SuperSite Blog

There are many reasons to justify them releasing it as a DVD instead of a downloadable service pack. Could you imagine Microsoft redoing 90% of the projects, many of which touch core components of the OS, and then attempt to reliably deliver that in a downloadable service pack? It'd be a nightmare. So you need to release this on physical media ($10 usually from Microsoft), tack on an Apple tax and you get $30.

oh snap, did he just say 'service pack'?

...ah, shoot. I couldn't resist.

Paul is right about Apple leaving older Mac users behind, they usally use their OS "Service Packs" to try to make sure that older Mac users are buying new Macs at some point.  Back when 10.4 was released, any Mac that did not have a built in USB and Firewire ports was left behind. For 10.5, all PowerPC G3 systems and G4's below 800Mhz was left behind.  The iLife release just after an OS release typicly has the same system requirements as the most recent OS.  

I also think that Apple may use this stratagy for getting iPhone users to get better iPhone models.  Based on what I saw in the iPhone terms of service, I don't think the original iPhone model will be able to run OS 4.0, whenever that comes out.

One thing that was not mentioned in the blog post is what if the Hard Drive of the Mac crashes and your mac did not have 10.6 preinstalled?  The way the $29 upgrade box appears to be set up is that if you had to replace the hard drive or put 10.6 on an external drive that is blank, you would have to have either the Mac's Restore Disc if it came with 10.5 or a 10.5 retail upgrade disc and install that first, download all updates then install 10.6!  If the hard drive has 10.6  on it already, then the system can be reinstalled to that drive without addtional steps.

By the way, I do use Windows on my Mac and Windows 7 is preordered.  :)

"Service Pack" or "Upgrade" is irrelevant and clearly understandings will vary. However it is clear that with this upgrade there is clearly a fair amount of meat in the form of core services and not much sizzle in terms of obvious new functionality.

To think that so often Apple has been criticised for the reverse situation is somewhat ironic.

@AugieD

I'm assuming it's like any other retail OS X install disc, they won't restrict you from doing a clean install. I would assume the difference between the upgrade disc and the full install disc is the karma associated with being a good person.

"Yes, it supports Exchange, but that won't impact most Mac users"

You'd think that, wouldn't you? The simple fact of the matter those of us who use Mac's for work will (hopefully) no longer have to use the train wreck that is Entourage or wait until sometime next year when Microsoft releases their new Outlook for Mac.

Whatever. I'm not here to bash Paul or Windows 7. I've been playing with Win 7 for a bit now and while I don't see anything other than a refined Vista (which is not a bad thing) it's a pretty decent OS once you get rid of the new, laughable, taskbar.

Sure there are no "new features" per say in Snow Leopard but if the "refinements" are half as good as promised, I'll be happy.

Flame On!

Boy, that really is a weird announcement. What is Apple thinking?

I find it hilarious that people point to Snow Leopard as being more awesome than Windows 7 because it can use the GPU as a CPU.

Lo and Behold,  THAT'S IN WINDOWS 7 TOO!!

windowsteamblog.com/.../gpu-computing-and-windows-7.aspx

Paul,

Perhaps assessing OS X's underlying security features relative to those shipping in Windows Vista in 2006, would be one area to evaluate. Convention has held that while OS X is not as secure as modern Windows versions, that perhaps, owing to the number of relative threats, OS X has been safer to use. Maybe it is time that notion was challenged and the operating systems evaluated in the context of online safety and security again.

I noted with some interest, that Dino Dai Zovi, in a guest post at ZDnet, listed security features and technologies native to Windows Vista and Windows 7 that he hoped would ship in OS X Snow Leopard. His list and the URL are as below - has anyone seen any mention of OS X Snow Leopard addressing these?

One of Vista's main objectives was to make Windows more secure. How well Microsoft succeeded at that is not well communicated. It is clear that Apple needed to do the same with Leopard and Snow Leopard - did they?

blogs.zdnet.com/security

Real ASLR (address space layout randomization).  Library randomization with dyld loaded at a fixed location just doesn’t cut it.

Full use of hardware-enforced Non-eXecutable memory (NX).  Currently, only the stack segments are enforced to be non-executable.  Welcome to the new millennium where buffer overflows aren’t only on the stack.

Default 64-bit native execution for any security-sensitive processes.  I don’t particularly care that it may waste 5% more memory and a little bit of speed, I want Safari, Mail.app and just about everything else that has security exposure to run as a 64-bit process.  Simply because function arguments are passed in registers rather than on the stack, this makes working around ASLR and NX damn near impossible for many exploits.

Sandbox policies for Safari, Mail.app, and third-party applications.  Code execution vulnerabilities aren’t the only kind of vulnerabilities and good sandbox policies for security-exposed applications can help mitigate the exploitation of code execution and other vulnerabilities in these applications.  I love the scheme-based policies, by the way.

Mandatory code signing for any kernel extensions.  I don’t want to have to worry about kernel rootkits, hyperjacking, or malware infecting existing kernel drivers on disk.  Most kernel extensions are from Apple anyway and for the few common 3rd party ones, they should be required to get a code signing certificate.

@freakyfelt

The OS check is done as the install disc is booted, and you can do a clean install by using Disk Utlity on the disc after the OS check is completed.  This is based on info provided by AppleInsider and my personal experience with the Up to Date disc for 10.5 which will not boot on systems that don't have 10.4 or later installed.

"In a weird last-minute announcement"  Weird, I guess you dont read much Apple news?  This date was rumored for over two weeks.  The Apple UK web site  posted the date by accident for a half day last week before pulling it.  If you follow Apple news you knew this was real possibility.

"This stands in sharp contrast to Windows 7, which does indeed change the overall Windows experience in useful ways"

Really?  So if I compare Windows Vista SP2 with all updates, including things like IE8 which comes from Windows update now, you are saying that Windows 7 is a major update???  Oh you mean the Dock like taskbar and the Expose like feature is the sum of your "major update" over Vista SP2 fully updated.  Yeah I see that.

Please lets have some real good comparisions Paul.  Startup and shutdown times of Leopard vs SL, Vista vs 7, SL vs 7.  Install time and complexity of 7 vs SL.  Upgrade paths and confusion for users etc.  Considering that most users of both SL and 7 will get these versions from buying a new computer, compare out of the box features, like iLife vs Live apps.

Here is the upgrade chart for Snow Leopard.  Try not to get confused...

www.erichter.net/.../upgrade-your-mac.jpg

freakyfelt

"So you need to release this on physical media ($10 usually from Microsoft), tack on an Apple tax and you get $30."

While that would make sense, the problem is that Apple is not just charging for a physical media fee since they only provide one service pack upgrade license for $29. If you have more than one Macintosh you have to pay more (either family packs or more licenses) and you can't just hand out copies of the disk or share them out on an internal as would be typical in a normal service pack.

I suspect the reality is a mix of two items:

1) Paying for some of the support costs for the upgrade. Any OS change that touches 90% of the projects and gets as limited a configuration beta will need support and support people aren't free.

2) Paying licensing fees on components (such as Exchange support or DVD decoding licenses) that Apple licenses. (Note, I have no idea what the Apple's licensing terms are but they're generally not free)

@ikethum Paul wont compare that stuff.  Why?  Because he often, very often quotes that market share of Macs world wide, at around 3%.

Using that number, malware for Macs is not very prevalent because the return for your malware writing efforts is not worth it, compared to Windows.  If you are writing malware to get information that can be used for profit, your target has been and still is Windows simply because of the sheer numbers of targets available.

The question is did Apple improve the security in SL over Leopard?  If so how will this help thwart the relatively few if any pieces of malware that a typical SL user might encounter.  That would be some good, relative, information.

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week - SuperSite Blog | All about windows 7

rr0de

I saw the chart you linked to and I'm confused. Here is a scenario that didn't seem to get answered. can you answer it for me?

