I'm English and live in France there's no pre-order available here either. Actually it is worse than that, the reduced price for existing Leopard Owners offer is not available here or in the UK or in any other country except the US. Is this another example of Apple making special offers only available to Americans while the rest of us have to pay in full to subsidise the USA? Are you watching Apple (Steve Jobs even!) you have loyal customers outside America, treat them properly, we count as well.
I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program. Since it hasn't been either released or been scheduled for release, I wouldn't worry about not seeing the special upgrade pricing yet.
I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?
-Kevin
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
Thanks for not addressing my question at all.....but hey, at least you must feel better now that you got all that out, right?
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
Apple would be foolish to release a version of Safari that wouldn't run Flash. Comparing the situation to the iPhone is spurious, since the iPhone never supported Flash in the first place, so there's no functionality to take away. Removing Flash functionality from Safari after Mac users generally expect it would amount to Apple shooting itself in the foot.
At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:
1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
This is an acceptable limitation for mobile browsing, but it becomes quite jarring when doing desktop browsing.
Heck, Apple had to distribute the new 64 bit Java plugin recently in order to ensure that Java applets would still work, and Java applets are far less ubiquitous that Flash, so that should tell you something about Apple's thinking.
Therefore, I imagine that there will be a 32-bit plugin emulation layer in Safari 64-bit, since Adobe has thus far only released an alpha of a 64-bit plugin for Linux:
I'm guessing a lot of the complexity comes from the fact that Flash has a lot of low-level C++ code that's more difficult to maintain, making the transition to 64-bit more difficult.
Under Snow Leopard, Safari 4 is 64-bit and plugins are sandboxed (allowing Safari 4 to run 32-bit plugins and preventing them from taking down the entire browser).
So how will this $29 update work? Will they follow the Volish method of having Leopard on the machine already and upgrade only, or can we do a full wipe and load? I hope we can wipe and load, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had to have Leopard first and then upgrade.
The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
Is there no Snow Leopard, non-upgrade package? The only thing I see is the Mac Pack. What if I have Tiger but don't want the iLife or iWork apps?
the Tiger users Mac Pack is essentially the leopard upgrade switched out to the SL parts as needed. and no you can't get it without iLife or iWork. be honestly consider that you would have paid $129 for leopard. for $40 more you get two software suites that retail for $160 total and the $30 upgrade. quite a bargain really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147
I am just saying that Apple better not have the Volish stupidity to say we have to have Leopard installed first if we want to install SL. I doubt they will, but you never know.
I disagree about the stupidity issue. Apple has been very open that this is, more than before, really a giant tweaking/fine tuning, not a rewrite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1
I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program.
of course it isn't. Apple has never been one to make one thing for one market and something for all the rest. Case in point, Verizon didn't get the US iphone contract cause they aren't GSM
the only thing that is US only is Amazon taking pre-orders. the US is still the biggest market for Apple (especially through Amazon) so they would want to have a clue of how many copies they need on hand for orders. this is the best way to figure out that. just like they did with Harry Potter, the Twilight books etc.
I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?
-Kevin
My understanding is that with Snow Leopard you'll be able to run 32 or 64 bit applications, kinda like they did with the transition from OS 9 to OS 10 ... run both until the rest of the world catches up.
You're clever enough to recognise the risk of a HD crash but not smart enough to have backups including a clone of your HD?
Right now I have my systems backed up via MobileMe, Retrospect'd on alternating days to 2 internal vaulted digital tape drives in two separate but attached buildings, Time Machined to two separate drives and a library of now over 1200 CD/DVDs, as well as an on-line daily back up to one the same servers used by many of the Fortune 500.
And yet, I am clever enough to conduct a fresh re-install if and when I have a HD crash. Why? That is our policy, as our years of experience has taught us that one can never really know why an HD crashes.
And as our mother taught us, why would you put another load of dirty laundry to the same wash water.
At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:
1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.
The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.
Not on Vista. You can only install a Vista upgrade from within the original OS install...
OK, so there are many well documented workarounds, but they intended the upgrade versions of Vista to never have the ability to install on a clean HDD.
The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.
Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.
I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.
Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.
I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.
They have always done so before.
Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?
And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.
The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.
How will folks who have a MacBook Air (with no optical drive) upgrade? I guess they be forced to get an external drive.
As every MacBook Air owners know, i.e, the same way they have always done before
Install wirelessly with Remote Disc.
