8 or whatever the next iteration will be called.
No it needs a complete overhaul. Not necessarily the case, but it needs a non-intel GPU, new fsb / chipset, more ram expandibility, superdrive across the line, and faster CPUs. A new case would be nice but not required. It shouldn't be that hard to change your ram!
Which is likely why you haven't seen one. Typically it takes about 2yrs if they're going to totally redesign a computer. Why they don't update it in between is beyond me, but its not going to fix anything by bitching up a storm here. I really wonder how many people bitching on this forum was really going to buy one? I know there are a few, but really how many? Some people are just bitching just to have something to bitch about after a keynote. Happens on every forum after every keynote no matter what (or wasn't) announced.
My guess is either Apple doesn't really care about the MacMini and is just letting it run its course, or they're waiting on something that hasn't been released yet. As much as I think the current MacMini sucks, they shouldn't let it totally die as otherwise it puts Apple's cheapest Mac at $999 (White MacBook). However, Apple's best selling Mac is priced at $1299 (MacBook) so maybe it wouldn't matter either way.
Finally...Apple is NEVER going to tell you when its releasing future products. They simply aren't going to do it. They never have, so why start now? To some extent not very companies tell you when things are going to be released before they're actually announced.
It's funny that Apple chooses to update JUST their MOST EXPENSIVE, FLAGSHIP PORTABLE in the midst of the recession... Hmm... something tells me they'd sell a lot more iMacs or Minis.
Good point. People's wallets are tightening up. Seems like when you have pent up demand for a lower cost product like the mini, you would WANT to release an update.
Even my company is now holding off on all purchases. And we did have a CER in for the new MBP 17.
I really wonder how many people bitching on this forum was really going to buy one? I know there are a few, but really how many?
Ooh ooh! Me me me. I didn't really expect Blu-ray playback though, I was just hoping. I did expect a speed-bump though. But I didn't have to pay full price for the current mini and the one I ordered will do what I need and that's what's important.
Sorry to those of you that are still waiting, but I hope it stays un-updated for little while longer so I don't have to feel like a chump. Yes, I am immature and selfish enough for that. It should be here Monday. What are the odds of an update exactly 1 week after the keynote?
I think the big problem with the mini no-show was that Apple themselves (via that infamous e-mail to a potential customer a few months ago) said "be patient" about the mini. .
It is just like a Greener Apple to recycle its own advice; it applies just as much after a MacWorld keynote as before it!
Honestly, remember last year's flurry of announcements that basically filled the month of January and the typical special event in Feb/Mar. There is plenty of time for more news before winter is out. . . .
In the meantime, I have a PowerBook 180c if someone needs a computer to borrow while you are waiting.
Most people are in agreement that the next iMac and mini will be using the MCP79 chipset with integrated graphics, right?
For the mini it is likely. For the iMac they have more options. In either case they might go for a souped up version for the desktop. It all depends on how much performance can be wrung out of a up clocked 9400M before heat becomes an issue.
Quote:
But coupling it with a separate graphics chip does not make sense in a desktop.
Oh but it makes a huge difference in the context of Apples future support of OpenCL. With the 9400M that gives Apple 16 vector / math cores to work with. These are cores that are close to the main processor and are likely not loaded down by the main GPU.
You see OpenCL is a neat concept as long as there are core to exploit. Sometimes that is a problem on a heavily loaded GPU.
Quote:
Its primary advantage in a laptop is to be able to switch to it (albeit inconveniently) to conserve battery power. great. makes perfect sense for a laptop. However, not so much for a desktop which gets a constant direct power source and is never on battery power.
I think you are to hung up on the laptop environment to see a possible different set of advantages on the desktop. Think in terms of what the future OSes and Apps might do. In a way some of this is just speculation because we don't know how far Apple is going to go with OpenCL initially. There is a very good potential for them to adopt it extensively just like they did Alt-Vec in it's day. So all sorts of components in Mac OS/X could end up being pushed off to the integrated GPU. It is up to Apple and frankly would likely be implemented over time.
Quote:
Now, the iMac 24" uses a graphics card called the MXM that connects to the system like a PCIe slot in a regular desktop (16 x to boot). What if they put that slot in all the iMacs and minis? The higher end configs would have it populated with a nice graphics card while the lower end ones can do just fine with the integrated 9400M. Then Apple would have a BTO option with one or several graphics options.
For Apple there are lots of disadvantages. For one thing soldered in components lead to reliable machines with lower warranty costs. Second; the more cards Apple has to support the more drivers it has to maintain and debut against.
In any event I think Apples partnership with Nvidia means wide adoption of the 9400M on all lower end platforms.
Quote:
Bring the Mac mini to the Apple TV footprint and make it 50% taller and give the same 8GB ceiling the MBP 17 has and you'll have yourself a nice semi upgradable home media machine.
