Consumers owning older systems might not be so prone to pay money to update the software anyway.
Even people like me with Intel Macs might well choose to not upgrade even though the price of upgrading is so reasonable. It's because in my case, the Mini is two years old and my plan is to run it through to the spring and look to buy a new Mac then. Upgrading the entire system is inevitable in that I now have an HD hybrid camera but my current Mini only has a gig of RAM. Adding RAM, probably having to replace the HD within about a year, and then updating my software will cost me pretty much what a Mini is going to run me a few months down the road. I can't justify spending money on a computer that will be replaced in a few months.
From Apple's perspective, this is a good thing. They sell another computer and SL is a factor. Certainly it's quite the thing that Apple will be speeding up its hardware without sinking so much as a cent into revised hardware. And if my Mini were, let's say a year old with better specs, I'd certainly be spending the cash on SL. Then I would find myself with a faster computer, thanks to the efficiency of SL, causing me to be even happier that I had chosen an Apple over a PC.
I recently bought a netbook and have to say it's not quite the bargain it appears to be. It doesn't come with anything close to the software package provided with every Mac. You can't even burn a DVD without seeking software for that. Apple offers more in terms of software for the money which generates more hardware sales. With PCs, software is less interconnected with hardware and as such companies that provide software look to that product to make their money. No way Microsoft would ever serve up a significant OS upgrade for $29 because there isn't anything in it for them to pretty much give the OS away. My netbook, apparently, will run Windows 7 but if I want to switch to that new OS from XP, it'll cost me way more than $29. In fact, the netbook itself will not cost much more than buying an OS from Microsoft. When you combine that with the fact that Microsoft has earned consumers' mistrust, even if Windows 7 proves to be a decent OS, there is little doubt adoption of that OS will be far more messy than the transition to SL. It'll cost a lot more and after the mess Vista turned out to be, many consumers will be unwilling to buy into the new OS for the first few months. No sense in paying more than $100 for the privilege of being a beta tester for Microsoft.
In contrast, the worst that can be anticipated in relation to SL is that the OS will not support pre-Intel Macs. Pretty small stuff compared to the horrors inflicted on those poor, unsuspecting souls lured into the PC universe through promises of cheaper hardware.
Yeah, because unlike PC users, Mac users replace their computers every 2-3 years.
Oh wait. Not having to replace a computer every couple years has always been one of the "benefits" of owning a Mac, isn't it?
Your comment seems to hinge on the fallacy that if you can?t get the next OS update that you must replace your Mac. Macs do tend to last longer than PCs because point updates and point releases tend to speed up operations while there is no registry and other Windows-like mechanisms that keep slowing the machine down over time. PPC users can run Leopard, will get security updates, app updates for years to come. Snow Leopard has very little new look and the new underpinnings aren?t designed to work for PPC so when it is time to pony up the money for a new Mac those PPC users will benefit from Apple spending more time getting GDC, OpenCL and everything else in Leopard working well.
PS: The last PPC wsa sold from retail 36 months ago yet the announcement of moving to Intel and the first Intel Macs had been going on for some time. Why did these people buy when they knew the Intel versions were coming. Did people actually try to save a buck by buying the old tech in the refurbish section. If so, then I certainly don?t feel for you since you are the ones that put yourself in this position.
First, businesses do not normally jump on an update right away anyway. When money is involved, they want to make sure the update is stable. Second, I suspect most big shops start to update their computers every two three years. So, they probably have a mixture of both Power PC and Intel machines.
Yes, they will have a mixture of hardware, but, every machine will be running the same version of the OS to keep them all aligned with each other, and to avoid any possible conflicts and problems of having to support more than one version of OS. So, if a bunch of Macs currently in use are PPC, then all the Macs will most likely be running Leopard, not SL. It's unlikely that companies with a large number of Macs are all running different versions of the OS, that would be a nightmare for IT to support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Moreover, the speed increase gives serious shops an incentive to upgrade their machines if they have not already. So, Apple may lose some update sales, but it will gain some new Mac sales. Win win anyway you cut it.
