So that’s why it only costs $29

Last Saturday, I decided to head down to my local Apple reseller and grab a copy of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. The new operating system costs €29 here in France, but the clerk told me that, because of a fault in the store’s pricing database, I would only be charged €28.99. Had I been in America, a different clerk would have asked me for $29.

The French clerk and I quipped about buying coffee with the extra cent while the credit card transaction cleared, and I left with a small white box inside of a disturbingly feminine red paper bag. A bit of mandatory Saturday grocery shopping later, I was back at home with the Snow Leopard DVD spinning away in my aluminum MacBook. Trademarks and buzzwords flashed through my head as the installer did its thing—OpenCL, Grand Central, 64-bit, QuickTime X. Having just finished reviewing Windows 7, I was eager to sample Apple’s comeback.

Well, here I am now writing this blog post on my freshly upgraded MacBook, and I can’t say €28.99 is quite the bargain I thought it was. As a matter of fact, I almost feel the same subtle tingling of buyer’s remorse I did nine years ago after paying £15 (if I recall correctly) for the original Mac OS X Public Beta. Snow Leopard isn’t bad or unusable like the Public Beta; I just don’t quite feel I got my money’s worth.

When I wrote about Snow Leopard pricing in our news section last week, I said the $29 fee was well below what Microsoft charges for Windows 7. Oh, sure, a few early adopters got to pre-order Windows 7 Home Premium for 50 bucks, but on October 22, that same upgrade will set you back $120, and a non-upgrade license will cost $200. In the same news post, I attributed Snow Leopard’s low price to the fact that Apple already sells the only computers capable of running the OS legally and easily. There’s an element of that, definitely, but I now see another side to it.

Generally speaking, Snow Leopard looks, feels, and behaves almost exactly like Leopard. A few things here and there have changed, of course. Popping open the System Monitor shows most system apps running in 64-bit mode, Exposé now stacks windows neatly, and QuickTime X has a swanky new interface. The system feels ever so slightly snappier overall, as well, and Apple has thrown in little tweaks and fixes all over the place, like an option to minimize windows inside their application icons in the Dock.

But whether you’re moving files around in the Finder, surfing the web, using Spotlight to find an application or file, copying files across the network, or changing system preferences, you may have to keep reminding yourself what OS you’re using. And no, Safari 4 doesn’t count; it’s been available for Leopard for months.

Apple still hasn’t implemented a package manager to deal with apps that come inside .pkg installers. QuickTime still doesn’t play DivX out of the box, unlike Windows Media Player 12. The Finder still feels weak and stripped-down compared to Windows 7’s Explorer—it still doesn’t remember folder view settings unless you force it to, it still truncates file names in an odd way (by showing the start then the end with an ellipsis in between), and the Cover Flow view mode is still completely pointless, especially with regular icons scalable up to 512×512. Oh, but inexplicably, the Finder now computes file sizes in base 10 like hard drive vendors, which is sure to confuse anyone who regularly swaps files between Mac OS and Windows machines. Great.

Window management still feels a little disjointed, too. As I said above, a new option lets you minimize windows into the application icon, but hovering over that icon doesn’t show thumbnails like in Windows 7. Instead, you can click-and-hold, which lets you pick a window in a single-app Exposé view; you can right-click, which shows the apps in a menu; or you can trigger Exposé, which shows all active windows at the top and minimized windows in a single row at the bottom. I love Exposé, but I wish Apple would revamp window management instead of tacking more and more little features and options on top of each other.

Snow Leopard doesn’t assuage my gripes, but then again, it was never meant to be about dazzling users with new and exciting interface changes. Most of the improvements, which our friend Jason Fox summed up in his blog last week, lie under the hood.

It’s a bit like if Microsoft released Windows Vista in 2003 as a $50 upgrade with almost nothing but core changes like DirectX 10, consumer 64-bit support, SuperFetch, the new networking stack, and so on. Microsoft could have then released Windows 7 in 2006 with the same underlying features and all of the shiny, dazzling additions like Aero, the new bundled applications, instant search, etc.

