Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).
It's just that I'm wondering how that guy got a retail box before it's even out!
so if i have tiger on my intel imac, i can buy the 29$ upgrade Snow leopard and use that now, do i have to wipe my mac first, or not. Seams like we don't have all the answers yet, but basically how do i go about using the 29$ snow leopard on my tiger imac?
If Apple has actually shipped a full install disc in the $29 box, I wonder why, because they could have used an upgrade-only installer script like what is probably on the $9.95 Up-To-Date discs.
My Mac was eligible for a Leopard 10.5 Up-To-Date disc because it came with Tiger after Leopard was out, and the Leopard disc I got is specially marked and will NOT install without Tiger installed. It is definitely a different script than a regular retail disc. So Apple has the enforcement tools on the shelf.
So why isn't Apple doing that, if this report is right? If Apple is not mechanically enforcing the license they're probably saying they're pleased with the success of Family Pack sales, which are not mechanically enforced either. And Family Packs DO sell well, believe it or not. Or, Apple predicts people will buy the $29 box not knowing or not caring it's supposed to be an upgrade and Apple want to avoid unhappy returns more than they want to make extra money.
Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).
Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.
But probably not.
Doubt we'll even see most of them admit they were wrong on this one. But here's your chance.
Your attack on whoever these people were are unfair. It has always been the case that Apple made upgrade-only discs for previously released systems so it was a fair assumption that they wouldn't make the $29 disc a clean installer. Anyone who applied to the up-to-date programme got a disc like that. It remains to be seen if this time the up-to-daters get the same disc as the $29 one.
Another point this article fails to make is that if Apple are saying that the $29 is licensed only for Leopard owners, Tiger owners will be breaching that. This needs to be clarified by somebody if this isn't the case.
Well, If someone wants to break the rules (EULA), than what's the point of purchasing the OS from Apple? You can just go and download it from the torrents. Either way, you're breaking EULA.
Mossberg and Pogue proved their utter incompetence in understanding licenses and software in general. How retarted is that, after 15+ years of journalism.
Hmm... Purchased Leopard Family pack for multiple Macs at home solely because the software I needed for a project at the time was written and had functionality requiring OS 10.5 or so they say.
If the above quote is true, by my calculations, purchase of the $29.00 upgrade to SL vs the Family Pack upgrade will work just fine on my multiple Macs as well as knowledge that future OS releases to be installed on family of Macs does not require Family Pack.
Way to go Apple for single handedly debunking the mythical concept of the need for the "Family Pack"!
Either that or Apple owes me a refund! Bad Apple!!
So, because in your estimation paying for the OS last time was a rip-off of some kind, you are okay with ripping them off yourself this time?
It's amazing the moral contortions on this thread this morning, and over such a small amount of money. I admire someone who just says they are going to steal it because they want to steal it, but all this twisting and turning trying to justify the process is just idiotic IMO.
If you don't want to pay, then don't pay. It's clear that Apple doesn't want to force you. I just wish people would stop trying to make out like they have some kind of moral reason for doing so if they decide to not pay for it.
Best OS money can buy, for the cheapest price on the planet.
This is, indeed, fantastic news. Let's hope Apple does not take away our ability to do this.
Of course, I am expecting my iWork '08 and iLife '08 to continue to work decently with SL; it is really unconscionable of Apple to ask me for another $130 to update software I purchased a little over a year ago.... (it is bad enough that iWork '09 is not backwards compatible.)
I think it is safe to add that there are 2 Snow Leopard DVDs ... the upgrading set and the full OS set. So, even though someone would be able to install Snow Leopard on an Intel Tiger MAC, the person better buy the full program ... the news seemed to indicate you would be able to do so with the DVD for upgrade... I don't believe you can. Please let me know if I am wrong.
GS
Yes, you are wrong, the whole point of the article is that the $29 Snow Leopard disk *is* a full install and works with anything. Yes, upgrading from Tiger works (archive & install) without wiping.