Not really. You forget that the people who make the decisions to buy hardware in large companies are bean counters, not the people who have to use the computers. It's all based on economics. A 10% speed gain isn't going to motivate a company to replace half of their hardware at great expense. They'll squeeze every last dollar out of those computers first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron
Now consider the potential cost to R&D Snow Leopard for PPC to such a small number of potential buyers, with the actual number of Snow Leopard for G5 Power Mac because people with older systems aren?t as likely to update their OS and can?t even use GCD and OpenCL. Now multiply whatever number get by $29, figure out the net margin, then subtract gross R&D costs for developing for the PPC architecture from 4 years ago. The numbers don?t add up from a business standpoint.
As I've already mentioned, I am not saying that Apple should be supporting legacy equipment with Snow Leopard. I'm saying that adoption may be slower than previous versions of the OS due to the legacy hardware issue that now comes into play. Besides, where are you finding all these percentages that you refer to? I'd be curious to see them.
First of all, Mr. T, that was a phenomenal example of accidental trolling you just pulled. Kudos.
Trolling? Why, because I'm not drooling over the latest blurry photos of fake packaging for Snow Leopard?
If you don't agree with my opinion, then state why. Calling me a troll just makes me stop reading your post right there, because you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute when you have to start your post with childish name-calling.
You really think all those design and audio/visual shops using PPC computers will just throw them away to use Snow Leopard because it only costs $29?? LOL!
The only conceivable reason to still run PPC in production wouyld be for something on OS9, and if they havnt noved forward from that point, well, let them rot...evolve or die.
The only conceivable reason to still run PPC in production wouyld be for something on OS9, and if they havnt noved forward from that point, well, let them rot...evolve or die.
PPC Macs can run Tiger and Leopard. I doubt most businesses are still using OS9 in a production environment. It's possible a company has a Mac or two still running OS9 for some legacy application, but, by now most of those have been ported to OSX. One company I know still has a bunch of the original iMacs (with CRT screens) in deployment, but they all run Leopard right now. They won't, however, be running Snow Leopard until they decide to replace all remaining PPC Macs with Intel Macs.
I'm actually about to retire several PPC Mac's and replace them with new ones that were supposed to ship on the 24th after a three week wait. Mysteriously, my ship date changed yesterday to the 28th and now after close inspection I see a Free Multi User /Site License Version of Leopard (10.5, not Snow Leopard) was added to my order. THe plan had been to integrate the remaining PPC (10.4) Macs with the New ones that were suppose to ship with 10.5 ( and get the free upgrades later) My assumption was that I would have to update the remaining PPC's to 10.5 on my own as our Apple& Software reps told me that I can either mix 10.4 & 10.5 or 10.5 & 10.6 , but not 10.4 and 10.6 .
So, my hopeful guess is that this means my order will actually ship with Snow Leopard ! Wow , some times waiting until you actually Need something pays off and Apple giving away something to business a customer for free, with even being asked at the same time . . . never in nearly 25 years of Mac use would I have thought . . .
I have, and it doesn't change my mind. It would be amazing to the point of insanity if Apple announced on Monday it was out that Friday - that would be a very close announcement at the best of times, but since it would mean the software was shipping the month before everyone was told to expect it, it would be even more ridiculous.
"The month before" sounds a lot sooner than "several days before," and 08/28 is only several days before the month of September.
Maybe Apple is doing what they can to exceed expectations?
You really think all those design and audio/visual shops using PPC computers will just throw them away to use Snow Leopard because it only costs $29?? LOL!
Of course not, they're going to upgrade their intel Macs, the PPC machines will become backup/less used over time at a faster rate than previously.
Not that your design and AV shops are going to have all that much total effect on SL uptake, since they are only a small minority of the current installed base. Intel Macs, according to Apple, are already a majority of the installed working base.
A lot has changed in the Mac market over the past couple of years, in case you hadn't noticed.
Not that your design and AV shops are going to have all that much total effect on SL uptake, since they are only a small minority of the current installed base. Intel Macs, according to Apple, are already a majority of the installed working base.
And who do you think buys all those Pro machines and tools?? It's not as small a minority as you characterize.
There was no mention of exactly when ("by the end of 2007" ) and which models at what time would be transitioned.
There was no exact mention but we had an Apple-set 18 month window to complete the entire transition. The first Intel iMac came out over 3.5 years ago. This mention of three years is from when the last PPC Macs were sold by Apple retail.