Similarly, I expect Apple will use Snow Leopard as a springboard for a future OS X release with more visible changes. In Vista’s case, we all saw that too much ambition can lead to disaster—Microsoft had to start development over from scratch half-way through, and it’s fair to say the final product wasn’t very well-received overall. I therefore think Apple deserves some credit for making 10.6 more of a maintenance release. Some users may not like it, but I bet they’d be even less happy about waiting longer for a more groundbreaking release with less polish, poorer compatibility, and a higher price tag.

That said, if you plunk down your $29 expecting a Windows 7-style leap at a discount, prepare to be disappointed.

Comments closed
    • v nasti nate v
    • 10 years ago

    To compare Windows 7 and Mac side by side and say Windows 7 is equal or better then Snow Leopard, is just ignorant. Mac OSX Snow is much more then a lot of people think it is. For an every day user who surfs the web, does email and watches the odd DVD, you won’t notice any difference from Leopard. Sure theres a few visible changes like the App Menu and some applications, but otherwise it does seem like a waste of money. The only times you will notice any change between the two OS’s is when you get into massive file transfers and actual system coding. You may notice with CS4 and other large apps, they will run smoother. This is depending on what your doing also. Try loading a 500 MB After Effects file on both and you will notice the change. Also you will notice your computer will boot faster. I personally boot in 6 seconds, but thats also from some adjustments to the system that aren’t impossible for anyone to do.

    Basicly if you are looking for something new, your not gonna get it. If you push you mac to its limits, you will notice a more stable, faster running system.

    • jackaroon
    • 10 years ago

    Does anyone know if there’s a way (a legal way) to go from 10.4 -> 10.6 for less than $169? I’m hoping I’m misinterpreting the license terms, or just missing something.

      • Forge
      • 10 years ago

      Asked Apple, 10.4 Tiger to 10.6 SL is still upgrade. Grab the 29$ kit.

        • SNM
        • 10 years ago

        Really? All the web sites I quoted Apple as saying Tiger users needed to buy the Box Set.

          • thecoldanddarkone
          • 10 years ago

          Format the drive, problem fixed.

            • SNM
            • 10 years ago

            Oh, it installs fine over Tiger; it’s just against the EULA. Or so I’ve heard.

    • UberGerbil
    • 10 years ago

    So TG Daily is claiming there are some app compatibility issues
    §[<http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/43837/140/<]§ That goes along with any new OS release, but I'm wondering they're as significant for real users as they seem to want to make it sound.

    • Goty
    • 10 years ago

    l[

      • soccergenius
      • 10 years ago

      I’m pretty sure he wrote that because even with exchange rates being different, it costs $29 in the USA.

      • WillBach
      • 10 years ago

      Maybe the bug that altered the price was France specific?

      • Cyril
      • 10 years ago

      Please explain. Why is it somehow irrelevant and immature to point out the U.S. price after quoting the French price?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      Well since he’s in France and paid the equivalent of ~$42 I think it’s a pretty valid point. If he’d paid an equivalent to what we pay in USD, it might have been more worth the while. That would have saved him around

    • wiak
    • 10 years ago

    isnt snow leopard just a service pack?
    just like Vista > Vista SP1 >

      • DaveJB
      • 10 years ago

      Or Windows 98 > Windows 98SE which, if you remember, Microsoft charged a similar price for.

      • Hattig
      • 10 years ago

      Yawn, troll.

      In fact, this is what a proper OS upgrade is. A full under the covers enhancement to enable the next generation of applications to benefit from the next (and some current) generation of hardware. Read the Ars review to see why that’s important and why this is a full OS release. It’s cheap because users won’t really benefit from applications using this for several months, maybe even a year. Hence the on-the-surface improvements like a smaller install, exchange support out of the box (not bad for $29, if you need it) and Quicktime X (although that’s the first step in many in overhauling Quicktime for the future).