That seems like great news, as I still have a 2006 Intel 20" iMac running Tiger. It does work great, but I was really thinking about SL....
But I've got a couple of doubts.....(see if anybody can enlighten me):
1-Will it not make my iMac slower when I install the new SL, as it is a more advance software, and therefore, I imagine, using more memory, CPU, etc... (as it happens with Windows!!!). Sorry, I don't know much about the "inner bits" of how these systems work...
2- Will many programs (some paid, some freeware) already on my Mac work OK with SL, or I would have to wait until each of them release an update? (i.e. Office 2004 for Mac, PowerPoint, iToner, WMP, Toast 8,...etc...). I hope not, cause in that case, I will definitively stay with Tiger then....
3- And on slight different matter: do you people run antiviruses on your Macs? I know viruses for Macs are very rare, but they really scare the hell out of me!!! (it might be that I haven't changed the switch completely from my old Windows mind after 20 years!!, hehe). I imagine the better and more advance OS, the stronger against viruses it would be made, I hope...
Isnt Apple the single best tech company of all time?
No! HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony with their cheap plastic, creaky laptops are the best tech companies! No, wait, MS's with their XP and Vista OS's is the best tech company! No, wait, Rim, Motorola, Nokia with their substandard phones are the best tech companies.
Wait....no you are right, Apple is THE best tech company by a long shot!
I'm still on Tiger 10.4.11. When Leopard was first announced, I listened to the presentation, and decided then and there to skip Leopard altogether. And I was true to my word. However, now I need new hardware - I'm still on PPC (iBook and mini). This is where the pain starts. I don't want an iMac, because I don't want that screen, and the laptop components are not optimal. The mini is just too wimpy. The MP is way, way, too expensive. I want a desktop for about $1000. Apple doesn't make one. I'm considering a hackintosh, and hoping SL will work well on one. I'm also thinking of buying a mini after all, just to tide me over, while the hackintoshes with SL are being experimented upon... and when a good process has been worked out, I'll build one. This $29 deal only makes it easier.
If it hadn't been this way, then if you have had to wipe and reinstall, you'd have to install 10.5 first, then 10.6. This way, you can wipe and simply install 10.6. So although they really do believe the $29 price is for guys who already bought 10.5, they're not so hard-core about it that they want to sabotage your experience.
Yes, I remember an experience with an operating system that shall not be named where I got screwed by an upgrade version. The system had an OS that was an original installation, plus one upgrade installation. Running the installer of the new version, it verified that I had a previous version, then asked me if I wanted to format the disk. Of course I had everything backed up, so, I opted for the "clean install". The installer reformatted the disk, then promptly informed me that this OS could only be installed on systems with THE (not just any, but only the most recently) previous version already installed. WTF!?
So, I had to install the original version, upgrade to the next version, then, finally, upgrade to the new version. Sabotage your experience doesn't even come close to a proper description.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
My guess is that it's a honeypot for Psystar. They'll opt for the $29 copies so that they can either increase their margin/lower the price, at which point Apple will tear them a new one in court as it is a clear-cut upgrade.
Well, technically, isn't every version of Mac OS X except the one that comes with your Mac an upgrade version? So, illegal cloners can't even legally opt for the more expensive bundle.
That seems like great news, as I still have a 2006 Intel 20" iMac running Tiger. It does work great, but I was really thinking about SL....
But I've got a couple of doubts.....(see if anybody can enlighten me):
1-Will it not make my iMac slower when I install the new SL, as it is a more advance software, and therefore, I imagine, using more memory, CPU, etc... (as it happens with Windows!!!). Sorry, I don't know much about the "inner bits" of how these systems work...
2- Will many programs (some paid, some freeware) already on my Mac work OK with SL, or I would have to wait until each of them release an update? (i.e. Office 2004 for Mac, PowerPoint, iToner, WMP, Toast 8,...etc...). I hope not, cause in that case, I will definitively stay with Tiger then....