But none of that is germane to your original point that these relatively few PPC Mac sales are going to make adoption low. The numbers just don't add up and at only $29 (or $10 for more recent Mac purchases) this will be the fastest adoption Apple has ever had. If will also be the largest adoption simple because there are so many Intel Macs being sold.
There was no exact mention but we had an Apple-set 18 month window to complete the entire transition. The first Intel iMac came out over 3.5 years ago. This mention of three years is from when the last PPC Macs were sold by Apple retail.
But none of that is germane to your original point that these relatively few PPC Mac sales are going to make adoption low. The numbers just don't add up and at only $29 (or $10 for more recent Mac purchases) this will be the fastest adoption Apple has ever had. If will also be the largest adoption simple because there are so many Intel Macs being sold.
Esp. intel macbooks, which since Intel have probably sold more than PPC i/powerbooks ever did.
The main idea is this: if you have an Intel upgrade, if you don't, don't.
This is a win-win. Its a cheap mini update to take advantage of 64 bit. 10.7 will come out in 2 more years (at full price) and then it will be 5 years since PPC. It makes perfect sense.
Have PPC, continue running Leopard. Have Intel, run Snow Leopard.
I think it's just over-dramatizing on both sides. On the user-side, Snow Leopard is not *that* big of an advance over Leopard, so PowerPC users will _not_ feel left out in the dust exactly. Do you seriously _require_ Quicktime X for those graphics jobs? If you want to blame anyone forcing your graphics department to exchange PPCs with Mac Pros, it's Adobe you should direct the anger at, since they won't make CS5 for PPC. But I've met enough graphics designers to know that some might just hang on to their PPCs and use CS3 or CS4 (some even CS2 or CS1 and Tiger) for their jobs. It's not like you can't get any work done with those machines and that software. Most companies probably will move _part_ of their machine park to intel machines and have those with Snow Leopard, while the old PowerMacs will still be able to do a lot of work.
But IIRC *every* Mac OS X upgrade in recent years has left some machine generations in the dust. And there _always_ were people complaining about it. Apple has been cutting off support for older Macs in newer Big Cats everytime, and they'll continue to do so. It doesn't mean that your current machine(s) will die an untimely death, it's just a reminder that the computer industry as a whole is moving on, and your computer _will_ be a remnant of times past sooner or later. Apple will, as they did with 10.4 and 10.3 and 10.2 etc., continue to release security updates for Leopard in the time of Snow Leopard, so Leopard still very much _is_ a supported OS and PowerPCs still very much _are_ supported hardware. You have a cutting edge G5? It's not cutting edge anymore and hasn't been for a couple of years. You don't need to replace it now, but you might want to. Or might want to next spring with the übercool Mac Pro 16-core or something. Until then, your Mac's going to be fine.
Snow Leopard _will_ be adopted rather quickly. Apple has had okay-to-good adoption rates for Tiger and Leopard, and Snow Leopard is much cheaper to acquire for all the Macs that have been sold in the past two years *PLUS* all the users that upgraded to Leopard in those two years (I've sold quite a few copies of Leopard and Leopard family pack as well as the Mac Box Set myself in the two years that I've been working as an authorized reseller.)
I've been testing SL for a couple of months (and was a tester for 10.0 onwards) and I'm very happy with the product. If 10A432 is the Golden Master, it's a good GM build. Up there with 10.5.0 and 10.4.0 and certainly much better than 10.3.0 (which was a disaster, btw., with FW drives dying and all that jazz). QTX has no preferences? So what: It's a Quicktime Player for heaven's sake and I'm pretty sure a Quicktime update will arrive as soon as Sep. 9th with the new iTunes... 10.6 has been stable for me since 10A380, basically, and with 10A432 it feels finished. With one or two obvious bugs, yes, but that's like it's always been.
Trolling? Why, because I'm not drooling over the latest blurry photos of fake packaging for Snow Leopard?
If you don't agree with my opinion, then state why. Calling me a troll just makes me stop reading your post right there, because you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute when you have to start your post with childish name-calling.
Try reading the rest of the post. Also note that I said it was an example of accidental trolling, not that YOU are a troll. i.e., you started a firestorm unintentionally. Not everyone is gunning for ya.