      Vista likewise was a proper OS upgrade. DirectX 10, new driver model, desktop compositing engine, etc. Sure, the desktop also looked different, but that’s not what makes for a full OS upgrade.

      What does Windows 7 add under the covers? Seriously, I don’t know, all I’ve heard about is the Taskdock/Dockbar and tab/window previews.

    • Mac+windows
    • 10 years ago

    I use and really like BOTH, Mac OSX and Windows 7.
    I feel like I got every penny out of my 29 bucks. So i didn’t get a fancy new UI. What I did get out of it was: faster boot and shutdown time, my whole system is faster launching programs, more responsive.
    The install gave me back 8 Gigs of hard drive space. I won’t even go into all the under the hood improvements, there are plenty of articles on that point already.
    Here is one thing I do like. I can afford $30 for an upgrade. Btw, this is an upgrade, but the disc is a FULL OS. You can wipe the drive and install SL.
    Think about it, if apple gives me a full OS over 4 $30 upgrades, then I’m still saving over buying one full $200 copy of the Vista-should-have-been we call 7.
    I do love my Mac, but I like Windows just as well. Vista was dirt when it came out, but by the end, it was a good OS: solid, stable, worked very well on my PC. I have been using 7 since the day beta came out. It’s an Excellent OS, plan to buy it as well. But, I build my computers, so I am stuck paying $200 for a full retail copy…. or call that 6.6 OSX ” upgrades ” …

      • Convert
      • 10 years ago

      q[

        • SNM
        • 10 years ago

        10.6 also installs a lot less files, uses smaller binaries, etc. Yes, the move to base-10 disk size measurements is part of it but there’s also a [i]significant[/i] difference in install size. I regrettably didn’t check my free space before upgrading, but I believe it was about 23 Gigibytes on my 120Gigabyte drive; now it’s over a third empty. IIRC the number I saw in some review was 6gigs for 10.6 instead of 14 for 10.5 — this is achieved by cutting out the PowerPC binaries for everything, using more data compression everywhere, and installing a shit-ton less printer drivers. Check out the Ars review for details.

          • Convert
          • 10 years ago

          I stand corrected.

          Ars says there is a savings of 10.9GB for a fresh install.

            • shaq_mobile
            • 10 years ago

            holy alaskan artichokes, you SAVE 11gb from upgrading the OS? did it leave some form of package files lying around after the install or something? how the heck does an os (or anything) have 11gb of fat to shed?

            • nexxcat
            • 10 years ago

            By ditching support for PPC, it no longer installs the 32bit and 64bit PPC binaries, libraries, etc.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            that’s only part of the savings. The Ars review shows how things are compressed as well, including a larger savings. Trading a few CPU cycles for fewer I/O transactions helps when your CPU is so much faster than your HDD.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          Actually, wouldn’t the move to base-10 disk measurements make the file sizes increase?

          You’ll see more “free” but you’ll also see more “used” because a GB is smaller now.

          The only thing that’d stay the same is the percent free, and from what I understand is that the percentage free actually does go up.

    • leor
    • 10 years ago

    There’s a such thing as an anti fanboy too, and that’s what most of you sound like. At the very least you should get simple numbers right like the frequency of OS releases from apple and what MSFT has been charging for windows all these years.

    I didn’t even get my first mac till a year and a half ago and I know all that stuff.

    I actually wish MSFT would release an update like this. A simple performance/under the hood upgrade without loads of crap and bloatware and a new, more irritating way for me to navigate my machine.

    I’m looking forward to windows 7 not because it looks so awesome, but so i can get back some of the more simple and straight forward experience I had on XP without using a 9 year old OS.

    • Shining Arcanine
    • 10 years ago

    Why does the interface need to be new in a new OS release?

    Why not just have the same interface? If it worked before, it should work now.

    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 10 years ago

    Since ZFS isn’t in this version – when does it come?

    I don’t like several things about macs but often have to use them. HFS+ is one of them. The UI being the other most major irritant.