Say that my cousin has a mix of Macs; a new laptop she got last week, a 4 year old PowerMac running Tiger, two Mac servers running Tiger (one G4, one Intel), a 3 year old MacBook running Tiger, an older MacBook running Panther and an iMac running Tiger.

She wants to upgrade iLife on the laptops but doesn't want iWork on anything and, of course, doesn't want iLife or iWork on the servers.

How many family packs and individual upgrade licenses do she need to upgrade all her Macs the way she want?

"I find it hilarious that people point to Snow Leopard as being more awesome than Windows 7 because it can use the GPU as a CPU.

Lo and Behold,  THAT'S IN WINDOWS 7 TOO!!"

As so often is the case with these two feature similar oses the difference is in the quality of the implementation. On this Windows rarely wins. I have been trying out Windows 7 and the quality of the UI interface is still last century in comparison to OS X.

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week - SuperSite Blog | Mac Affinity

scoobyclub, you've shown a complete misunderstanding of what is being said.

GPU as a CPU, in simple terms, means off-loading general processing tasks to the GPU, thereby increasing the performance of the CPU.

It has nothing to do with the "quality" of the user interface. And speaking of quality UIs, there's nothing great about Mac OS UI. Leaving aside the flash-bang wizardry, it's actually bloody annoying to use. Simple tasks like closing an application take longer than necessary: you can't just click the red "x" on the left of a Mac window, you have to choose File>Quit. Then there's the godawful text rendering that makes reading a chore because the font contrast is so ridiculously distorted that the text looks blurred with berserk anti-aliasing. Organising open windows is laborious. I could go on, but there is no need to.

Microsoft spends billions of dollars researching how people actually use PCs. Apple tells you what's best and if you don't like it....tough. Unacceptable corporate attitude - no wonder they can't get a single leg up in the commercial sphere.

"Could you imagine Microsoft redoing 90% of the projects, many of which touch core components of the OS, and then attempt to reliably deliver that in a downloadable service pack?"

They already did that in XP Service Pack 2.

"I find it hilarious that people point to Snow Leopard as being more awesome than Windows 7 because it can use the GPU as a CPU.  Lo and Behold,  THAT'S IN WINDOWS 7 TOO!!"

Actually, with CUDA, that's in Vista, and even XP.

Paul, you left out the most laughable bit:

OS X still doesn't have a native 64-bit kernel by default.

What's more laughable:  You have to hold the 6 and 4 keys at boot to get it to boot that way.

LOL!

FAIL!

RobertC,

"GPU as a CPU, in simple terms, means off-loading general processing tasks to the GPU, thereby increasing the performance of the CPU."

You can only talk to Mac people in simple terms. When you say 'mouse', they think 'large object with one button'. When you say GPU, they think "user interface'. When you say 'operating system', they think 'I have to buy a new computer?'

"What's more laughable:  You have to hold the 6 and 4 keys at boot to get it to boot that way."

Lol, is that really true? BLUNDER

Yeah!! There is always Double Standards when its time to compare Apple with Microsoft...

I don't know how I should feel

purchased 10.6, figured what the ........

purchased a iPod touch case....

both 29.99........

is the case overpriced rubber? or is the OS not worth much....

or both?

@hammy:

blogs.zdnet.com/Apple

blogs.zdnet.com/Apple

In other words, the Mac's 32-bit custom EFI is turning around and biting them in the a$$, and Apple never thought to include enough firmware storage space to allow for a 64-bit EFI upgrade, or even to upgrade it to the now-standardized UEFI firmware revision.

I think there are some very interesting ideas in Snow Leopard that Microsoft should consider for Windows.

The ability to boot the same computer using either the 32bit or 64bit kernel is awesome.  You at least have something to do when you have a 64-bit software compatibility issue.  On 64-bit Windows there is nothing to do but cry - I have many "not-so-old" games that won't run on 64-bit Windows 7.

Leopard's Time Machine feature (while not new) is also very cool back up software.  You can restore a single file or the entire drive to a brand new Mac, even if the hardware is different.  I wouldn't even try that stunt on a Windows PC.

Finally, while the Windows 7 OS is great, it's the PC laptop hardware that I find quite dissapointing these days.  Thick plastic cases, stickers (my god why?), glossy screens, crappy low quality keyboards and tiny track-pads.  I haven't seen a PC laptop that I would spend my hard earned cash on.  I am considering getting a new MacBook Pro tho - then run Snow Leopard and Windows 7 - Problem soved!

Waethorn is right... holding a key at boot to boot in 64 bits... What is this silly, crap OS is it??

AND

"Could you imagine Microsoft redoing 90% of the projects, many of which touch core components of the OS, and then attempt to reliably deliver that in a downloadable service pack?"

We don't have to imagine that!!! Microsoft always update their OS core component in Service Pack that are downloadable ... And No it is not a nightmare...

Apple and fan are really bizzard peoples, isn't it!!!??

meason :

"is the case overpriced rubber? or is the OS not worth much....

or both?"

Probably both lol

"the move to 64-bit applications also boosts overall performance"

-- Apple.com

Either they're:

a)  lying, or

b)  their 32-bit code was crap

Take your pick.

@Waethorn,

Nor does OS X have 64 bit driver model, which accounts for a lot of the challenges they have on their path to true x64 bit computing. They can market and spin it any way they wish, but the facts are that Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 are already there and pulling well ahead in several contexts: advanced architecture, modern implementation of NUMA and multi-CPU/Core/GPU/Core processing and of course, security. I still do not see how Apple is going to get around Mach. I don't think they can and forget what is "in" OS X SL, I'm more interested in what is not in it.

That does not seem to matter however, they have a lot of sympathy and traction among many within our press and larger media. Perception is all that seems to matter and any CS knows well what OS X is and isn't. It's pretty sad. Last time I checked, 70% of OS X/*nix users were rooted to the hilt and they had no idea... I wonder what that percentage is up to now? People need to respect the OS for what it is and is not and really, locking down a *nix is a lot harder than far too many people are willing to face. Flame away if you want, it doesn't matter... it will not change what is known, or what is being done to people. A lot of really smart guys in their 60's are owing all of them and while they don't laugh about it per se... they don't even respect novice users that much. they do count on people to continue to be as blind as they are. One thing... and this is a serious request.. if you run OS X/*nix, please keep tools off of the systems facing the cloud. Please! Once the system is recompiled you'll never find the undesired code.

What a waste of time for Paul to write up 5,000 words that will boil down to "Windows 7 is excellent and Snow Leopard is 'ok'."

Reading Thurrott on the merits of Snow Leopard is about as useless as finding out how great Obama is doing from Fox News.  [or how Bush was doing by watching MSNBC].  It's an exercise in futility at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.

"Simple tasks like closing an application take longer than necessary: you can't just click the red "x" on the left of a Mac window, you have to choose File>Quit."

Why should closing a window quit the application?

Just because I close the document I am working with does not mean I don't plan on opening another document does it?  So in Windows, if you close a document, you quit the application. Now you have to wait for the application to launch again if you want to work on a different document.  

That does not sound simply and easy to me.  

How many gigabytes of hard drive space is freed when you upgrade to Windows 7?

@freakyfelt

Microsoft did just that.  It was called Windows XP SERVICE PACK 2.

JamesNT

"the facts are that Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 are already there and pulling well ahead in several contexts"

Actually, they did it with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition before both of those.

"So in Windows, if you close a document, you quit the application."

Nope.  Programs with MDI allow you to close the document separately from closing the application window.  That's not the point though.  What he said was that when he wanted to "close the *application*", likely to free up RAM that the application is using, it wasn't as simple as just clicking the red X button.

"How many gigabytes of hard drive space is freed when you upgrade to Windows 7?"

It depends on whether it's an in-place upgrade, and whether or not Microosoft allows you to undo the upgrade, so I'm guessing it's in the negative.

Comparing a clean install of Windows 7 to a clean install of Windows Vista shows there isn't a huge difference between the two, but most of the difference lies in the fact that Windows 7 doesn't include as many accessory applications from the get-go (you need Windows Live Essentials to add a lot of the functionality that Windows Vista includes).