I'm going to side with those who say PPC users shouldn't feel abandoned. The changes in the user experience are so minor that Leopard can be considered the PPC version of Snow Leopard. The limitation of not having an Intel processor is a much greater barrier to future uses of their hardware than the changes wrought by Snow Leopard. Ultimately it will be application developers such as Adobe, more than Apple, who decide when the PPC is left behind.
Comments
Consumers owning older systems might not be so prone to pay money to update the software anyway.
Even people like me with Intel Macs might well choose to not upgrade even though the price of upgrading is so reasonable. It's because in my case, the Mini is two years old and my plan is to run it through to the spring and look to buy a new Mac then. Upgrading the entire system is inevitable in that I now have an HD hybrid camera but my current Mini only has a gig of RAM. Adding RAM, probably having to replace the HD within about a year, and then updating my software will cost me pretty much what a Mini is going to run me a few months down the road. I can't justify spending money on a computer that will be replaced in a few months.
From Apple's perspective, this is a good thing. They sell another computer and SL is a factor. Certainly it's quite the thing that Apple will be speeding up its hardware without sinking so much as a cent into revised hardware. And if my Mini were, let's say a year old with better specs, I'd certainly be spending the cash on SL. Then I would find myself with a faster computer, thanks to the efficiency of SL, causing me to be even happier that I had chosen an Apple over a PC.
I recently bought a netbook and have to say it's not quite the bargain it appears to be. It doesn't come with anything close to the software package provided with every Mac. You can't even burn a DVD without seeking software for that. Apple offers more in terms of software for the money which generates more hardware sales. With PCs, software is less interconnected with hardware and as such companies that provide software look to that product to make their money. No way Microsoft would ever serve up a significant OS upgrade for $29 because there isn't anything in it for them to pretty much give the OS away. My netbook, apparently, will run Windows 7 but if I want to switch to that new OS from XP, it'll cost me way more than $29. In fact, the netbook itself will not cost much more than buying an OS from Microsoft. When you combine that with the fact that Microsoft has earned consumers' mistrust, even if Windows 7 proves to be a decent OS, there is little doubt adoption of that OS will be far more messy than the transition to SL. It'll cost a lot more and after the mess Vista turned out to be, many consumers will be unwilling to buy into the new OS for the first few months. No sense in paying more than $100 for the privilege of being a beta tester for Microsoft.
In contrast, the worst that can be anticipated in relation to SL is that the OS will not support pre-Intel Macs. Pretty small stuff compared to the horrors inflicted on those poor, unsuspecting souls lured into the PC universe through promises of cheaper hardware.
But what percentage of Macs do they represent? Fairly small, I'd wager.
Yeah, because unlike PC users, Mac users replace their computers every 2-3 years.
Oh wait. Not having to replace a computer every couple years has always been one of the "benefits" of owning a Mac, isn't it?
Yeah, because unlike PC users, Mac users replace their computers every 2-3 years.
Oh wait. Not having to replace a computer every couple years has always been one of the "benefits" of owning a Mac, isn't it?
Your comment seems to hinge on the fallacy that if you can?t get the next OS update that you must replace your Mac. Macs do tend to last longer than PCs because point updates and point releases tend to speed up operations while there is no registry and other Windows-like mechanisms that keep slowing the machine down over time. PPC users can run Leopard, will get security updates, app updates for years to come. Snow Leopard has very little new look and the new underpinnings aren?t designed to work for PPC so when it is time to pony up the money for a new Mac those PPC users will benefit from Apple spending more time getting GDC, OpenCL and everything else in Leopard working well.
PS: The last PPC wsa sold from retail 36 months ago yet the announcement of moving to Intel and the first Intel Macs had been going on for some time. Why did these people buy when they knew the Intel versions were coming. Did people actually try to save a buck by buying the old tech in the refurbish section. If so, then I certainly don?t feel for you since you are the ones that put yourself in this position.
First, businesses do not normally jump on an update right away anyway. When money is involved, they want to make sure the update is stable. Second, I suspect most big shops start to update their computers every two three years. So, they probably have a mixture of both Power PC and Intel machines.
Yes, they will have a mixture of hardware, but, every machine will be running the same version of the OS to keep them all aligned with each other, and to avoid any possible conflicts and problems of having to support more than one version of OS. So, if a bunch of Macs currently in use are PPC, then all the Macs will most likely be running Leopard, not SL. It's unlikely that companies with a large number of Macs are all running different versions of the OS, that would be a nightmare for IT to support.