    • jdaven
    • 10 years ago

    I think this summary of the Arstechnica article gives a good future path for Mac OS X.

    §[<http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/01/detailed-technical-look-at-mac-os-x-10-6-snow-leopard/<]§ A sort of intel-like tick-tock strategy where a major OS release is followed by a minor architectural change OS release that will prepare for the next major OS release and so on. I agree with the author that this would be a good strategy and bring the overall cost of Mac OS X to $158 over 4 years.

    • PerfectCr
    • 10 years ago

    §[<http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars<]§ 23 Page Review of Snow Leopard. Sorry Cyril, you're a great reporter, but I think I trust this review better than this short blog.

      • bdwilcox
      • 10 years ago

      It’s funny you reference that Ars article because the gist of it is that the Snow Leopard release is really designed not for the end user, but to herd developers in the direction Apple wants them to go. So you just shelled out $30 to pay for Apple’s developer relations.

        • tay
        • 10 years ago

        No toolbox. You can now enjoy applications developed with the techhnologies like grandcentral dispatch. I think $30 is a decent enough price.

        • SNM
        • 10 years ago

        Maybe if you’re a moron that’s what you read. I wish I were an OS X developer just so I could use all the excellent new APIs in Snow Leopard — and when people see the Snow Leopard-only apps coming out they’ll know why they plunked down their $29.
        Not to mention the minor but useful and sensible enhancements sprinkled throughout the OS. Seriously, people get angry that Microsoft changes their interface and user guidelines with every major release and then laugh at an Apple release that doesn’t? A lot of these APIs are at least as important as DX10 was.

          • bdwilcox
          • 10 years ago

          Maybe if you’re a moron you’ll happily pay for it. Did you ever pay for a .Net framework? How about Visual Basic runtimes? MDAC components? Didn’t think so. But Apple makes you pay for the privilege of supporting their development environments. If you think that’s a smart strategy, take a look at the history of OS/2. Microsoft easily won that war by enthusiastically supporting the developers and the end users free of charge.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 10 years ago

            You’re comparing two completely different philosophies behind each company.

            Microsoft’s target is developers (that end up targetting some form of customer) and they do this VERY well. They end up giving away a significant chunk of tools so that they can keep the developers in their pocket. The strategy has worked out for many years and I don’t think they’ll shift from it.

            Apple’s target is consumers (everyone knows this). $29, even for a minor upgrade is a pretty good deal when apps start coming down. $29 is a full install of a newer OS! No license restrictions, no upgrade restrictions, etc — a complete install for $29. You’re up to date with the latest/greatest with the potential to use some pretty slick apps.

            Looking at the history of both of these companies, they are doing exactly the same thing they’ve been doing for a long time. Microsoft will be #1 in OS installs for a long time and Apple will be #1 at being Apple.

            You can bet the next version of their iLife suite will slam hard on Grand Central and OpenCL. For those with the OpenCL devices, *they* will get big benefits from these upgraded applications.

          • OneArmedScissor
          • 10 years ago

          lol DX10 was utterly useless.

            • odizzido
            • 10 years ago

            It was good for making crysis run badly….oh…wait…that’s a bad thing.

      • phez
      • 10 years ago

      Joke post? 18 pages of developer related pages that I couldn’t give two shits about as an end user? The remaining pages are more helpful but it turns sour when macfans grapple onto quotes such as:

      /[

        • derFunkenstein
        • 10 years ago

        It’s amazing what people think belong in an OS these days. The OS is just meant to lay down the foundation for development. The fact that the interface doesn’t change much is a VERY good thing.

        The differences between Win98 and Win2k, for example, are mostly this sort of thing. The interface is mostly the same and the underpinnings are what change. That’s good if the interface is solid, which Leopard is.

          • bdwilcox
          • 10 years ago

          *[<"The fact that the interface doesn't change much is a VERY good thing."<]* Please forward this comment to Microsoft immediately concerning Windows and Office. I would appreciate it more than you could imagine.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            LOL I understand your frustration. Especially about Office.