3- And on slight different matter: do you people run antiviruses on your Macs? I know viruses for Macs are very rare, but they really scare the hell out of me!!! (it might be that I haven't changed the switch completely from my old Windows mind after 20 years!!, hehe). I imagine the better and more advance OS, the stronger against viruses it would be made, I hope...
Thanks again!!
Others with more knowledge than I have will weigh in, but here's my 2¢:
1) From all that I've heard/read, it will make it faster, not slower.
2) I have some of these concerns too, since two of my machines at home are Tiger.
3) I've owned dozens of Macs since 1984, and have not bought/used anti-virus software once.
I'm still on Tiger 10.4.11. When Leopard was first announced, I listened to the presentation, and decided then and there to skip Leopard altogether. And I was true to my word. However, now I need new hardware - I'm still on PPC (iBook and mini). This is where the pain starts. I don't want an iMac, because I don't want that screen, and the laptop components are not optimal. The mini is just too wimpy. The MP is way, way, too expensive. I want a desktop for about $1000. Apple doesn't make one. I'm considering a hackintosh, and hoping SL will work well on one. I'm also thinking of buying a mini after all, just to tide me over, while the hackintoshes with SL are being experimented upon... and when a good process has been worked out, I'll build one. This $29 deal only makes it easier.
Curious as to why the mini is too wimpy.
Mine is just fine, and I only have 1 GB of RAM. SL will add the 9400M to the mix as well. Do you do a lot of Photoshop Work?
So, because in your estimation paying for the OS last time was a rip-off of some kind, you are okay with ripping them off yourself this time?
It's amazing the moral contortions on this thread this morning, and over such a small amount of money. I admire someone who just says they are going to steal it because they want to steal it, but all this twisting and turning trying to justify the process is just idiotic IMO.
If you don't want to pay, then don't pay. It's clear that Apple doesn't want to force you. I just wish people would stop trying to make out like they have some kind of moral reason for doing so if they decide to not pay for it.
Best OS money can buy, for the cheapest price on the planet.
Its also a slap in the face to a company that trusts you not to abuse that. All along you could have avoided buying the family pack, because Apple doesn't force you into it.
I'm upgrading from Tiger on the MBP and Leopard on the tower, and I did go ahead and order the Leopard box set last week to fulfill the upgrade conditions for the $29 SL upgrade. I'm glad to hear that the upgrade path will work on a clean HD with no OS, though... I bought a new HD to install on and I didn't want to have to go through an unnecessary Leopard install just to get SL running.
Kudos, Apple.
Ah, reading this article I was suddenly getting nervous that this Snow Leopard disk didn't offer clean install. Great to know that it is! Thanks!
Its also a slap in the face to a company that trusts you not to abuse that. All along you could have avoided buying the family pack, because Apple doesn't force you into it.
I think Apple's software pricing is amazing. It really encourages me to buy.
Would be sweet if Adobe had the same pricing strategy. They're the worst...
$29 Snow Leopard disk *is* a full install and works with anything.
If this is true... maybe it's because Apple is tearing a page out of Microsoft's playbook, and making a full out assault on Microsoft. With the added reports coming out of the Hackintosh arena, this is looking like a major "try it and you'll be hooked" market-share grab before Win7 officially hits the stands... and even after.
Just sayin'... and probably wrong(?) But consider:
Some of the old folks here will remember back in the day, when by design, it was MS's biz plan to get anybody, anywhere, anyhow to install Windows. They were fully aware that more than almost 70% of the installations world-wide did not have a valid license to go with them. Here in Germany up until I believe Win2000 and XP, it was estimated that over 40% of businesses did not have proper volume licenses, and a number of big companies were even taken to court over the fact.
The bummer to this story, is that at some point in time, as MS did, Apple will add a chip, or something to varify "legal" installs. Naturally, only a bummer if you're a hacker, cheap-skate, thief... or all of the above.