Moreover, the speed increase gives serious shops an incentive to upgrade their machines if they have not already. So, Apple may lose some update sales, but it will gain some new Mac sales. Win win anyway you cut it.
Not really. You forget that the people who make the decisions to buy hardware in large companies are bean counters, not the people who have to use the computers. It's all based on economics. A 10% speed gain isn't going to motivate a company to replace half of their hardware at great expense. They'll squeeze every last dollar out of those computers first.
Now consider the potential cost to R&D Snow Leopard for PPC to such a small number of potential buyers, with the actual number of Snow Leopard for G5 Power Mac because people with older systems aren?t as likely to update their OS and can?t even use GCD and OpenCL. Now multiply whatever number get by $29, figure out the net margin, then subtract gross R&D costs for developing for the PPC architecture from 4 years ago. The numbers don?t add up from a business standpoint.
As I've already mentioned, I am not saying that Apple should be supporting legacy equipment with Snow Leopard. I'm saying that adoption may be slower than previous versions of the OS due to the legacy hardware issue that now comes into play. Besides, where are you finding all these percentages that you refer to? I'd be curious to see them.
First of all, Mr. T, that was a phenomenal example of accidental trolling you just pulled.
Trolling? Why, because I'm not drooling over the latest blurry photos of fake packaging for Snow Leopard?
If you don't agree with my opinion, then state why. Calling me a troll just makes me stop reading your post right there, because you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute when you have to start your post with childish name-calling.
You really think all those design and audio/visual shops using PPC computers will just throw them away to use Snow Leopard because it only costs $29?? LOL!
The only conceivable reason to still run PPC in production wouyld be for something on OS9, and if they havnt noved forward from that point, well, let them rot...evolve or die.
Your comment seems to hinge on the fallacy
No, my comment hinges on exactly what I responded to.
That PPC macs are "fairly small percentage" and that Macs are almost never replaced every two-three years.
Therefore, the majority of PPC owners that puchased new units in the last 1-2 years of PPC sales, would only now be considering a new computer.
PS: The last PPC wsa sold from retail 36 months ago yet the announcement of moving to Intel and the first Intel Macs had been going on for some time.
The announcement of going to Intel was made on the same day Apple released the 1st intel (iMac iSight - 10 Jan 2006)
Apple announced and released the PPC iSight iMac only three months before it was discontinued and replaced by the Intel.
The only conceivable reason to still run PPC in production wouyld be for something on OS9, and if they havnt noved forward from that point, well, let them rot...evolve or die.
PPC Macs can run Tiger and Leopard. I doubt most businesses are still using OS9 in a production environment. It's possible a company has a Mac or two still running OS9 for some legacy application, but, by now most of those have been ported to OSX. One company I know still has a bunch of the original iMacs (with CRT screens) in deployment, but they all run Leopard right now. They won't, however, be running Snow Leopard until they decide to replace all remaining PPC Macs with Intel Macs.
So, my hopeful guess is that this means my order will actually ship with Snow Leopard ! Wow , some times waiting until you actually Need something pays off and Apple giving away something to business a customer for free, with even being asked at the same time . . . never in nearly 25 years of Mac use would I have thought . . .
The announcement of going to Intel was made on the same day Apple released the 1st intel (iMac iSight - 10 Jan 2006)
No. The "announcement of going Intel" was made on June 6, 2005 at WWDC.
No. The "announcement of going Intel" was made on June 6, 2005 at WWDC.
Okay.
There was no mention of exactly when ("by the end of 2007" ) and which models at what time would be transitioned.
I have, and it doesn't change my mind. It would be amazing to the point of insanity if Apple announced on Monday it was out that Friday - that would be a very close announcement at the best of times, but since it would mean the software was shipping the month before everyone was told to expect it, it would be even more ridiculous.
"The month before" sounds a lot sooner than "several days before," and 08/28 is only several days before the month of September.
Maybe Apple is doing what they can to exceed expectations?
You really think all those design and audio/visual shops using PPC computers will just throw them away to use Snow Leopard because it only costs $29?? LOL!
