I wonder what's in store.... The US Online apple store is down
So are the danish store, I think it's Snow Leopard that's being launched, but hopefully we'll see some updated iMac's as well, let it be with Core i5 and LED displays. It would make sense for Apple to say "Experience the power of multiple cores on all Apple desktops with Snow Leopard"
Um, No. However, it is the first time they ever charged so little for an OS upgrade.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
OK, I misunderstood you. I'm considering Snow Leopard more than a mere upgrade like 10.5.5 to 10.5.6. To me it's a whole new OS, less emphasized on new features and more focused on performance improvements. $30 is a great deal, IMO, for an update of this kind.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
I don't know where you are getting your info but this is far from a simple upgrade or patch release. In many ways it represents more of an improvement than the move from Tiger to Leopard did. Can you as a user see all of those improvements, nope, but that doesn't mean they are significant.
In fact the changes in SL are so significant that it would be stupid on Apples part to not clearly distinguish between SL and Leopard. This is likely to be even more important to third party vendors that will leverage many of the new features in SL in their software. From a marketing standpoint it is far easier to say this package requires SL and above to operate. Because of the large increase in capability, this release needs a new designation to allow for clear communications of the level functionality.
Consider for a moment Linux. One could argue that Linux is nothing more than a continous upgrade of a bunch of software jumbled together. In a sense that is true, but you still have vendors packaging Linux up in tidy distributions with release numbers/names. Why do they do that, simply to have a check point of sorts that allows developers to market software against. It is far easier to say your software needs Ubuntu x.x.x to function correctly than to list all the required release numbers and patch sets. The same goes for Apple except for in this case more is happening to SL than you would get in any Ubuntu bump.
This is a key point the transition to SL is huge even if you don't notice on the surface. You are going to 64 bits, a new threading tech is coming online (GCD), a new acceleration facility comes online (OpenCL), Quicktime, Kernel improvements and massive improvements to apps throughout the system. It is assinine to call SL an upgrade, there is to much that is new. It doesn't matter that you don't grasp this either, Apple avoiding the point release is simply good communications for those that understand.
I don't know where you are getting your info but this is far from a simple upgrade or patch release. In many ways it represents more of an improvement than the move from Tiger to Leopard did....
From reading the AppleStore pre-order copy SL is described very much as an upgrade of Leopard.
When Apple have previously launched 'new' OSs, like Leopard and Tiger before it, they've made quite a song and dance about how improved it'll be, and how many great new features there'll be.
I agree that there is reported to be very great 'under-the-hood' improvements to SL, and I'm inclined to actually prefer this approach to the bell'n'whistles that work, but strain my system in doing so.
My point was that on first reading Apple seemed to be under-selling SL compared to previous releases, and the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether this is some sort of acknowledgement that SL is the OS the hype over Leopard was selling and that we all paid for; and therefore is 'just' an upgrade of Leopard, the betaOS of the one that followed Tiger.
No it doesn't make sense, rather it makes it sound like you are whinning about things you don't understand. It is a new release of Mac OS/X because there are a vast number of new features that improve the OS in multiple ways. Frankly you sound like a Democrate trying to promote something that makes no sense and they personally don't understand.
If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it.
I really fail to see the problem here. Apple has put a substantial amount of work into the NEW features in Snow Leopard, it is reasonable that they expect payment.
No it doesn't make sense, rather it makes it sound like you are whinning about things you don't understand. It is a new release of Mac OS/X because there are a vast number of new features that improve the OS in multiple ways. Frankly you sound like a Democrate trying to promote something that makes no sense and they personally don't understand.
If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it.
I really fail to see the problem here. Apple has put a substantial amount of work into the NEW features in Snow Leopard, it is reasonable that they expect payment.
Why, pray tell, a Democrate [sic] and not a Republican? Keep the political polemics to a minimum [read: 0] on a non-political forum.
Besides the bombastic rhetoric he is right, technically all OS 10.x have been "upgrades" and there are a hundred different ways to skin a cat. A substantial amount of resources have gone into adding several new core features, most of which aren't aesthetic and hence are "invisible," but still nonetheless incredibly powerful and useful.
A 10.x.x release tends to be bug fixes, etc.; therein lies the difference.
...If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it...
Oooo, get you!
It's not that I don't believe you, I never implied that, it's just that I think you come across as a bit of a cock.
I asked whether Apple had charged for an upgrade before, turns out they've charged for some, not others (and thanks to Outsider and Benroethig for being helpful and trying to answer my simple question), so I don't think that it was an unreasonable question.
I've also never said that I thought Apple didn't have a right to expect payment, or that all new innovation should be given for free, or that I expect my life to improve without effort on my part, so I don't don't know why you're implying I have??; maybe to make yourself feel better by being able to talk down to somebody??
Comments
I wonder what's in store.... The US Online apple store is down
So are the danish store, I think it's Snow Leopard that's being launched, but hopefully we'll see some updated iMac's as well, let it be with Core i5 and LED displays. It would make sense for Apple to say "Experience the power of multiple cores on all Apple desktops with Snow Leopard"
Is this the first time Apple have charged for an OS upgrade?
Um, No. However, it is the first time they ever charged so little for an OS upgrade.
Um, No. However, it is the first time they ever charged so little for an OS upgrade.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
OK, I misunderstood you. I'm considering Snow Leopard more than a mere upgrade like 10.5.5 to 10.5.6. To me it's a whole new OS, less emphasized on new features and more focused on performance improvements. $30 is a great deal, IMO, for an update of this kind.