    • dragmor
    • 10 years ago

    Ok, how many people upgrade the OS or other software on an existing PC?

    I’m guessing less than 0.01%?

      • v nasti nate v
      • 10 years ago

      About 90 percent of people upgrade. The ones who don’t are the people who complain how slow their computer is. We all know those people.

    • Valhalla926
    • 10 years ago

    This is exactly how Windows 7 seems to me. A new name and some new glossy bits, but nothing so revolutionary I have to have it right now.

    I’ll get it the next time I get a new computer, I guess, but I’m not going out of my way for it right now.

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      Next time you’ll buy a pc, they won’t let you any choice. You’ll HAVE TO buy W7.

        • tfp
        • 10 years ago

        well yes he still has a choice, for example he could just install his current OS on the new PC and retire the old one.

          • PeterD
          • 10 years ago

          Provided he does not have such a damn preinstalled OEM version.

      • flip-mode
      • 10 years ago

      7 is more revolutionary than Vista, IMO, while not being nearly as disruptive.

        • ludi
        • 10 years ago

        Shoreally you meant “more refined”?

        “More revolutionary” would suggest that Win7 is a greater revision over its predecessor Vista than Vista was over its predecessor XP, which seems like an odd thing to say.

    • silent ninjah
    • 10 years ago

    I would just like to chuckle at the fact that I pre-ordered the full version of windows 7 Home Premium E for a massive £45.

    Mwahaha.

    • adisor19
    • 10 years ago

    For anyone interested in what exaclty is OS X 10.6 and what it will do for you, you should read the Ars Technica review by John Siracusa.

    In fact, i suggest you read all his reviews of OS X starting with the Public Beta of OS X 10.0 to see how much this os has evolved in such a short span of time. Compare that with how much windows has evolved in the same span of time and i think you may be end up a bit surprised.

    Adi

      • Convert
      • 10 years ago

      Not really, I did a time line of when OSX and XP were both released up to the point vista was released. This also included prices a person would pay over that period of time for the OS.

      The surprising thing was they were extremely close in feature and add on application releases. Though Apple was clearly far more consistent with the releases than Microsoft to the core operating system.

      The biggest surprise? If you didn’t buy a computer in that time frame other than your initial purchase of a system with XP and a system with OSX 10.0 you paid about $330 MORE with the Mac when everything was said and done with. If we update this with Windows 7 and 10.6 it is $140 more expensive.

      Of course this wouldn’t really be realistic since no one would keep a system that long. One would have to work out some more numbers based on the average life of a system.

      My quip about the service pack was mostly a joke because given what I found it shows that what Apple excels at in initial OS prices they lose ground with charging for releases like this. Point being it doesn’t matter that Apple charges because the initial purchase is much cheaper, and over a period of time that really balances itself out between the two operating systems.

      This of course didn’t take into account the family pack that Apple has offered all this time which is frankly an unbeatable deal.

      • sweatshopking
      • 10 years ago

      man you sure love them apples dont you? hey if it works for you great.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    Steve Jobs doesn’t care about Mac people.

    ;D

    No but seriously it won’t surprise me going forward if Macs get less and less attention from Apple. They dropped ‘Computer’ from the corporate name for gosh sakes. It’s all about the iThings now (the iMac doesn’t count as iStuff) which have been great for Apple as a company and is certainly a growth area going forward more so than desktops or even laptops but that means less attention for Macs. Sure they’ll still have them and promote them but there will be less resources put in to Macs for their own sake.

      • Convert
      • 10 years ago

      That is not necessarily true.

      If Apple is bringing in more money there is no reason why they wouldn’t hire more people to give attention to products.

      However one could say the more diversified Apple’s lineup is the less time The Almighty One has to mold it from the clay or from the dust of the earth, I can’t remember what it says in the good book of the Steve.

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        I understand a somewhat diverse company can use profits in one area to fund another but a well run company, which Apple appears to be, will put money where it will get the best ROI. iThings are that place, not Macs, except for as a facilitator for iThings.