If for no other reason, Apple's just being cool to it's user-base... that's pretty commendable by itself IMHO.
Regardless, I can't wait til tomorrow when the post arrives, since I received the confirm a couple of hours ago... "Snow Kitty is on it's way" ))
Wait, are they absolutely sure? Because according to a lot of people on the internets, Apple is this evil corporation that is only out to make money and will screw everyone out of their money at any chance they get. So, I'm thinking the reviewers didn't get the actual release install DVD.
Anyway, I'm still going to get the Mac Box Set, due to the fact that my iLife is from '06 and iWork is from '05! I think they both need a bit of updating.
Comments
Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).
It's just that I'm wondering how that guy got a retail box before it's even out!
Not arguing with you, but it seems odd to me if this is the case. This was the perfect moment to do something that would make it harder!
it will take a few weeks to find out why, but supposedly the new Mac Pro's are what make it possible
My Mac was eligible for a Leopard 10.5 Up-To-Date disc because it came with Tiger after Leopard was out, and the Leopard disc I got is specially marked and will NOT install without Tiger installed. It is definitely a different script than a regular retail disc. So Apple has the enforcement tools on the shelf.
So why isn't Apple doing that, if this report is right? If Apple is not mechanically enforcing the license they're probably saying they're pleased with the success of Family Pack sales, which are not mechanically enforced either. And Family Packs DO sell well, believe it or not. Or, Apple predicts people will buy the $29 box not knowing or not caring it's supposed to be an upgrade and Apple want to avoid unhappy returns more than they want to make extra money.
Thank goodness this is finally cleared up (although we really knew yesterday with the story from Spain, although MR totally didn't report about the installation).
Maybe now all the douchebags who insisted that it absolutely wouldn't install without 10.5 already on the disk ("but it's an UPGRADE"!) based on absolutely nothing but their own hunches and wild speculation will learn to keep their yaps shut instead of trying to pass off their worthless opinions as fact.
But probably not.
Doubt we'll even see most of them admit they were wrong on this one. But here's your chance.
Your attack on whoever these people were are unfair. It has always been the case that Apple made upgrade-only discs for previously released systems so it was a fair assumption that they wouldn't make the $29 disc a clean installer. Anyone who applied to the up-to-date programme got a disc like that. It remains to be seen if this time the up-to-daters get the same disc as the $29 one.
Another point this article fails to make is that if Apple are saying that the $29 is licensed only for Leopard owners, Tiger owners will be breaching that. This needs to be clarified by somebody if this isn't the case.
Mossberg and Pogue proved their utter incompetence in understanding licenses and software in general. How retarted is that, after 15+ years of journalism.
Hmm... Purchased Leopard Family pack for multiple Macs at home solely because the software I needed for a project at the time was written and had functionality requiring OS 10.5 or so they say.
If the above quote is true, by my calculations, purchase of the $29.00 upgrade to SL vs the Family Pack upgrade will work just fine on my multiple Macs as well as knowledge that future OS releases to be installed on family of Macs does not require Family Pack.
Way to go Apple for single handedly debunking the mythical concept of the need for the "Family Pack"!
Either that or Apple owes me a refund! Bad Apple!!
So, because in your estimation paying for the OS last time was a rip-off of some kind, you are okay with ripping them off yourself this time?
It's amazing the moral contortions on this thread this morning, and over such a small amount of money. I admire someone who just says they are going to steal it because they want to steal it, but all this twisting and turning trying to justify the process is just idiotic IMO.
If you don't want to pay, then don't pay. It's clear that Apple doesn't want to force you. I just wish people would stop trying to make out like they have some kind of moral reason for doing so if they decide to not pay for it.
Best OS money can buy, for the cheapest price on the planet.
Of course, I am expecting my iWork '08 and iLife '08 to continue to work decently with SL; it is really unconscionable of Apple to ask me for another $130 to update software I purchased a little over a year ago.... (it is bad enough that iWork '09 is not backwards compatible.)