Another funny thing:

gizmodo.com/.../8-years-of-great-mac-os-x-box-design-end-in-a-stupid-clip-art-cat

@RobertC

You have shown a complete misunderstanding of what words mean.

This links to the other blog posting about quality of communication in the internet age. You read something that you thought said something and then you went on a diatribe. I know exactly what the first GPU point was about which I then generalised to the difference in implementation in general between the two oses.

I have a degree in electronics and 20 years in IT for my sins so I know precisely the difference between UI, GPU, CPU etc whereas you and your little mate Hamilton appear unable to comprehend a few simple sentences.

However you do speak some truth in that many Mac users don't know all these techie terms cause they don't want or need to and why should they? They do not work in IT. Unfortunately I do and know of what I speak.

Think I shall take another sabbatical from this site, the quality is worse than I remember it.

By the way, I decided to look at all the "new" feature in Windows 7 (www.winsupersite.com/.../ff.asp).  Someone please point out why the changes in Windows 7 make it an upgrade, while 10.6 is a service pack.  

Half the items listed on Paul's feature page look very similar to the ones listed in 10.6

New windows media player is a feature in Windows 7 but Quicktime X is not a feature in 10.6?

An updated calculator, an application to rate your Windows experience and the introduction of ribbons to two applications that come bundled with the OS, not the OS itself, are major OS features?

A bunch of the features listed are identical to ones 10.6 already has.  And guess what, 10.6 is adding features that Windows already had.

Really your spin is ridiculous.  

OS 10.6 is as much, or as little and upgrade as Windows 7 is.

@iketchum no 64bit drivers???

www.appleinsider.com/.../road_to_mac_os_x_snow_leopard_64_bit_to_the_kernel.html

"Nope.  Programs with MDI allow you to close the document separately from closing the application window.  That's not the point though.  What he said was that when he wanted to "close the *application*", likely to free up RAM that the application is using, it wasn't as simple as just clicking the red X button."

So let me get this straight.  If I hit the red X button, sometimes it quits the application, and sometimes it does not.  How do I know when it does what? So I can expect different behavior fro the same action.  How is that simple?

You can force 64bit mode all the time, provided you have the correct EFI, I tested  my Macbook late 2007 and iMac July 2008 both are EFI64.

www.9to5mac.com/snow-leopard-64-bit-32-bit-firmware-efi

@PeyloW said:

"How many gigabytes of hard drive space is freed when you upgrade to Windows 7?"

Why do I care? I have 3TB of disk on my desktop, getting 7GB back ain't really an need

@Mikegalos,

Last time I looked an OS X install CD/DVD never had a serial number. Never. So while I won't promote installing a copy of Snow Leopard on more than one Intel Mac running Leopard, it is certainly doable. But for $29, who can't afford that? People will line up this Friday nonetheless completely defeating your argument. Whatever. And your Windows 7 upgrade will cost you how much?

This whole back and forth about service packs and upgrades is so childish and tiring. Just because Apple decided to call it an upgrade and charge $29 for it, Windows people see it as something it isn't. I love the way MSFT zealots have to shoehorn everything they know about one OS developer and make it fit every other OS. And if they can't, they complain that it must be wrong or stupid or expensive. Like the technology world revolves around Windows. It doesn't.

Did you also notice they are cutting the size of the install in half? That sounds like a great upgrade to me. I just checked and I should be able to reclaim 8+ GBs. YMMV.

And typical Paul has nothing to say. Good. This is a Windows site when he wants it to be. I'm shocked he wants to talk about Apple's upgrade coming to market before MSFT's. That was great dig on MSFT. Way to go, Paul.

Cheers.

Yoshipod,

The Windows MDI interface is a freaking confusing disaster, which is why you see it less and less.  Even Word doesn't use it, and it would be a prime candidate for it, since it's common to have multiple documents open at once.

Everyone here has become so entwined with the Windows way of "close the main window, and the app terminates" that anything else is "wrong" or "more time consuming".  Not to mention the slew of apps that minimize to the system tray when you hit the "X", which always USED to mean terminate the application.  Definitely LESS confusing than always choosing from the menu "App name" -> "Quit".  Much more time consuming too.

@Mike for your cousin its pretty simple.  For any Intel Mac running Tiger he/she can purchase the family pack, 5 macs but at $149.

The Mac bought last week gets a free upgrade.  

The servers I think are $499 unlimited users.  How much is it to go from Windows 2003 to Windows 2008, for unlimited users?

Exactly. Closing a document is a document, quitting an application is quitting an application. They are different things.

Most people can learn to make the necessary adjustments but once the level of inconsistencies, or nags, or glitches reach a certain level a user starts to feel like he is fighting the machine rather than using it as a tool.

And to catch a point I missed earlier I doubt MS spend anywhere near billions on  looking at how people use PCs. If they do then that may be part of the problem. Too many people wanting their ideas implemented. In order to appease them they each get one.

As for asking "real" users I would quote Henry Ford : “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

64bit a little better explanation than is provided by iketchum or weahorn...

www.macworld.com/.../snow_leopard_64_bit.html

"""""If you’re running a Mac powered by an Intel Core 2 Duo processor or an Intel Xeon processor, your Mac is 64-bit capable. And Snow Leopard runs 64-bit-capable applications in 64-bit mode regardless of whether it’s booting into a 64-bit or 32-bit kernel. In fact, the only big advantage of booting into a 64-bit kernel would be the ability to use more than 32 gigabytes of RAM. There aren't any Macs that can do that now, anyway, due to hardware limitations.

Applications running in Snow Leopard will have access to a full 16 exabyte virtual address space, just the same as if they were running in a 64-bit kernel. As a result, there’s very little difference between booting into the 64-bit kernel and the 32-bit kernel in current Mac systems. (This is not to say that there won't be a bigger difference in the future, as RAM sizes continue to grow. But presumably new high-end Mac systems will boot into the 64-bit kernel when the need arises.)

So, bottom line: If you’ve got a Core 2 Duo or Xeon based Mac — any Intel Mac not running a Core Duo or Core Solo processor — you’ll be able to run applications in 64-bit mode, which will in turn be able to take advantage of faster 64-bit registers and math routines as well as access massive amounts of memory.""""""""""

Cmd-Q >>>>>>>>>> Alt-F4. Who actually uses the menu bar to quit apps in OS X?

@Mike, if your cousin has that many Macs and can't figure out how to upgrade them all, she needs to shed some hardware and simplify. Who has that many computers for herself but is so technologically inept she can't figure out how to upgrade? Maybe a more realistic example would have been better, but anything more realistic would have been so simple to explain you would have been embarrassed by the comparison with Win 7.

@rr0de74@live.com

Please do realize that the site you linked to does not contain any information changing the reality that Apple still has to develop or cause to be developed 64 bit drivers. The article even states that Apple will have an easier time - since so few devices apply (33 sys extensions). Regardless, they have to be developed and they should be signed (but they will not be). Same drill for third party devices, about which there seems to be even less information.

"Cmd-Q >>>>>>>>>> Alt-F4. Who actually uses the menu bar to quit apps in OS X?"

I do sometimes although mainly I right click on the dock. This is an aspect where people on this site differ from normal people. They use PCs so much they know a lot more ways of doing things than someone who uses a PC to do his job rather than it being his job.

Perhaps better training would help but a menu quit is much more obvious than command-Q for many.

iKetchum you said...."Nor does OS X have 64 bit driver mode" which is flat out wrong.

The beauty of the Apple approach to 64bit, is that the user is shielded completely by the technical details and dont have to make a choice based on those details.  They just install Snow Leopard, the single version.  After that they either can do what they want with their Mac or they cant.

Ah, the site dedicated to the "future of Windows". The site where anyone who uses a Mac is automatically a "troll". And yet, read the posts about Apple and all the comments from the usual denizens.

Sad. You're all so threatened? Why? I've asked it before with no answer.