I'd like to see that myself. Mostly to bulk up on disk space. Apple is shooting some of it's other businesses in the foot with the small harddrives it ships. My MBP is already stuffed.
I'd like to see 8GB max to but this is where I really see Apple going stupid. It is likely the Mini will have artificial constraints on memory size. IMac on the other hand coulg go big. I still believe Apple can do i7 in the iMac and lead that machine into a new era.
#4 We have a timeline for new Macs. iLife will ship to retailers at the end of the month. Apple is likely holding back new releases until iLife '09 can be preloaded. This means the first new machines may be ready in as little two weeks or so.
That's a really good point. Thanks for the insight!
I don't see why not. Seems like a long term thing to me.
I see this as a way of preemptively recouping from low sales on Snow Leopard. I would imagine that Apple is worried about not getting a lot of upgraders to Snow Leopard since there are few "exciting" general use features as there was in Tiger and Leopard, they are hoping to make a little extra cash getting people to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard if nothing else. By the way, hold your fire, I am excited about Snow Leopard's optimizations as most of you are, I am just saying that there is not a lot of eye candy in 10.6. I am simply saying that once Snow Leopard comes out, I believe that the package software upgrade with be done with.
Yes, I am primed for purchase - but I've decided to wait for a while longer to see what happens. No doubt like many others I am severely disappointed, but I'm not going to pull the trigger yet. I had planned on a new Mini, if they released one - as long as it was a worthwhile upgrade. I'd like to see the continuation of Firewire even if it is FW800, the adapter is cheap enough. If the upgrade is mediocre, I may go with an iMac - even still I'd say this Macworld was a downer...
Comments
In June 2008, Steve Jobs said that Snow Leopard will be released in about a year. So that makes Apple's deadline to be around June 2009.
But the key word here is "about".
Apple will want to make it appear that they are ahead of schedule. Plus, they want to be ahead of Windows 7 to grab market share before the new version comes out.
So its quite possible that the release of Snow Leopard would be ahead of June and maybe even months ahead of June. This would time perfectly with a new iMac and Mac Mini.
This kind of thinking is setting yourself up for disappointment. Past experience shows pretty definitively that when Apple gives an expected release date, it is as accurate as they can estimate. If something unexpected comes up during development, it WILL be late.
Therefore, the more realistic interpretation of the "about" is June 2009 or later, not June 2009 or earlier.
I am however a little pissed that i bought iwork 9 days ago and cant see an upgrade price
oh well.
The fact that other companies have been selling Core i7 computers for over 3 months now shows just how far Apple is behind. The Core i7 is a huge jump in performance and it is inexcusable that Apple refuses to sell any desktop Macs with desktop quality parts. Hell, call it a Mini Pro or an iMac Pro and make it a little bigger or fatter if you have to, but give us a decent performing desktop computer at true desktop prices for a change.
Relying on the mobile versions of Intel's CPUs in supposedly desktop computers like the Mini and the iMac have been and will continue to be the main problem. First of all mobile versions will always be slower. They are are also always more expensive and usually come out months later than the desktop versions. Am I the only one that wishes Apple would stop sacrificing speed and price just to get that "slim" form factor?
The fact that other companies have been selling Core i7 computers for over 3 months now shows just how far Apple is behind. The Core i7 is a huge jump in performance and it is inexcusable that Apple refuses to sell any desktop Macs with desktop quality parts. Hell, call it a Mini Pro or an iMac Pro and make it a little bigger or fatter if you have to, but give us a decent performing desktop computer at true desktop prices for a change.
Why insist on calling them "Desktop" and "Mobile" chips? Let's be more realistic and realize that there are "Hot/Powerhungry" chips, that are by their nature the highest performance available. Then there are "Cool/Efficient" chips, which happen to be a bit slower. Either one could be put in any platform. Perhaps this serves to show why Apple makes the choices they do. They are more concerned with efficiency and form (heat issues) than with making sure that you have more power t your disposal than you will use.
I would say it is a good bet that Apple will have a special event within a month, they have been making the trade shows less important to the product updates for some time and this fits with that strategy. Also it is a good bet that they will not wait till WWDC for the release of the Mini, PM, and iMac. So the question is which if any of these would warrant a "silent" update and which would need a special event? I would say the iMac update gets a special event, the PM update will be later and could be a simple press release. The Mini could piggy back the iMac or be a silent, not sure on this one.
Nehalem Xenon chips are due in March.
I predict there will be a special event in March, or late February at the earliest, and the entire desktop line up will get updated.