          • Convert
          • 10 years ago

          Yes but I think what is being missed is that Apple won’t take away from Mac’s.

          Think of it this way, if they put the same % of money they get from profits into Macs as they do to iThings then it is business as usual. After all, with a 100% Mac business they put 100% into the Macs 🙂 If 50% is now Mac and 50% iThings (wild guesses) then 100% of the mac R&D is still 100% money to be used for mac development.

          That isn’t exactly as clear as I would like but what you are saying is essentially true, more money will go to the products with the best ROI but that doesn’t mean Mac’s will suffer because they are still selling (growing in fact).

      • syadasti
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah in Snow Leopard, as usual for Apple, its old software/hardware that Windows/Linux has had for ages. Big names in Apple software like Adobe are behind in features/version in major software like Photoshop cause they waited for Apple to catch up (the proper 64-bit support finally in SL for example). GPGPU computing premiered with AMD and Microsoft back at least 3 years ago (I’ll admit, an OpenCL standard is nice, but GPGPU computing is not even close to new)

      They are touting WoWLAN like its new, its from 2006! The older Intel 3945 WiFi chipset and XP even support it if you are talking Intel WiFi chipsets that works even. If Apple cared about their users instead of profits, they add the feature to their older hardware users (see requirements OSX requirements for WoWLAN – its the newer generations only and you must use SL – they should add it to 10.4!)

      Intel gave it to XP ages ago:

      §[<http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/resources/doc_library/tech_brief/wowlan_tech_brief.pdf<]§ §[<http://www.intel.com/support/wireless/wlan/sb/CS-029827.htm<]§ Once again Apple is way behind implementing features hardware has had for a while like fast switching notebook GPUs without logging out - available in Windows for a while, still not in OSX SL. And Adi is smoking crack if he thinks the free service packs which add often add significant changes in Windows are comparable to small free updates Apple releases. Apple also has the nerve to charge for firmware updates for features the hardware already supports like Wifi upgrades, iPod Touch/iPhone changes, etc. Most non-Apple hardware vendors give them out for free. Dlink has add tons of significant free features to the popular DIR655 and linksys is famous for their open source Linux based router that users can mod to their content without worrying about Linksys squashing it with a software update or legal challenge. RIM gives out all their OS updates for free - you can even install firmware from other carriers with free download off their website rather than carrier direct if your carrier is slow. Third party apps were a party of RIM's model from the beginning. You don't need some arbitrary arcane approval process, no central app store, or no iTune bloatware. RIM OS works just like any normal computer with Windows or OSX - anyone can develop and release however they want and its always been that way. Think different, think again:p

        • tay
        • 10 years ago

        Sorry I have never seen this feature working in a real world environment. Maybe its possible but I’ve never seen it work. Hell the Zotac boards didnt have wake on USB implemented right…

          • syadasti
          • 10 years ago

          Works fine, just need the proper configuration – on Intel chipset 3945 or higher, proper bios support (may not be implemented in some older consumer products), version 10.1 or higher Intel wifi software, and router support. Been using it forever with Dell Latitude. Just cause you don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean anything.

          The fast switching on GPUs in notebooks (which is useful for a much larger set of notebook users), has been working on PCs for a long time too – its still not supported in OSX…

      • KoolAidMan
      • 10 years ago

      The Mac has been the most profitable part of their business for years now. More revenue than iPods, more revenue than iPhones. The iPhone will continue to make more and more for the company but in order for it to match the profits that Macs bring it is going to have to sell /[

        • MadManOriginal
        • 10 years ago

        I’ll have to look up the exact numbers, it could be that Macs are more important financially, but that doesn’t make Apple’s resurgence any less iStuff dependent. I also wanted to use the line ‘Steve Jobs doesn’t care about Mac people’ and put something behind it but it looks like people didn’t get the joke or ignored it :p

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      This is in part why I jumped off the Apple cart (wah-wah-waaaaahhh!) when I did. It’s obvious to me that they’re turning everything they make into an iPod. If I wanted an iPod for a computer, I’d buy an iPhone.