I can't recall ever being charged for an upgrade, obviously they've charged for new OSs like the jump from Tiger > Leopard, but I never paid for an upgrade; then again they don't usually give upgrade a name?? Sounds like marketing crap to me.
I don't know where you are getting your info but this is far from a simple upgrade or patch release. In many ways it represents more of an improvement than the move from Tiger to Leopard did. Can you as a user see all of those improvements, nope, but that doesn't mean they are significant.
In fact the changes in SL are so significant that it would be stupid on Apples part to not clearly distinguish between SL and Leopard. This is likely to be even more important to third party vendors that will leverage many of the new features in SL in their software. From a marketing standpoint it is far easier to say this package requires SL and above to operate. Because of the large increase in capability, this release needs a new designation to allow for clear communications of the level functionality.
Consider for a moment Linux. One could argue that Linux is nothing more than a continous upgrade of a bunch of software jumbled together. In a sense that is true, but you still have vendors packaging Linux up in tidy distributions with release numbers/names. Why do they do that, simply to have a check point of sorts that allows developers to market software against. It is far easier to say your software needs Ubuntu x.x.x to function correctly than to list all the required release numbers and patch sets. The same goes for Apple except for in this case more is happening to SL than you would get in any Ubuntu bump.
This is a key point the transition to SL is huge even if you don't notice on the surface. You are going to 64 bits, a new threading tech is coming online (GCD), a new acceleration facility comes online (OpenCL), Quicktime, Kernel improvements and massive improvements to apps throughout the system. It is assinine to call SL an upgrade, there is to much that is new. It doesn't matter that you don't grasp this either, Apple avoiding the point release is simply good communications for those that understand.
Dave
I don't know where you are getting your info but this is far from a simple upgrade or patch release. In many ways it represents more of an improvement than the move from Tiger to Leopard did....
From reading the AppleStore pre-order copy SL is described very much as an upgrade of Leopard.
When Apple have previously launched 'new' OSs, like Leopard and Tiger before it, they've made quite a song and dance about how improved it'll be, and how many great new features there'll be.
I agree that there is reported to be very great 'under-the-hood' improvements to SL, and I'm inclined to actually prefer this approach to the bell'n'whistles that work, but strain my system in doing so.
My point was that on first reading Apple seemed to be under-selling SL compared to previous releases, and the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether this is some sort of acknowledgement that SL is the OS the hype over Leopard was selling and that we all paid for; and therefore is 'just' an upgrade of Leopard, the betaOS of the one that followed Tiger.
Does that make sense??
Does that make sense??
No it doesn't make sense, rather it makes it sound like you are whinning about things you don't understand. It is a new release of Mac OS/X because there are a vast number of new features that improve the OS in multiple ways. Frankly you sound like a Democrate trying to promote something that makes no sense and they personally don't understand.
If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it.
I really fail to see the problem here. Apple has put a substantial amount of work into the NEW features in Snow Leopard, it is reasonable that they expect payment.
No it doesn't make sense, rather it makes it sound like you are whinning about things you don't understand. It is a new release of Mac OS/X because there are a vast number of new features that improve the OS in multiple ways. Frankly you sound like a Democrate trying to promote something that makes no sense and they personally don't understand.
If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it.
I really fail to see the problem here. Apple has put a substantial amount of work into the NEW features in Snow Leopard, it is reasonable that they expect payment.
Why, pray tell, a Democrate [sic] and not a Republican? Keep the political polemics to a minimum [read: 0] on a non-political forum.
Besides the bombastic rhetoric he is right, technically all OS 10.x have been "upgrades" and there are a hundred different ways to skin a cat. A substantial amount of resources have gone into adding several new core features, most of which aren't aesthetic and hence are "invisible," but still nonetheless incredibly powerful and useful.
A 10.x.x release tends to be bug fixes, etc.; therein lies the difference.
Um, No. However, it is the first time they ever charged so little for an OS upgrade.
10.1 was free. Then again 10.0 was pretty much beta 2.
frankly you sound like a democrate trying to promote something that makes no sense and they personally don't understand.
ok.
10.1 was free. Then again 10.0 was pretty much beta 2.
Yep, forgot about that one.
...If you don't want to believe me then fine, hang out with all the other poor people that think all new innovation should be given to them for free. Just don't expect your life to improve if you don't put any effort into it...
Oooo, get you!
It's not that I don't believe you, I never implied that, it's just that I think you come across as a bit of a cock.
I asked whether Apple had charged for an upgrade before, turns out they've charged for some, not others (and thanks to Outsider and Benroethig for being helpful and trying to answer my simple question), so I don't think that it was an unreasonable question.
I've also never said that I thought Apple didn't have a right to expect payment, or that all new innovation should be given for free, or that I expect my life to improve without effort on my part, so I don't don't know why you're implying I have??; maybe to make yourself feel better by being able to talk down to somebody??
10.0 > 10.1 = $0
10.1 > 10.2 = $99
10.2 > 10.3 = $129
10.3 > 10.4 = $129
10.4 > 10.5 = $129
10.5 > 10.6 = $29
So I think it breaks down like this:
10.0 > 10.1 = $0
10.1 > 10.2 = $99
10.2 > 10.3 = $129
10.3 > 10.4 = $129
10.4 > 10.5 = $129
10.5 > 10.6 = $29
10.4 > 10.6 = Not available as a standalone purchase at the present time.
Which kinda supports my earlier point that this is a departure from the normal upgrade route, doesn't it?
Nothing wrong with that of course!
Is this the first time Apple have charged for an OS upgrade?
No.. Many others need to be paid for..