Without a built-in optical drive, how do you install new applications? Simply use Remote Disc. This innovative feature of Mac OS X lets you wirelessly “borrow” the optical drive of a nearby Mac or PC. So you can install applications from a CD or DVD and have full access to an optical drive without having to lug one around.http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html
Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?
And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.
I expect them to release in a full upgrade with clean install option. As you say, as a beta tester, I should know that. However, the weird ideas that Apple is giving people over this "you must buy a box set or have Leopard" is giving me enough room to say "its possible that the $29 upgrade will be an upgrade-from-previous-leopard-install only."
I sincerely hope not, and I don't expect that to be the case Abster2core, I'm just covering my bases.
I wonder how thoroughly this has been tested. Apple is very careful about some things, but quite a few bugs have slipped through their internal QA that were found in production. To Apple's credit, these problems are usually fixed quickly, with the exception of some security flaws (ex: the famous Java vulnerability that took them more than 5 months to fix).
Comments
I'm English and live in France there's no pre-order available here either. Actually it is worse than that, the reduced price for existing Leopard Owners offer is not available here or in the UK or in any other country except the US. Is this another example of Apple making special offers only available to Americans while the rest of us have to pay in full to subsidise the USA? Are you watching Apple (Steve Jobs even!) you have loyal customers outside America, treat them properly, we count as well.
I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program. Since it hasn't been either released or been scheduled for release, I wouldn't worry about not seeing the special upgrade pricing yet.
I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?
-Kevin
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
Thanks for not addressing my question at all.....but hey, at least you must feel better now that you got all that out, right?
-Kevin
If Apple had to wait for every single developer to get on board before releasing new technology they'd never move forward. Hell, Quicken is still not a universal binary years after Macs went Intel. Windows is basically still a GUI on top of DOS because of stuff like this. Yes, the move to Snow Leopard will be painful for some but Apple certainly can't wait for Adobe to get its act together before releasing Snow Leopard. What's more the iPhone seems to be doing just fine without Flash.
Apple would be foolish to release a version of Safari that wouldn't run Flash. Comparing the situation to the iPhone is spurious, since the iPhone never supported Flash in the first place, so there's no functionality to take away. Removing Flash functionality from Safari after Mac users generally expect it would amount to Apple shooting itself in the foot.
At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:
1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
This is an acceptable limitation for mobile browsing, but it becomes quite jarring when doing desktop browsing.
Heck, Apple had to distribute the new 64 bit Java plugin recently in order to ensure that Java applets would still work, and Java applets are far less ubiquitous that Flash, so that should tell you something about Apple's thinking.
Therefore, I imagine that there will be a 32-bit plugin emulation layer in Safari 64-bit, since Adobe has thus far only released an alpha of a 64-bit plugin for Linux:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/f...10FAQ_64-bit01
I'm guessing a lot of the complexity comes from the fact that Flash has a lot of low-level C++ code that's more difficult to maintain, making the transition to 64-bit more difficult.
I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?
-Kevin
After doing a little searching, this post seems to answer the question:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...1#733003010041
Under Snow Leopard, Safari 4 is 64-bit and plugins are sandboxed (allowing Safari 4 to run 32-bit plugins and preventing them from taking down the entire browser).
-Kevin
So how will this $29 update work? Will they follow the Volish method of having Leopard on the machine already and upgrade only, or can we do a full wipe and load? I hope we can wipe and load, but it wouldn't surprise me if we had to have Leopard first and then upgrade.
The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.
Is there no Snow Leopard, non-upgrade package? The only thing I see is the Mac Pack. What if I have Tiger but don't want the iLife or iWork apps?
the Tiger users Mac Pack is essentially the leopard upgrade switched out to the SL parts as needed. and no you can't get it without iLife or iWork. be honestly consider that you would have paid $129 for leopard. for $40 more you get two software suites that retail for $160 total and the $30 upgrade. quite a bargain really.
I am just saying that Apple better not have the Volish stupidity to say we have to have Leopard installed first if we want to install SL. I doubt they will, but you never know.
I disagree about the stupidity issue. Apple has been very open that this is, more than before, really a giant tweaking/fine tuning, not a rewrite.
I'm unaware that Apple has ever said the upgrade discount will be a USA-only program.
of course it isn't. Apple has never been one to make one thing for one market and something for all the rest. Case in point, Verizon didn't get the US iphone contract cause they aren't GSM
the only thing that is US only is Amazon taking pre-orders. the US is still the biggest market for Apple (especially through Amazon) so they would want to have a clue of how many copies they need on hand for orders. this is the best way to figure out that. just like they did with Harry Potter, the Twilight books etc.