"Reading Thurrott on the merits of Snow Leopard is about as useless as finding out how great Obama is doing from Fox News.  [or how Bush was doing by watching MSNBC].  It's an exercise in futility at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst"

That's right, but wildly optimistic. The level of ignorance is pretty profound.

"And speaking of quality UIs, there's nothing great about Mac OS UI. Leaving aside the flash-bang wizardry, it's actually bloody annoying to use. Simple tasks like closing an application take longer than necessary: you can't just click the red "x" on the left of a Mac window, you have to choose File>Quit."

AppleKey-Q works well. That's been in Mac OS since 1984.

And, of course, we have hypocrisy as well.

"I raise this issue because there's been a lot of talk lately about how Microsoft won't support direct upgrading of an 8-year-old operating system (XP) to Windows 7, though it does support a very useful migration process. Apple, meanwhile, isn't supporting upgrades from machines that were sold as recently as two and a half years ago. I think this distinction is important, and doesn't get enough attention."

The "8-year old OS" was CERTAINLY being installed on new computers more recently than the 2.5 years that Paul cites as Apple's unconscionable abandonment of its users. So the timeframe is not 8 years vs. 2.5, since XP is still shipping on new PCs. Check the Dell web page.

Microsoft will force a clean install on machines that are being shipped today, not "8 years

ago as Paul tries to imply. What a liar.

You boys have fun with your Windows 7 upgrade nightmares. I'll have SL running on 5 Macs by the end of the week......for $49.

This is truly awesome. An old fashioned "My OS is better than yours" flame war on the SuperSite blog.

:)

And there it was!

Chuckb84 had to make his daily rounds to a Windows website to defend his choice of OS!

Lol. You were talking about someone feeling threatened...?

Talk about being brain washed!

"If I hit the red X button, sometimes it quits the application, and sometimes it does not.  How do I know when it does what?"

MDI-aware applications have 2 sets of buttons - one for the application that sits on the title bar, and one for the document, that either sits in the document window title bar, or underneath the application title bar buttons when the document window is maximized inside the application window.  When you close the document, the application remains.  When you close the application, it closes completely.  It's not that complex to understand....

Who was it who said that Mackies don't understand things that easily?

"You can force 64bit mode all the time, provided you have the correct EFI, I tested  my Macbook late 2007 and iMac July 2008 both are EFI64."

And Apple's reasoning for not doing this in the first place is what exactly?!?

That AppleInsider article is absolute fluff.  They make it sound like Windows x64 is using some kind of emulation software to make 32-bit software, when all that WOW64 does is switch the CPU from native x64 mode to hybrid 32/64 mode for 32-bit threads.  It is NOT emulation, nor is it some kind of extra compatibility system like a software shim.  It is a mode switch component for x86-64 CPU's - that's all.  In OS X, the 32-bit kernel requires that the CPU run entirely in hybrid mode, which causes 64-bit registers to run slower.

In essence, even with the limited hardware options, Apple still can't wrangle enough support to get third-party hardware manufacturers to write 64-bit drivers to make it worthwhile as a default option.

@Waethorn if you would have read the link..."Apple is most likely pushing people into 32-bit mode because drivers for printers, etc. haven't been updated."

Again a much better approach really.  The #1 deterrent to going Windows 64bit has always been drivers.

@Chuck  "Sad. You're all so threatened? Why? I've asked it before with no answer."

Maybe this is the reason....

www.informationweek.com/.../showArticle.jhtml

"Within hours of Apple's announcement that Snow Leopard, aka Mac OS X 10.6, hits stores and e-commerce sites Friday, the operating system became the stop seller in Amazon.com's software category, according to the Web retailer's Sales Rank page."

Paul perhaps you should have written a Snow Leopard Secrets book?

"The #1 deterrent to going Windows 64bit has always been drivers."

And yet, 64-bit is just the norm on the majority of consumer systems shipping with 4GB of RAM (sometimes more).  Microsoft has been able to do in the less than 3 years since Windows Vista's release, what Apple couldn't do with a much smaller hardware market (but that never stopped Apple from picking up the best-attempt/horses-ass trophy since they started advertising Tiger).

@sunsfan : "Cmd-Q >>>>>>>>>> Alt-F4. Who actually uses the menu bar to quit apps in OS X?"

Probably because using the menu bar is so painful.

I recently purchased a MacBook Pro to test some of our applications and websites.  While I really like the clickable touch pad (normally I avoid using touchpads and prefer the pointing stick or external mouse), there are other usability issues around OSX that are annoying.  (I've also been running Win 7 on my main notebook since RC and will upgrade to RTM code once I get some time put aside.)

Cmd-Q to quit an application is one of them, lack of ability to us arrow keys on message boxes is another, no simple right-click is a third.  I there was a core app I needed that was only on OSX, these aren't enough to make me avoid it, but any benefits that others see are not ones that would make me move over.

Whether Apple call Snow Leopard as an upgrade or service pack is really up to them and the response from their users.  The same goes for Microsoft.  The issue is when Apple claim that Win 7 is a service pack (or Vista V2) while claiming that SL is this amazing upgrade (or Microsoft doing the same).

They are both improvements over the previous versions.  If the improvements mean that users will be willing to pay for them, then it's an upgrade.  It's simple business sense.

Extreme fanboy-ism really isn't useful to give people a real view of the 2 products.

"MDI-aware applications have 2 sets of buttons - one for the application that sits on the title bar, and one for the document, that either sits in the document window title bar, or underneath the application title bar buttons when the document window is maximized inside the application window.  When you close the document, the application remains.  When you close the application, it closes completely.  It's not that complex to understand....

Who was it who said that Mackies don't understand things that easily?"

So the same interface element when placed in a different part of the window does something different.

You are right, its not that complex to understand, but remember this is in response to a post saying that Windows is better because its harder to quit an application on OS X. Yet you needed to write a paragraph to explain the difference between how a UI element functions.

Which OS is more consistent in its approach, and easier to use.  

@waethorn you contradict your self... "Microsoft has been able to do in the less than 3 years since Windows Vista's release"

What about XP 64bit stuff you were talking about.  How long has that been out?  Longer than 3 years that is for sure.  Yeah people raced to it.

Vista 64bit started becoming successful when it was forced on consumers.  Consumers buy a Windows machine on price alone as the laptop hunters show us.  I am pretty sure they dont get to choose 32bit or 64bit when picking up that $279 Acer Laptop.

I would bet that in the very few corporations that actually went to Vista, hardly any of them went to Vista 64bit, if any at all.

"no simple right-click"  ?????  Turn it on in the System preferences.

"Apple is most likely pushing people into 32-bit mode because drivers for printers, etc. haven't been updated."

"Again a much better approach really."

So where are the apologies for leaving behind a 3-year old Mac hardware platform then?  Sure, you can use that old legacy printer or scanner, but what about that 3-year old computer to run it on???

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week | The Software Nook

"What about XP 64bit stuff you were talking about.  How long has that been out?  Longer than 3 years that is for sure."

It was XP Professional only, based on Windows Server 2003 x64 code, with little more driver support than what was supplied with Server 2003.  When Windows Vista shipped, and hardware vendors had no choice but to write drivers for Vista x64 to certify their hardware, they easily backported drivers to XP x64.  Now that RAM has become cheap, it's easy to get a system with 4GB or more of RAM standard (maybe not from Apple) and a 64-bit version of Windows Vista.

"Vista 64bit started becoming successful when it was forced on consumers."

Forced, as in the hardware manufacturer chooses which version comes with the hardware?

Oh, you mean like what you get with Apple....

Actually, there are a number of PC vendors that allow you to choose.  You wouldn't understand those kind of concepts though.

"I am pretty sure they dont get to choose 32bit or 64bit when picking up that $279 Acer Laptop."

I don't see too many Acer laptops on sale for $279 that have more than 3GB of RAM anyway.

"I would bet that in the very few corporations that actually went to Vista, hardly any of them went to Vista 64bit, if any at all."