Of course not, they're going to upgrade their intel Macs, the PPC machines will become backup/less used over time at a faster rate than previously.
Not that your design and AV shops are going to have all that much total effect on SL uptake, since they are only a small minority of the current installed base. Intel Macs, according to Apple, are already a majority of the installed working base.
A lot has changed in the Mac market over the past couple of years, in case you hadn't noticed.
Not that your design and AV shops are going to have all that much total effect on SL uptake, since they are only a small minority of the current installed base. Intel Macs, according to Apple, are already a majority of the installed working base.
And who do you think buys all those Pro machines and tools?? It's not as small a minority as you characterize.
Okay.
There was no mention of exactly when ("by the end of 2007" ) and which models at what time would be transitioned.
There was no exact mention but we had an Apple-set 18 month window to complete the entire transition. The first Intel iMac came out over 3.5 years ago. This mention of three years is from when the last PPC Macs were sold by Apple retail.
But none of that is germane to your original point that these relatively few PPC Mac sales are going to make adoption low. The numbers just don't add up and at only $29 (or $10 for more recent Mac purchases) this will be the fastest adoption Apple has ever had. If will also be the largest adoption simple because there are so many Intel Macs being sold.
There was no exact mention but we had an Apple-set 18 month window to complete the entire transition. The first Intel iMac came out over 3.5 years ago. This mention of three years is from when the last PPC Macs were sold by Apple retail.
But none of that is germane to your original point that these relatively few PPC Mac sales are going to make adoption low. The numbers just don't add up and at only $29 (or $10 for more recent Mac purchases) this will be the fastest adoption Apple has ever had. If will also be the largest adoption simple because there are so many Intel Macs being sold.
Esp. intel macbooks, which since Intel have probably sold more than PPC i/powerbooks ever did.
The main idea is this: if you have an Intel upgrade, if you don't, don't.
This is a win-win. Its a cheap mini update to take advantage of 64 bit. 10.7 will come out in 2 more years (at full price) and then it will be 5 years since PPC. It makes perfect sense.
Have PPC, continue running Leopard. Have Intel, run Snow Leopard.
But IIRC *every* Mac OS X upgrade in recent years has left some machine generations in the dust. And there _always_ were people complaining about it. Apple has been cutting off support for older Macs in newer Big Cats everytime, and they'll continue to do so. It doesn't mean that your current machine(s) will die an untimely death, it's just a reminder that the computer industry as a whole is moving on, and your computer _will_ be a remnant of times past sooner or later. Apple will, as they did with 10.4 and 10.3 and 10.2 etc., continue to release security updates for Leopard in the time of Snow Leopard, so Leopard still very much _is_ a supported OS and PowerPCs still very much _are_ supported hardware. You have a cutting edge G5? It's not cutting edge anymore and hasn't been for a couple of years. You don't need to replace it now, but you might want to. Or might want to next spring with the übercool Mac Pro 16-core or something. Until then, your Mac's going to be fine.
Snow Leopard _will_ be adopted rather quickly. Apple has had okay-to-good adoption rates for Tiger and Leopard, and Snow Leopard is much cheaper to acquire for all the Macs that have been sold in the past two years *PLUS* all the users that upgraded to Leopard in those two years (I've sold quite a few copies of Leopard and Leopard family pack as well as the Mac Box Set myself in the two years that I've been working as an authorized reseller.)
I've been testing SL for a couple of months (and was a tester for 10.0 onwards) and I'm very happy with the product. If 10A432 is the Golden Master, it's a good GM build. Up there with 10.5.0 and 10.4.0 and certainly much better than 10.3.0 (which was a disaster, btw., with FW drives dying and all that jazz). QTX has no preferences? So what: It's a Quicktime Player for heaven's sake and I'm pretty sure a Quicktime update will arrive as soon as Sep. 9th with the new iTunes... 10.6 has been stable for me since 10A380, basically, and with 10A432 it feels finished. With one or two obvious bugs, yes, but that's like it's always been.
Trolling? Why, because I'm not drooling over the latest blurry photos of fake packaging for Snow Leopard?
If you don't agree with my opinion, then state why. Calling me a troll just makes me stop reading your post right there, because you clearly have nothing worthwhile to contribute when you have to start your post with childish name-calling.
C