      • eitje
      • 10 years ago

      q[

    • Convert
    • 10 years ago

    $29 is a lot to pay for a service pack.

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      Not as much as what MS is charing for -[

        • Convert
        • 10 years ago

        Oh no, good brother, you see Windows 7 is a major change! Oh yes, not only are there UI tweaks but major under the hood changes and included features. It is well worth the price for everything it offers.

        /adi mode

        Seriously though, Windows 7 is a rather big jump. Not as dramatic as xp to vista but the price of an upgrade is justified given what it adds.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          You know, it’s actually Apples FAULT that you believe it to be a service pack; their giant WWDC slide that said “0 NEW FEATURES!” was kind of dangerous on their part.

          When there are apps produced that only work on Snow Leopard (either because they use a new API or use the new compilers, or whatever) you’ll have to upgrade and they’ll eventually get your money. If you’re happy with Leopard, it’s not like it quit working last Friday, though.

            • Convert
            • 10 years ago

            Hey man, I’m just kidding anyways. As I said back in #18 it really doesn’t matter what they charge because things even out over time given the two totally different approaches to releases and pricing.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            oh, my bad. I thought you were serious. And I can understand why someone would say that in all seriousness.

        • Corrado
        • 10 years ago

        But every bit as much as Apple has charged for EVERY other point release for OS X. Wanna go from Tiger to Leopard? $130. Now they release a service pack for $30 and at first people hailed them for it. Now they’re going, ‘Really? I had to PAY for this? Like I had to PAY for wifi drivers? and like i had to PAY for a mobile device firmware upgrade?’

        With that said, I plunked down my $29 yesteday.

          • Hattig
          • 10 years ago

          Reading the Ars Technica review, I am convinced that “service pack” is exactly what it isn’t. What it is, is a proper OS revision that does OS-ey things like add facilities for developers to create better applications, which the user benefits from. That is the main point of an OS, and after a while you do run out of things to improve/add relating to the window/application/preferences/etc management.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 10 years ago

            Yeah, it’s amazing what people think an OS does. An OS doesn’t surf the internet or play back media; it facilitates all that stuff. The sheer amount of “facilitating” going on here is mind-boggling, and as usual John Siracusa makes it fairly easy for me to at least get the Core Concept (Core Foundation pun intended) down.

    • adisor19
    • 10 years ago

    l[

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      Vista more or less remembers where you were in a folder when you use the forward and back arrow in explorer 😉

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      g{

        • Fighterpilot
        • 10 years ago

        Oh really…damn who knew…for those of us who have gracefully moved up to Windows 7 from Vista could you make a list of those “breakages” so I can avoid them?

          • derFunkenstein
          • 10 years ago

          There are plenty listed in threads you’ve posted in, in the forums. The “best and worst” of Win7, Meadows’ thread about interface backpedalling (using words rather than icons, which slows down recognition), and others. You being a moron doesn’t excuse you from reading threads you’ve posted in.

          That said, I’ll eagerly jump on Win7 because for me the good outweighs the bad.

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      “Come now, Windows 7 has soooo many usability improvements over Vista,”

      euh…. Vista was a clunker (“money for clunkers”, eh?)

    • herothezero
    • 10 years ago

    But, but, but MacDefenseNetwork says it makes everything faster and better!? Could that be the Jobsian RDF in action?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 10 years ago

      I’m still looking for this website. I’d like to subscribe to its newsletter.

    • videobits
    • 10 years ago

    <REPLY TO #4 &5 chain…oops>

    He’s referring to the annual 100-ish bucks the Apple lemmings fork over for minor updates to their OS.
    The same stuff Microsoft gives you for free in their Service Packs.

    But they don’t mind, they already paid to much to buy their systems, so what’s a few more bucks…..