And that'll be it for year for desktop machines. The laptops will get a refresh in the fall.
not really bothered. Its Apple's decision when they want to release products, seems to be dictated now by the community not Apple them selves, which i guess is another reason they are ditching mac world because it puts pressure on them to have products ready for then.
I am however a little pissed that i bought iwork 9 days ago and cant see an upgrade price
oh well.
Tell them you didn't agree to the software agreement and want your money back.
Everyone who's on a mac should know iWork and iLife 09 virtually every jan by now.
I, for one, am ready to buy a new iMac. When Snow Leopard is out, so should a new iMac, and at that point, I'll get one. Prolly a 20" or 24" depending on screen quality; 28 inches is just overkill for me.
Its primary advantage in a laptop is to be able to switch to it (albeit inconveniently) to conserve battery power. great. makes perfect sense for a laptop. However, not so much for a desktop which gets a constant direct power source and is never on battery power.
Now, the iMac 24" uses a graphics card called the MXM that connects to the system like a PCIe slot in a regular desktop (16 x to boot). What if they put that slot in all the iMacs and minis? The higher end configs would have it populated with a nice graphics card while the lower end ones can do just fine with the integrated 9400M. Then Apple would have a BTO option with one or several graphics options.
Bring the Mac mini to the Apple TV footprint and make it 50% taller and give the same 8GB ceiling the MBP 17 has and you'll have yourself a nice semi upgradable home media machine.
Why insist on calling them "Desktop" and "Mobile" chips? Let's be more realistic and realize that there are "Hot/Powerhungry" chips, that are by their nature the highest performance available. Then there are "Cool/Efficient" chips, which happen to be a bit slower. Either one could be put in any platform. Perhaps this serves to show why Apple makes the choices they do. They are more concerned with efficiency and form (heat issues) than with making sure that you have more power t your disposal than you will use.
More than a bit slower, very much slower in fact. When you also factor in the slower mobile version of the GPU and a very slow 2.5" drive in the Mini, you are basically describing a laptop without a screen. There are reasons for cooler & more energy efficient designs in laptops because conserving battery power is important. When I have a freaking desptop that is always getting juice, I am much more concerned about raw speed. The fact that the mobile versions are not only slower but also more expensive further infuriates me. Apple needs to stop this foolish pursuit of ultra-slim nonsense with very few ports and practically no expandability in desktop computers and realize some of us actually use our computers to get work done!
You do realize that you can easily buy a Core i7 PC for around $1000 that kills even the Mac Pro in just about every benchmark right? How do you think the Mini and iMac would compare? Apple used to blame IBM and Motorola for their slow upgrade cycle. We now know that was a load of crap since Apple seems as slow as ever to introduce new models or refresh them. How long is going to take before we have a quad core in something more affordable than a $2300 Mac Pro? By the time we see a Core i7 Mac, PCs will probably be using Core i8 or whatever the next iteration will be called.
No it needs a complete overhaul. Not necessarily the case, but it needs a non-intel GPU, new fsb / chipset, more ram expandibility, superdrive across the line, and faster CPUs. A new case would be nice but not required. It shouldn't be that hard to change your ram!
Which is likely why you haven't seen one. Typically it takes about 2yrs if they're going to totally redesign a computer. Why they don't update it in between is beyond me, but its not going to fix anything by bitching up a storm here. I really wonder how many people bitching on this forum was really going to buy one? I know there are a few, but really how many? Some people are just bitching just to have something to bitch about after a keynote. Happens on every forum after every keynote no matter what (or wasn't) announced.
My guess is either Apple doesn't really care about the MacMini and is just letting it run its course, or they're waiting on something that hasn't been released yet. As much as I think the current MacMini sucks, they shouldn't let it totally die as otherwise it puts Apple's cheapest Mac at $999 (White MacBook). However, Apple's best selling Mac is priced at $1299 (MacBook) so maybe it wouldn't matter either way.
Finally...Apple is NEVER going to tell you when its releasing future products. They simply aren't going to do it. They never have, so why start now? To some extent not very companies tell you when things are going to be released before they're actually announced.
Well, only hardware announcement was the 17" MBP. Looks like it will be a while before we see the rumored Mini update.
Apple might host a special hardware event for the:
- Mac mini - Rumor has it getting more than just updated internals.
- iMac - Rumor has a new 28" model using a Core i7 (a.k.a. Nehalem) processor.
- Mac Pro - Internals updated with a slight case redesign
- Cinema Displays - 24" model for notebooks (currently selling) and 24", 28", and 32" models for the desktops.
- Xserve - These are due for an update. I do not see Apple waiting for "Snow Leopard" before updating them.
Maybe we will get lucky and Apple will talk about "Snow Leopard".It's funny that Apple chooses to update JUST their MOST EXPENSIVE, FLAGSHIP PORTABLE in the midst of the recession... Hmm... something tells me they'd sell a lot more iMacs or Minis.