I don't know of too many corporations that have office systems with more than 3GB of RAM, but there are at least 2 3D graphics companies near me that have bought 64-bit graphics workstations with at least 8GB of RAM (one has a system with 24GB of RAM) and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista.

"In a weird last-minute announcement, Apple announced this morning that it will ship its $29 Mac OS X service pack, called "Snow Leopard," on Friday."

Paul why is this weird?

"Curiously, there are no major new end user features worth noting,"

Paul they have been saying since it was first announced that it would have no major new features and that it was about improving speed and security. Where have you been?  That's why it only costs $29.

"I've been using this thing all year, including the final version for the past week or so, and I have to say ... there's just not much there. It makes my "Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard" series somewhat ponderous to write.."

How about you don't write it. I don't need to hear your subtle snarky comments about SL.

"Sorry, but it's just not that interesting."

Then don't bother!

"I raise this issue because there's been a lot of talk lately about how Microsoft won't support direct upgrading of an 8-year-old operating system (XP) to Windows 7, though it does support a very useful migration process. "

Paul this has not been done by Apple users because we don't care what MS does in this regard.

"Anyway".

No, don't bother. We know where you stand already.

rr0de

Guess you were confused by the upgrade...

Here are the computers I mentioned:

a new laptop she got last week

a 4 year old PowerMac running Tiger

a G4 Mac server running Tiger

an Intel Mac server running Tiger

a 3 year old MacBook running Tiger

an older MacBook running Panther

an iMac running Tiger.

That's 7 computers. You totally ignored what to do about several of them. (Most, actually)

You also skipped the question about which would be able to upgrade their iLife and whether those where she didn't want to upgrade iLife could upgrade to Snow Leopard without that upgrade. You also skippe discussing whether she should pay the extra fee for upgrading her Leopard machine to iLife and how she did that. You also skipped answering whether she could install Snow Leopard and iLife but not iWork on the Leopard boxes. You also skipped discussing whether the upgrade on Mac OS X Server would count against any Family Packs she bought?

So, again, how many family packs and individual upgrade licenses do she need to upgrade all her Macs the way she want?

But, perhaps a realistic upgrade scenario is perhaps too confusing for you without a very complex chart...

@wae I get it now.  To get Vista to run as good as XP you had to install 3+gig of ram in it.  To use that much RAM, you needed a 64bit OS.  The mystery of the 64bit push by vendors is revealed.

It's not the stupidity that gets me, it's the hypocrisy,

"You can only talk to Mac people in simple terms..... When you say 'operating system', they think 'I have to buy a new computer?'"

Paul's review of Windows 7,

"The simplest way to acquire Windows 7 is with a new PC starting on October 22, 2009, the day that Windows 7 becomes generally available. This will provide you with the absolute best experience, with one caveat: Many PC makers overload their machines with unwanted crapware, and this is absolutely still going to be an issue with Windows 7."

I'll just keep my existing Macs without the crapware.

"My sense is that the largest potential group of these customers--Windows XP users--has been left in the lurch."

Yep.

"It's funny to me that those who damned Vista over the past two years are now praising the very similar Windows 7. Yes, Windows 7 has a tweaked UI. And yes, Windows 7 does offer better performance than its predecessor. But in reality, there's not much of a fundamental difference between the two. "

"Asking customers to pay for something that is essentially a Windows Vista mulligan sounds ridiculous on the surface."

But, yah, yall rush out and buy it.

@rr0de74@live.com : " "no simple right-click"  ?????  Turn it on in the System preferences."

Admittedly I hadn't looked at options for enabling this, although I thought there was a Cmd+click type option.  I'll have a look at what you suggested.

The point still stands though, in that for a Windows user who first uses OSX, there is no simple right-click as you (at least, I) expect from an OS.

"The point still stands though, in that for a Windows user who first uses OSX, there is no simple right-click as you (at least, I) expect from an OS."

Right-click is enabled by default for the multi-button mouse that ships with Apple computers. You may have a point when it comes to laptops, although they use a two-finger tap gesture. I will agree that a right-click button under the trackpad would be a much-welcome improvement.

Chuck:

It is obvious you're a Mac troll. Yes, this is a site dedicated to Windows.

So you hate Windows. Solution: STOP coming to this site and trolling.

Chuck, time to grow up and stop being a troll. Just stay on your Appleinsider site and keep drinking the kool aid. It's just that easy.

Why would you continue to spend energy defending your o/s on this site? Answer: you're a troll just the same as others are on this site.

"Paul why is this weird?"

Because he's used up his "bizarre" quota for the month.

"Asking customers to pay for something that is essentially a Windows Vista mulligan sounds ridiculous on the surface."

Mike, give it up. There is no contrived example you can concoct that will make the extremely simple Snow Leopard upgrade in any way comparable to the byzantine train wreck that is the Windows 7 upgrade "path".  The example you built up is so tortured that you're not even making your point effectively.

Millions of XP users are going to have a tough time moving to Win7. No multiple computers, no manufactured scenarios, no made up "GOTCHA" complications. Even PAUL has noted this as a problem.

@truffoo0 you are correct.  My CIO went 4 or 5 months on his new unibody Macbook, as a switcher without a right click.  He brought the Macbook to me to configure multiple network profiles with wireless/proxy information, and when we were talking he said "I wish Mac had a right click" :)

"In a weird last-minute announcement, Apple announced this morning that it will ship its $29 Mac OS X service pack, called "Snow Leopard," on Friday." - Paul

Why is this weird? Apple announced that they would be delivering Snow Leopard in September and they were able to get it done a bit earlier. If Microsoft were to do such a thing Paul would be doing handstands and trumpeting the abilities of the Microsoft team to exceed expectations.

@Mike you are if anything, consistent.  This blog post is about Apple's latest client OS.  The upgrade charts this site and other have put out are about Microsoft's latest client OS.

This is not about a server OS or applications.  Amazon's top selling software right now is a client OS, not an application.  You are off topic.  You are going off topic to change the subject your favor.  It is not working mac daddy!!

The question I have for you is what is the upgrade path for your cousins 4 servers running NT 3.51 on a NEC Mipps server wanting to go to Windows 2008?  She also wants an upgrade path to Office 2010 from Wordstar and she wants to transfer her custom dictionary.  If you fail her she will turn into another switcher.  She gets the Apple ads, but she is still wondering about those Bill and Jerry ads.  Help her Mike.

"To get Vista to run as good as XP you had to install 3+gig of ram in it."

No, you just had to yank out the Protected Mode options, turn off UAC, nuke most of the multimedia features, get rid of ASLR, go back to a lame deployment methodology, and then on top of that, recontract Shigeru Miyamoto to design the UI - then it would run as "good" as XP.

"To use that much RAM, you needed a 64bit OS."

To use more than 3+GB of RAM, and actually, truthfully be able to call it a "64-bit OS", yes, it would have to be a 64-bit version of Windows.

I am sure if MS had delivered 7 in April or then in June as Paul said it was going to be it would be simply amazing.  Instead we got Windows XP mode as the big surprise.

@rr0de74 : nice to be right for once (must show the wife ;-) ) - also just applied the right-click setting, works fine once you know how :-)

Back on topic (ish), people compare Microsoft and Apple forgetting that one is a primarily a software company and the other is primarily a hardware company.  The expectations of a Microsoft piece of software are likely higher than an Apple one.  As long as the Apple one supports the new-funky-hardware, users will likely be happy enough.

As far as prices go, if you spend more on the initial hardware (as you do with Mac's for similarly spec'd machines), I wouldn't expect to pay a lot more to get updates to the software on those machines.  The hardware premium discounts down the software to mostly just cost covering values.  Obviously Microsoft can't do this since they don't do the hardware.

You also get the scenario where Microsoft builds in lots of functionality without any guarantee that a piece of hardware needed for that functionality will be available or not.  Apple doesn't have that problem because they control it all.

Which way is 'better'?  Neither and both.  It is all good for the industry because things improve.  The problems are the excessive fans who promote their choice as the only valid one that all others must follow.  Most people just want to get on with using the technology to meet their needs.