      • adisor19
      • 10 years ago

      Ok, i’ll feed you. Unlike snakeoil’s, your troll was actually pretty subtle.

      Service packs for OS X are free. They come usually every 2 – 3 months. Full OS revamps like Win 7, come about 2 – 3 years and they do cost 129$ for the FULL FREAKIN OS aka the ULTIMATE version of windows which costs at least double that.

      To say they are insignificant, is equivalent to trolling. I know it’s hard for you to understand as you never used OS X on a regular basis but there are MAJOR differences between 10.4 and 10.5 for example that no one in their right mind will go as far as calling 10.5 a “service pack” unless of course their intention was to troll.

      Yes, 10.1 felt more like a service pack to 10.0, I’ll give you that much and maybe 10.2 as well when compared to 10.1, but that’s really stretching it.

      10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 brought major new features that can NOT be categorized as part of a service pack no matter how much you’d like to troll.

      Now, 10.6 is a special case as all the major features are behind the scenes so they’re not really obvious to users. My major peeve about this release is the dropping of ZFS after build 10A286. I really thought they dropped it with the intention of reintroducing it in later builds, but it turned out not to be the case. All in all, with all the little refinements here and there, 10.6 feels a bit like a service pack, however just because you don’t see immediate results of those major new features, doesn’t mean the OS is unchanged. The changes will become more obvious in the future once third party devs start taking advantage of them : OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch being what i’m referring to.

      Adi

      • Skrying
      • 10 years ago

      I really dislike trolls who make Adi seem sane.

      • Hattig
      • 10 years ago

      Annual? Leopard was 2007. Tiger was 2005.

      Vista was 2007 as well. It’s not $29 to upgrade to Windows 7, in the same timeframe. And XP->Vista was only a long time because Microsoft messed up, they also like a 3 year product upgrade cycle.

      Some benchmarks show good performance improvements with Snow Leopard (except OpenGL, which is slower! Apparently a fix will be coming for this…). Of course, it’s under the covers improvements, nobody wants to pay for those.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 10 years ago

    Not worth 29 Euro’s eh?

    • henfactor
    • 10 years ago

    What windows 7 leap? It sure feels like a polished vista to me… (not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but the fact that they charge $120?)

      • funko
      • 10 years ago

      would you rather pay $129 every year instead of $50-120 every 3?

        • leor
        • 10 years ago

        what are you referring to?

          • ImSpartacus
          • 10 years ago

          Apple…

          They don’t support anything but the most recent version of OSX and extended support for the version behind that.

          MS supports their operating systems for nearly 10 years with patches and such. With Apple, it’s upgrade or die. No, you don’t pay for virus software, but dammit you pay for a new operating system every few years.

          Granted, they are getting a ton better with this price drop. And if you’re like me and you just got a Mac (I <3 my MBP13), you can get Snow Leopard for 10 bucks. I’d say that’s fair.

      • PeterD
      • 10 years ago

      Yeah, I don’t understand why the author feels let down. W7 should have been free for Vista-buyers, after all the trouble it caused.

        • Usacomp2k3
        • 10 years ago

        Vista got you down, eh?

          • sweatshopking
          • 10 years ago

          friggin people whining about vista. vista was fine. PR issues were its biggest problem. nobody complains about apples complete lack of backwards compatibility, but the fact that vista broke a few old ass programs and people whine like babies. It wasnt the quickest OS when it first came out, but really its biggest problem was not it, but nvidia’s crap ass drivers. i have used all the windows os’s back to dos, and it really wasnt too bad an OS. Just some damn good apple marketing.

        • Farting Bob
        • 10 years ago

        As a happy vista user who preordered w7 for £50 i wouldnt have minded them giving it away to vista buyers, but really vista was never as bad as the internet likes to claim. It was mostly manufactuers not making up to date drivers or not updating for 64bit that caused problems, and as much as MS can try to get to them to build new drivers, its the manufactures responsibility.

    • Clint Torres
    • 10 years ago

    Can I update my Mac SE to Snow Leopard?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This