I think it is safe to add that there are 2 Snow Leopard DVDs ... the upgrading set and the full OS set. So, even though someone would be able to install Snow Leopard on an Intel Tiger MAC, the person better buy the full program ... the news seemed to indicate you would be able to do so with the DVD for upgrade... I don't believe you can. Please let me know if I am wrong.
GS
Yes, you are wrong, the whole point of the article is that the $29 Snow Leopard disk *is* a full install and works with anything. Yes, upgrading from Tiger works (archive & install) without wiping.
But I've got a couple of doubts.....(see if anybody can enlighten me):
1-Will it not make my iMac slower when I install the new SL, as it is a more advance software, and therefore, I imagine, using more memory, CPU, etc... (as it happens with Windows!!!). Sorry, I don't know much about the "inner bits" of how these systems work...
2- Will many programs (some paid, some freeware) already on my Mac work OK with SL, or I would have to wait until each of them release an update? (i.e. Office 2004 for Mac, PowerPoint, iToner, WMP, Toast 8,...etc...). I hope not, cause in that case, I will definitively stay with Tiger then....
3- And on slight different matter: do you people run antiviruses on your Macs? I know viruses for Macs are very rare, but they really scare the hell out of me!!! (it might be that I haven't changed the switch completely from my old Windows mind after 20 years!!, hehe). I imagine the better and more advance OS, the stronger against viruses it would be made, I hope...
Thanks again!!
Isnt Apple the single best tech company of all time?
No! HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony with their cheap plastic, creaky laptops are the best tech companies! No, wait, MS's with their XP and Vista OS's is the best tech company! No, wait, Rim, Motorola, Nokia with their substandard phones are the best tech companies.
Wait....no you are right, Apple is THE best tech company by a long shot!
If it hadn't been this way, then if you have had to wipe and reinstall, you'd have to install 10.5 first, then 10.6. This way, you can wipe and simply install 10.6. So although they really do believe the $29 price is for guys who already bought 10.5, they're not so hard-core about it that they want to sabotage your experience.
Yes, I remember an experience with an operating system that shall not be named where I got screwed by an upgrade version. The system had an OS that was an original installation, plus one upgrade installation. Running the installer of the new version, it verified that I had a previous version, then asked me if I wanted to format the disk. Of course I had everything backed up, so, I opted for the "clean install". The installer reformatted the disk, then promptly informed me that this OS could only be installed on systems with THE (not just any, but only the most recently) previous version already installed. WTF!?
So, I had to install the original version, upgrade to the next version, then, finally, upgrade to the new version. Sabotage your experience doesn't even come close to a proper description.
My guess is that it's a honeypot for Psystar. They'll opt for the $29 copies so that they can either increase their margin/lower the price, at which point Apple will tear them a new one in court as it is a clear-cut upgrade.
Well, technically, isn't every version of Mac OS X except the one that comes with your Mac an upgrade version? So, illegal cloners can't even legally opt for the more expensive bundle.
That seems like great news, as I still have a 2006 Intel 20" iMac running Tiger. It does work great, but I was really thinking about SL....
But I've got a couple of doubts.....(see if anybody can enlighten me):
1-Will it not make my iMac slower when I install the new SL, as it is a more advance software, and therefore, I imagine, using more memory, CPU, etc... (as it happens with Windows!!!). Sorry, I don't know much about the "inner bits" of how these systems work...
2- Will many programs (some paid, some freeware) already on my Mac work OK with SL, or I would have to wait until each of them release an update? (i.e. Office 2004 for Mac, PowerPoint, iToner, WMP, Toast 8,...etc...). I hope not, cause in that case, I will definitively stay with Tiger then....
3- And on slight different matter: do you people run antiviruses on your Macs? I know viruses for Macs are very rare, but they really scare the hell out of me!!! (it might be that I haven't changed the switch completely from my old Windows mind after 20 years!!, hehe). I imagine the better and more advance OS, the stronger against viruses it would be made, I hope...