Good point. People's wallets are tightening up. Seems like when you have pent up demand for a lower cost product like the mini, you would WANT to release an update.
Even my company is now holding off on all purchases. And we did have a CER in for the new MBP 17.
I really wonder how many people bitching on this forum was really going to buy one? I know there are a few, but really how many?
Ooh ooh! Me me me. I didn't really expect Blu-ray playback though, I was just hoping. I did expect a speed-bump though. But I didn't have to pay full price for the current mini and the one I ordered will do what I need and that's what's important.
Sorry to those of you that are still waiting, but I hope it stays un-updated for little while longer so I don't have to feel like a chump.
... What are the odds of an update exactly 1 week after the keynote?
With a 14 day time frame for returning your new purchase, I'd say an update TWO weeks after the keynote is more likely.
I think the big problem with the mini no-show was that Apple themselves (via that infamous e-mail to a potential customer a few months ago) said "be patient" about the mini. .
It is just like a Greener Apple to recycle its own advice; it applies just as much after a MacWorld keynote as before it!
Honestly, remember last year's flurry of announcements that basically filled the month of January and the typical special event in Feb/Mar. There is plenty of time for more news before winter is out. . . .
In the meantime, I have a PowerBook 180c if someone needs a computer to borrow while you are waiting.
Most people are in agreement that the next iMac and mini will be using the MCP79 chipset with integrated graphics, right?
For the mini it is likely. For the iMac they have more options. In either case they might go for a souped up version for the desktop. It all depends on how much performance can be wrung out of a up clocked 9400M before heat becomes an issue.
But coupling it with a separate graphics chip does not make sense in a desktop.
Oh but it makes a huge difference in the context of Apples future support of OpenCL. With the 9400M that gives Apple 16 vector / math cores to work with. These are cores that are close to the main processor and are likely not loaded down by the main GPU.
You see OpenCL is a neat concept as long as there are core to exploit. Sometimes that is a problem on a heavily loaded GPU.
Its primary advantage in a laptop is to be able to switch to it (albeit inconveniently) to conserve battery power. great. makes perfect sense for a laptop. However, not so much for a desktop which gets a constant direct power source and is never on battery power.
I think you are to hung up on the laptop environment to see a possible different set of advantages on the desktop. Think in terms of what the future OSes and Apps might do. In a way some of this is just speculation because we don't know how far Apple is going to go with OpenCL initially. There is a very good potential for them to adopt it extensively just like they did Alt-Vec in it's day. So all sorts of components in Mac OS/X could end up being pushed off to the integrated GPU. It is up to Apple and frankly would likely be implemented over time.
Now, the iMac 24" uses a graphics card called the MXM that connects to the system like a PCIe slot in a regular desktop (16 x to boot). What if they put that slot in all the iMacs and minis? The higher end configs would have it populated with a nice graphics card while the lower end ones can do just fine with the integrated 9400M. Then Apple would have a BTO option with one or several graphics options.
For Apple there are lots of disadvantages. For one thing soldered in components lead to reliable machines with lower warranty costs. Second; the more cards Apple has to support the more drivers it has to maintain and debut against.
In any event I think Apples partnership with Nvidia means wide adoption of the 9400M on all lower end platforms.
Bring the Mac mini to the Apple TV footprint and make it 50% taller and give the same 8GB ceiling the MBP 17 has and you'll have yourself a nice semi upgradable home media machine.
I'd like to see that myself. Mostly to bulk up on disk space. Apple is shooting some of it's other businesses in the foot with the small harddrives it ships. My MBP is already stuffed.
I'd like to see 8GB max to but this is where I really see Apple going stupid. It is likely the Mini will have artificial constraints on memory size. IMac on the other hand coulg go big. I still believe Apple can do i7 in the iMac and lead that machine into a new era.
Dave
#4 We have a timeline for new Macs. iLife will ship to retailers at the end of the month. Apple is likely holding back new releases until iLife '09 can be preloaded. This means the first new machines may be ready in as little two weeks or so.
That's a really good point. Thanks for the insight!
I don't see why not. Seems like a long term thing to me.
I see this as a way of preemptively recouping from low sales on Snow Leopard. I would imagine that Apple is worried about not getting a lot of upgraders to Snow Leopard since there are few "exciting" general use features as there was in Tiger and Leopard, they are hoping to make a little extra cash getting people to upgrade from Tiger to Leopard if nothing else. By the way, hold your fire, I am excited about Snow Leopard's optimizations as most of you are, I am just saying that there is not a lot of eye candy in 10.6. I am simply saying that once Snow Leopard comes out, I believe that the package software upgrade with be done with.
Of course, I would love to be proven wrong. . . .