"There is no contrived example you can concoct that will make the extremely simple Snow Leopard upgrade in any way comparable to the byzantine train wreck that is the Windows 7 upgrade "path".  The example you built up is so tortured that you're not even making your point effectively."

I see the problem is simple when Apple explains it.  They would just say "buy a new computer with Snow Leopard.  Simple."

Chuck, you can't even argue against that because, for the most part of Mike's argument, that's true.

And Mackie's wonder why Apple is considered the #1 scheister of the computer industry.

Lindy:  you must suck at IT.

"It is obvious you're a Mac troll. Yes, this is a site dedicated to Windows"

If only it was a site dedicated to Windows. When it functions that way, it's actually pretty good. When Paul starts these Apple threads, though, it becomes something else.

You could legitimately say I'm a troll if I started the threads to provoke needless controversy. I don't. Paul does that, reinforced by the usual group of dittoheads.

It's probably good advice to waste less time on it, but responses to nonsense aren't "trolling". Silly waste of my time, perhaps, but not trolling.

This is the Windows Supersite. Paul is, in practice (several books), a Windows expert. This is all good. Paul  is not an expert when it comes to Apple OSX (no books). When he talks about Apple he is snarky and incites the trolls. Paul intends to do this. We can't avoid looking at the car wreck on the side of the road, just like we can't avoid looking here to see if Paul is instigating something. I do think we all,  really are having fun doing this. I know I am no matter how snarky Paul gets.

I'm going to jump in here and make a prediction about Paul's next post. Apple Insider today reported that Apple expects to sell 5M copies of SL in it's launch window of September. I fully expect Paul to brag how, that many copies of Win7 will be pirated at launch, let alone how many will be sold. Therefore showing how insignificant Apple and SL is.

Re The Galos Licensing Upgrade Conundrum

At least two of the computers are G4 and can't upgrade anyway.

That leaves 5 that can be upgraded to the latest and greatest OS X, iLife and iWork on a family license for $229 all in.

What is so difficult or expensive about that? If you had upgraded from Tiger to Leopard to Snow Leopard it would have been approx $160 about the same as a single license of the Snow Leopard box set.

Me thinks someone is trying to create a problem where there isn't one. Bottom line is in terms of software licensing it's one of the simplest there is.

"And Mackie's [sic] wonder why Apple is considered the #1 scheister [sic] of the computer industry."

No, Waethorn, that would be you and your Bargain Basement PC Hut.

@waethorn thanks much my brother from another mother.  Yes at times I do suck at IT, but I get paid pretty well to suck at it:)

My current life in IT is Storage/virtualization and I don't do Windows server engineering anymore, Hail Marry Full of Grace the...........  

So I come here for pure entertainment now and of course to annoy Mike.

Paul good luck with your book!!!  Seriously million if not billions will run 7 or at least MS is hoping so:)

Oh, and since I don't know what "she wants" in terms of licensing it is really a personal decision as the way to go. If the Server has to be a Snow Leopard OS Server then you have to budget for a $499 license which is for unlimited clients.

Whatever it's fairly straightforward five types of license that I can see.

Apple is marketing it correctly, it's a refinement of Leopard. Why it's a $30 packaged product instead of a $10 DVD or downloadable service pack is beyond me.

Anyway, I normally don't nitpick too much about Paul's seemingly anti-Apple posts, but this one is factually incorrect in a major way, that I feel is beyond Paul's better judgment.

"And while Snow Leopard is indeed priced right for those up-to-date Mac users who paid $129 each year to upgrade to the latest OS release"

10.0 : Mar '01

10.1 : Sep '01 (free update)

10.2 : Aug '02

10.3 : Oct '03

10.4 : Apr '05

10.5 : Oct '07

10.6 : Aug '09 (cheap update)

Assuming I paid for 10.0 in March 2001, and bought every subsequent release I'd spend an average of $85 a year on Mac OS X.

gavers

Actually, you'd never be able to do the series of upgrades you talk about since Mac OS X 10.0-10.3 were ONLY available for PowerPC based Macintoshes and ANY computer you owned that could have run these versions CANNOT run 10.6 since it is ONLY availble for Intel based Macintoshes.

Every Macintosh sold by Apple before January 2006 and some sold as recently as August 2006 are now orphan computers and cannot run 10.6.

Lindy

Actually, Apple's press release linked in Paul's article includes both client and server versions of Mac OS X. Perhaps you should have read it.

Again, it's interesting that nobody seems to have been able to answer the question I posted.

But, apparently, there are many self proclaimed Mac experts who can tell you why nobody should answer it or that somebody with 7 Macs is not a realistic scenario.

Mike I think the difference here is that Apple is in your face up front....."Snow Leopard is Intel only, no PPC".

Compared to MS

"Oh hell yeah buddy Vista will run like a champ on that 3 year old PC (in 2007) with 512megs of RAM that runs XP just fine, go for it, Vista FTW!!!!!! Oooooh Rawwww!!!!!"

In the end the result is the same.  PPC users cant run SL, and older PC users could not run Vista.  Its all in the approach....in your face vs bend over.

Mike its been answered by scoobyclub.  www.rif.org.

And Microtards are paying through the nose for a point update of Windows 7! Talk about a hefty Microsoft tax!

Oh and I am sure that Paul will cover both SL server and Windows 2008 R2 in his SL vs 7 series of articles.  Tons of information I am sure.

Try again mac daddy.

Lindy

No, actually scoobyclub ducked out on a fair amount of the requirements and got other parts wrong. I guess that's yet another Mac fan who was confused by the upgrade choices and requirements.

So, no. Nobody has even come close.

The beauty of OS X, compared to Windows, is that it's a far superior OS. You'd either have to be dumb, have no taste or blind not to realise that.

Lindy

"Mike I think the difference here is that Apple is in your face up front.....'Snow Leopard is Intel only, no PPC'."

Actually, if you go to the Apple press release you'll find that PowerPC (or PPC or any variant) does not show up at all. Ever. Period.

I don't know what you think you're quoting but Apple's PR department is about as far from "in your face" as you can get about how Apple abandoned everyone who bought their expensive products just over 3 years ago.

rr0de

"Paul perhaps you should have written a Snow Leopard Secrets book?"

Even better, if he had written "Leopard Secrets" then he could have done a search and replace on the code name and version numbers and had "Snow Leopard Secrets" completed in a matter of minutes.

(And probably sold copies of the "new" book to the same people)

Mike Its $229 for the five Mac clients that can be upgraded.  That covers SL, iWork and iLife for FIVE Mac's.  Read it three times slow, so you get it.

Only 1 server can be upgraded, so that would cost $499 for unlimited users.  So your total is $728

A software pricing war would end badly for Microsoft to be honest.  

Upgrading 5 PC's to 7 Pro from XP (assume pro to connect to the server in domain mode) would cost $199 x 5 or $1000.  Assuming 1 Windows 2008 Server upgrade that would cost, $734 on Amazon, and that would cover 5 users.  Office 2007 Professional upgrade pricing on Amazon is $240 per copy so lets call it $1250.  So we are looking at $3000 before we buy five copies of something that compares to iLife.

What Apple did to the Power PC folks is really mean, but that is the path that Apple has always followed.  After a few years abandoned hardware platforms become boat anchors slowing down the progress of everyone else.

Imagine what would happen if Microsoft announced that Windows 7 would only work of Intel Core processors or better.  There are no Celeron or Turion processors that even need apply, and no Apple engineer is wasting time optimizing the process scheduler for the Atom processor (a senseless waste in my opinion.)  This is what Apple has accomplished.

Now, I'm not sure there is a huge run-time performance gain to be had, but removing the legacy PowerPC code from the development process is an obvious win, and it will make the next version (10.7) an easier development effort as well.

Was it mean?  Sure was!  Was it the right thing to do?  We'll know in two years when Apple ships 10.7.  They may have something amazing planned, and beat Microsoft to market by at least a year.  Even more, if Microsoft suffers a Window 8 restart akin to the Vista debacle.