I thought there was no 64-bit version of Flash player? So does/can the 64-bit version of Safari run the 32-bit flash player?
-Kevin
My understanding is that with Snow Leopard you'll be able to run 32 or 64 bit applications, kinda like they did with the transition from OS 9 to OS 10 ... run both until the rest of the world catches up.
You're clever enough to recognise the risk of a HD crash but not smart enough to have backups including a clone of your HD?
Right now I have my systems backed up via MobileMe, Retrospect'd on alternating days to 2 internal vaulted digital tape drives in two separate but attached buildings, Time Machined to two separate drives and a library of now over 1200 CD/DVDs, as well as an on-line daily back up to one the same servers used by many of the Fortune 500.
And yet, I am clever enough to conduct a fresh re-install if and when I have a HD crash. Why? That is our policy, as our years of experience has taught us that one can never really know why an HD crashes.
And as our mother taught us, why would you put another load of dirty laundry to the same wash water.
At my current job, I don't have the admin rights to install Flash for Firefox. This means I surf the web at work without Flash, and boy do I notice the difference:
1) Can't view any movie sites at all.
2) Can't view any car sites (ex Toyota, Hyundai) at all or very little.
3) Many restaurant sites won't work.
4) Youtube won't work, and I can't view video on any site.
5) Online game sites won't work at all.
6) A lot of other sites are stupidly implemented using Flash, despite the fact that they could be written in just plain HTML/CSS/JavaScript.
Should you be doing any of that at work?
The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.
Not on Vista. You can only install a Vista upgrade from within the original OS install...
OK, so there are many well documented workarounds, but they intended the upgrade versions of Vista to never have the ability to install on a clean HDD.
The information given so far is that you must have Leopard installed on your machine to use the upgrade. it would seem that all this disk is going to affect is the system files, unlike previous times when you had all the mail, safari etc on there as well. which is likely why the price has gone down because it is really just a software update that is too big to be feasible via download.
Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.
I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.
Mail, Safari, and all system apps will also be given an overhaul (under the hood for the most part) for SL. They've been optimized for GCD, and a lot will be ripped out, like PPC sides of the binaries, etc.
I sincerely hope that Apple allows a clean install option. I'm running the latest beta of SL, and I love it, but I'm a clean-install upgrader. Every time I upgrade, if there is a clean install, or combo option, I'll take it.
They have always done so before.
Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?
And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.
The way Microsoft does this (god forbid) is to allow you to install an Update to the OS on a clean drive. During the process you are asked to briefly insert the Full Install disk of the previous version. This confirms that you are entitled to update and are not trying to pull a fast one (in their paranoid view). It's a simple process that Apple could use easily.
I gather that you are new to the Mac.
This is not something new to Apple.
How will folks who have a MacBook Air (with no optical drive) upgrade? I guess they be forced to get an external drive.
As every MacBook Air owners know, i.e, the same way they have always done before
Install wirelessly with Remote Disc.
Without a built-in optical drive, how do you install new applications? Simply use Remote Disc. This innovative feature of Mac OS X lets you wirelessly “borrow” the optical drive of a nearby Mac or PC. So you can install applications from a CD or DVD and have full access to an optical drive without having to lug one around. http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html
And if you are really curious, check it out. Not really complicated. http://www.apple.com/macbookair/incl...tml#remotedisc
They have always done so before.
Why would you even hint that they wouldn't do so this time?
And I never would have thought that anybody who was in the position to be a beta tester would ever need to ask or think that.
I expect them to release in a full upgrade with clean install option. As you say, as a beta tester, I should know that. However, the weird ideas that Apple is giving people over this "you must buy a box set or have Leopard" is giving me enough room to say "its possible that the $29 upgrade will be an upgrade-from-previous-leopard-install only."
I sincerely hope not, and I don't expect that to be the case Abster2core, I'm just covering my bases.
An if your hard drive crashes and you have to replace it, just how would you suggest we do it?
Time Machine backup..?
After doing a little searching, this post seems to answer the question:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...1#733003010041
-Kevin
I wonder how thoroughly this has been tested. Apple is very careful about some things, but quite a few bugs have slipped through their internal QA that were found in production. To Apple's credit, these problems are usually fixed quickly, with the exception of some security flaws (ex: the famous Java vulnerability that took them more than 5 months to fix).