Thanks again!!
Others with more knowledge than I have will weigh in, but here's my 2¢:
1) From all that I've heard/read, it will make it faster, not slower.
2) I have some of these concerns too, since two of my machines at home are Tiger.
3) I've owned dozens of Macs since 1984, and have not bought/used anti-virus software once.
I'm still on Tiger 10.4.11. When Leopard was first announced, I listened to the presentation, and decided then and there to skip Leopard altogether. And I was true to my word. However, now I need new hardware - I'm still on PPC (iBook and mini). This is where the pain starts. I don't want an iMac, because I don't want that screen, and the laptop components are not optimal. The mini is just too wimpy. The MP is way, way, too expensive. I want a desktop for about $1000. Apple doesn't make one. I'm considering a hackintosh, and hoping SL will work well on one. I'm also thinking of buying a mini after all, just to tide me over, while the hackintoshes with SL are being experimented upon... and when a good process has been worked out, I'll build one. This $29 deal only makes it easier.
Curious as to why the mini is too wimpy.
Mine is just fine, and I only have 1 GB of RAM. SL will add the 9400M to the mix as well. Do you do a lot of Photoshop Work?
So, because in your estimation paying for the OS last time was a rip-off of some kind, you are okay with ripping them off yourself this time?
It's amazing the moral contortions on this thread this morning, and over such a small amount of money. I admire someone who just says they are going to steal it because they want to steal it, but all this twisting and turning trying to justify the process is just idiotic IMO.
If you don't want to pay, then don't pay. It's clear that Apple doesn't want to force you. I just wish people would stop trying to make out like they have some kind of moral reason for doing so if they decide to not pay for it.
Best OS money can buy, for the cheapest price on the planet.
Its also a slap in the face to a company that trusts you not to abuse that. All along you could have avoided buying the family pack, because Apple doesn't force you into it.
I'm upgrading from Tiger on the MBP and Leopard on the tower, and I did go ahead and order the Leopard box set last week to fulfill the upgrade conditions for the $29 SL upgrade. I'm glad to hear that the upgrade path will work on a clean HD with no OS, though... I bought a new HD to install on and I didn't want to have to go through an unnecessary Leopard install just to get SL running.
Kudos, Apple.
Ah, reading this article I was suddenly getting nervous that this Snow Leopard disk didn't offer clean install. Great to know that it is! Thanks!
Its also a slap in the face to a company that trusts you not to abuse that. All along you could have avoided buying the family pack, because Apple doesn't force you into it.
I think Apple's software pricing is amazing. It really encourages me to buy.
Would be sweet if Adobe had the same pricing strategy. They're the worst...
If this is true... maybe it's because Apple is tearing a page out of Microsoft's playbook, and making a full out assault on Microsoft. With the added reports coming out of the Hackintosh arena, this is looking like a major "try it and you'll be hooked" market-share grab before Win7 officially hits the stands... and even after.
Just sayin'... and probably wrong(?) But consider:
Some of the old folks here will remember back in the day, when by design, it was MS's biz plan to get anybody, anywhere, anyhow to install Windows. They were fully aware that more than almost 70% of the installations world-wide did not have a valid license to go with them. Here in Germany up until I believe Win2000 and XP, it was estimated that over 40% of businesses did not have proper volume licenses, and a number of big companies were even taken to court over the fact.
The bummer to this story, is that at some point in time, as MS did, Apple will add a chip, or something to varify "legal" installs. Naturally, only a bummer if you're a hacker, cheap-skate, thief... or all of the above.
If for no other reason, Apple's just being cool to it's user-base... that's pretty commendable by itself IMHO.
Regardless, I can't wait til tomorrow when the post arrives, since I received the confirm a couple of hours ago... "Snow Kitty is on it's way"
Anyway, I'm still going to get the Mac Box Set, due to the fact that my iLife is from '06 and iWork is from '05! I think they both need a bit of updating.