Time will tell.

@mikegalos: I realize that. but I may have for whatever reason purchased all those releases. No matter what, I wouldn't spend $129 per year on Mac OS because it's not released yearly.

Paul wasn't suggesting that someone could do all these upgrades, he was saying that Apple sells a new version of OS X each year, and that the "up-to-date" user spends $129 a year. They don't, they couldn't. It's incorrect to suggest that Apple sells a new OS each year, or that someone who wants to stay up-to-date would spend $129 per year.

@Lindy "A software pricing war would end badly for Microsoft to be honest."

If you are looking purely at software, then yes, Microsoft will always 'appear' more expensive.  When you look at the whole package (hardware and software), then it's a lot less obvious.  The end result would depend on what period/products you compare (no matter how independent a particular comparison is, there will almost alway be bias towards creating the scope of the comparison to create the desired result.  Both Microsoft and Apple do this.

@ robertsjoe "The beauty of OS X, compared to Windows, is that it's a far superior OS. You'd either have to be dumb, have no taste or blind not to realise that."

Your arrogance is staggering.  You think your opinion is better than everyone else's while in reality your rubbish comments actually show how tasteless you actually are.  I feel sorry for Apple that people like you are so vocal for them.

gavers

What Paul did was be a little out of date. Apple DID put out a new $129 release of Mac OS X every year for several years and then switched to a every other year plan.

By comparison, Microsoft has traditionally gone for a new consumer OS release every three years

There is the exception of XP lasting a couple of years longer due to both the Longhorn reset and not counting XP SP2 as a point release and instead making it a free service pack. If you count Windows XP SP2 as Windows XP.1 then it's about right again. XP SP2 had major rewrites under the covers but only few end-user features (which should sound similar except for pricing to people looking at Snow Leopard)

@bobbyjoe:

Since you said not to take you seriously, I'll take the opposite as a compliment, thanks.

Lindy

Nope. You're igoring several factors such as whether "Mac Box Set" can be used to upgrade Leopard machines (Apple says it's specifically for Intel Macs running Tiger), whether it is cost effective to upgrade a new Leopard machine (which qualifies for a $9.95 "Up-to-date" upgrade) under that "Mac Box Set" if that does, indeed support Leopard machines.

You ignored the requirement that NONE of the computers should have iWork installed and that iLife was to be upgraded only on specific machines. (you could say, who cares, it's included in the price but not everyone wants extra software)

You also got the count wrong on which machines would need to be thrown out and replaced with new computers (or dumped at fire-sale prices to unsuspecting newbies and replaced) since they cannot be upgraded at all. (Not even by upgrading hardware)

You said there were 5 Mac clients that could be upgraded on the "Family Pack" "Mac Box Set" license. Let's look:

The new laptop she got last week qualifies for a $9.95 "up-to-date" license (and it would be a serious shame to ignore that price for a share of the $229 license but, hey, overpaying is a cost of life sometimes and Apple could use your charity, after all.)

The 4 year old PowerMac running Tiger is throwaway despite being a very, very expensive high-end workstation that's still performant. Oh well. That's several thousand dollars down the drain.

The G4 Mac server running Tiger is throwaway despite being a very, very expensive serve that's still performant. Oh well. Hope there's no custom server apps her business needs that were compiled for PPC. Again, several grand tossed out. Maybe she can write it off somehow.

The Intel Mac server running Tiger can be upgraded for $499.

The 3 year old MacBook running Tiger can be upgraded with Mac Box Set

The older MacBook running Panther is throwaway. Panther was PPC only so it must be a PPC box. Oh well. That's a couple of thousand.

The iMac running Tiger might be a throwaway if it is PPC or might work on Mac Box Set if it is Intel (funny how family members don't always know things like this when you ask them - welcome to real life)

So, if the iMac was Intel we have

1 Server upgraded

2 Tiger machines upgraded with Mac Box Set Family Pack

1 Leopard machine upgraded with Mac Box Set Family Pack (and Apple gets to save that $9.95 upgrade)

1 Server thrown out

2 PPC client machines thrown out

Total: $729

Cost per client machine: $76.33

Cost of a new server and two new client machines? Many thousands.

And that's assuming that the Mac Box Set CAN be used to upgrade a Leopard box. If not, then add $9.95 to upgrade the week old box and raise the cost for the other two client machines to $114.50 each.

Now, if the mystery iMac is PPC we get:

1 Server upgraded

1 Tiger machine upgraded with Mac Box Set Family Pack

1 Leopard machine upgraded with Mac Box Set Family Pack (and Apple gets to save that $9.95 upgrade discount again)

1 Server thrown out

3 PPC client machines thrown out

Total: $729

Cost per client machine: $114.50

Cost of a new server and three new client machines? Many thousands - probably up around 5 figures now.

And that's assuming that the Mac Box Set CAN be used to upgrade a Leopard box. If not, then add $9.95 to upgrade the week old box and raise the cost for the other remaining client machines to $169 since the Family Pack doesn't make sense for one machine

At a minimum we're talking over $700 and the cost of buying several new machines including a server and a high-end workstation plus possibly the additional costs of having any custom PPC server code rewritten or at least recompiled if it was last worked on back in the PPC-only days.

Wow...mikegalos is at his best today...it is hilarious how he comes out when Paul posts about Apple...but is generally silent when it is Windows.

Question that I have mikegalos:

- Why do you consider the PPC machines throw-away? Are they suddenly going to quit working?

- Why woul your "cousin" have PPC based macs if none of her apps were compiled for it?

It is you, sir, that sucks at IT.

Me, on the other hand will continue to use and enjoy both Windows and OS X based PCs. You all can keep your blinders on.

--tayme

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week

And it didn't make sense in even one of those seven machines to use the $29 Mac OS X service pack pricing.

(Put simply, upgrade combinations are always complex. Some companies tell you what you need to know, some just lie about how "simple" it is)

Tayme

"Why do you consider the PPC machines throw-away? Are they suddenly going to quit working?"

The goal was to get the machines up to 10.6. There is NO way to do that on those machines. No level of upgrades to hardware will make them work with the latest version of the OS. Now, they won't stop working but, by that right, neither will your old 1977 Apple ][. Obsolete happens. With Apple, more frequently than with Microsoft. Welcome to the real world.

"- Why woul your "cousin" have PPC based macs if none of her apps were compiled for it?"

Huh? The point was about custom PPC compiled apps for the servers from back in the days when Mac fanatics hated Intel as much as they hate Microsoft now.

Some great new ads: movies.apple.com/.../apple-mvp-top_of_the_line-us-20090824_480x272.mov

movies.apple.com/.../apple-mvp-surprise-us-20090824_480x272.mov

Both amusing and honest. Unlike Microsoft's dodgy ads and thievery.

@galos

Seriously Mike. Go out somewhere... sit in the sun.. drink a cold beer.... and have a long hard think about what you are doing with some of your posts.

You seem like an intelligent guy. Why would you spend so much time stooping to the level of the internet's teen fanboys?

I know that you are trying to make a point here, but your convoluted upgrade scenario... and your own detailed answer just strikes me as being a little sad.

Apple and it's products appear to play no part in your life, yet you seem obsessed with trashing everything Apple, all the time. I have never understood this mentality in any fanboy. I just don't see the point.

Believe me I am not trying to be facetious. Take a little time out. Examine your motives. Is it worth it.

Peace.

SPiotr

Nah. It was too much fun watching the "Apple is easy" types today in between doing real stuff.

It's amazing that not a single Mac Fanboi was able to figure out a simple 7 computer upgrade for a minor service pack on their own platform.

And some of them claim to actually work in this industry. That's just sad.

Mike you are some kind of crazy, obsessive crazy.  First I know this cousin of yours does not exist.  You made up the worst possible situation, to try and make a point but you failed.  I was waiting for your book you wrote explaining how I was wrong.  Its your typical sorry *** tactic of trying to change the subject, or build a strawman.

I could easily create a nightmare situation as well to make my point.

In real life I would have upgraded all of those Tiger machines to Leopard a long time ago and they would be perfectly happy at 10.5.8 until the hardware died.  They could run all that universal software for a LONG TIME.  Office 2008 or CS4 is not going to stop working on August 29th.  I mean my company still uses Office 2003 even though we own 2007.  

Leopard qualifies for the box upgrade.  The only computers that qualify for the $9.95 are those purchased after the announcement of SL shipping date back in June or whatever, so Leopard owners for two months or less.

The fact that you even said this "you could say, who cares, it's included in the price but not everyone wants extra software" proves you are a nut job.  I am pretty sure that anyone here would take an extra DVD of some software they were not going to use to get the software they wanted at a lower price.  Nut job, freak job, creepy nut, freak job.  Just throw away the stuff you dont want, its that simple and take the money you saved and go get a happy meal and squirt some songs from your Zune to others at Rotten Ronnies.  NUT JOB!

@galos

"It's amazing that not a single Mac Fanboi was able to figure out a simple 7 computer upgrade for a minor service pack on their own platform."

It's not amazing at all.  I suspect that as soon as they got to the part where your "cousin" had to upgrade 7 computers ( that she had never bothered to upgrade before!) ... they probably just curled up and died.

You seemed to have missed my point entirely. I think it's "amazing" (sad) that you even posed the question in the first place.

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week | VishwaTech IT News

I answered the question. Simple as. Just because Mike wants to dream up nonsense doesn't mean I didn't. He is obviously so used to arcane licensing schemes that he just can't stop.

The Apple site clearly states the Mac Box Set requires a Mac with an Intel Processor.

It clearly states there is DVD for each of OS X, iLife and iWork. You choose what to install.

It clearly states "Upgrade your Mac with the latest versions of your Apple software — all in one box:"

Plus, and I can't vouch for Snow leopard yet as it's not out, but previous upgrades have been on the honour system, This means that there is wiggle room and intentionally so as it makes life easier for the user. And that is what they are about.

Anyway enough, MG clearly doesn't want there to be a simple answer and will dream up all sorts to pretend he is right.

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week | Windows Seven 7

@mikegalos: outdated or not, what Paul said was factually incorrect. It implies that there is a yearly cost of $129 to stay current with Mac OS. That's not true.

Notice that I didn't bring up Windows, because it is irrelevant to what Paul said. What Microsoft does, or what it costs to keep up with Windows doesn't take away from the fact that it doesn't cost $129 a year to run the most current version of Mac OS X.

I still think 10.6 is overpriced. It should be a free download. If you want optical media, then $10, for a disc in a sleeve. No box needed.

@mikegalos: "Again, it's interesting that nobody seems to have been able to answer the question I posted."

No one cares about your contrived scenario with you and your cousin. Or was it your wife? Or are they one and the same?

"You seemed to have missed my point entirely. I think it's "amazing" (sad) that you even posed the question in the first place."

You got @mikegalos in one. Sad.

This whole theme of Mike's about his cousin really explains a lot about Microtards and how they roll. Or not.

Aww. Now all the Mac fans who couldn't figure out their platform service pack's "simple" upgrade licensing are switching to personal attacks to hide their embarassment.

That's just so adorable!

I answered it. Whether you can accept it is another matter.  Well actually, it isn't. I know you won't accept it as you never can. You have an agenda and too much time on your hands.

Mike, give it up. There's nothing hard about upgrading to SL. No personal attacks from me, just a couple of points:

1. The upgrade to SL is -definitely- simpler than the upgrade to Windows 7. Yes? Paul and others have written pages and pages about the WIndows 7 upgrade, multiple articles, enormous charts. This point is clear.

2. So, in you scenario, update all the PPC machines to Leopard, update the others to SL. Throw out the PPC machines? Why? They're not orphan computers, they'll all run Leopard just fine.  If, as you and others have said, SL is just a service pack, then the PPC machines can run Leopard with no loss of functionality. You can't have it both ways.

3. Products should be optimized for the majority case. The idea is to do the best job for the center of gravity of the user base. Thus the SL upgrade works well for the majority case, upgrades from Leopard. How about the Windows majority case, the upgrade from XP? Uh oh, you're off to clean install land. Again, Paul and other commentators have noted this.

4. You (and no one else here) addressed the majority case. Instead, we got a lot of noise about an obviously contrived scenario. That's just obfuscation to divert attention from the difference in the upgrade process for the majority of users on each platform.

In the Mac case, it will be simple and seamless, while on the Windows side, it will be wipe your computer and pray you can get back all the stuff you had running under XP.

Many people will either pay an expert for help with that XP>Win7 upgrade or just give up and buy a new computer. It's possible that 3rd party tools will make the XP>7 upgrade simple, but Microsoft has just done a bad job managing this process.

@mikegalos - Since you think that nobody has answered your absurd question, I would like to point out that you have not responded to one of mine.

You said "Hope there's no custom server apps her business needs that were compiled for PPC. Again, several grand tossed out. Maybe she can write it off somehow."

To which I asked, "Why woul[d] your "cousin" have PPC based macs if none of her apps were compiled for it?"

You then responded, "Huh? The point was about custom PPC compiled apps for the servers from back in the days when Mac fanatics hated Intel as much as they hate Microsoft now."

Since you are the one that introduced the notion of custom built apps, I was looking for more information regarding that before a recommendation could be made. But as usual, you turn the corner to the incongruous. All in an attempt to make the story work your way. Sorry, but that won't work. Nobody here(except maybe robertsjoe) is stupid enough to play your games anymore. Your debate tactics are boring and predictable.

That said, there are many other questions that need to be answered before a recommentation can be made...and anybody that doesn't "suck at IT" knows that. Some of them are:

- What is the business case for the upgrades?

- What are the requirements of the end users?

- Describe the network topology.

- Is data storage a concern?

- How is access controlled - physical and system?

- Are there requirements for data backup?

- What are the Recovery Point and Recovery Time Objectives of the servers?

- What applications/data/sites do the servers host?

- What does the SLA for the applications/data/sites and servers state for availability?

- Does that SLA meet the requirements of the business units?

There are a host of other questions that I could ask...but that would be futile, much like your attempt to paint a negative picture of Apple's upgrade process...knowing that it is in fact, not unlike Microsoft's. Heck, I might even suggest that some of the computers in your "cousin's" environment be replaced with Windows Servers or NetApp filers. I might even suggest that Windows Vista be installed on some of the laptops via Bootcamp.

--tayme

Scoobyclub...

One of the things I like about Windows over Apple products IS the fact they providemore than one way to perform an action.  I like options.  I've never been a fan of Apple's interfaces; and I've never quite understood how they are more intuitive than a windows one.  They seem much the same when you get right down to it, and any require you to learn their ways, after which it's just not that hard.

It's the same reason I use KDE over Gnome on my Linux boxes.  Gnome decides how the the system is going to work and you just have to live it..or open up the the configuation editor to fix it; but then that removes the "intuitive" part, right?  It's not a bash of Apple, more power to people using what suits them best.  I simply like Windows more.  

I will agree, however, with the guy who called MS's new taskbar a joke.  I agree with that.  It's just awful and the first thing I do on Windows 7 installs is remove it.  Ugly,  and truly unintuitive.  Please, MS, leave the taskbar the way it was.  It worked just fine.  But thanks for letting me move the individual taskbar items; at least you got that right.

Pingback from  Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week - SuperSite Blog | Computer Mod News

Pingback from  And He Blogs » Snow Leopard is Great. Except when it’s not.

Pingback from  iPhone Stuff » Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late

Pingback from  innovation604 News Portal » Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late

Pingback from  innovation604 News Portal » Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late

Pingback from  innovation604 News Portal » Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late

Pingback from  Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late | Hot Trends 2 Tweet

Pingback from  Sorry Redmond: Too Little, Too Late | Iphone Study Blog