[Grumpy]

Again, thank you, for the reply. I replaced an older iMac for Snow Leopard with the latest 2009 version. This move was made exactly for this reason. OK, OK, I lost the debate or we both win, it all depends on how you look at it. Oh, by the way, how would I collect on your 'guarantee'? Relax, just joking. Thank You, for putting up with a cranky old Vet.

As always, Grumpy

[folklore]

hmurchison said:

>

Quote

Apple has been fairly upfront about Snow Leopard. It forms the foundation for future OS X advancement. They've broken legacy support for PowerPC processors and Carbon is no longer considered a peer programming framework as compared to Coca.

It delineates the former quasi 64-bit support in Leopard and mishmash of technologies from the highly optimized and "lean and mean" code of Snow Leopard. Apple's giving it away cheaply because going forward the more people that are on Snow Leopard the easier their jobs will be to deliver compelling new application features and prepare for 10.7 and beyond. We will not be charged again until 10.7 for OS X.

This is just a guess, but the $29 pricetag is probably designed to ensure quick adoption by all who can adopt Snow Leopard (read: anyone with an Intel Mac). The changes in Snow Leopard's APIs are significant enough that developers who take advantage of them might have a hard time keeping compatibility with 10.5.

[hmurchison]

folklore wrote:

{quote:title=hmurchison wrote:}{quote} Apple has been fairly upfront about Snow Leopard. It forms the foundation for future OS X advancement. They've broken legacy support for PowerPC processors and Carbon is no longer considered a peer programming framework as compared to Coca. It delineates the former quasi 64-bit support in Leopard and mishmash of technologies from the highly optimized and "lean and mean" code of Snow Leopard. Apple's giving it away cheaply because going forward the more people that are on Snow Leopard the easier their jobs will be to deliver compelling new application features and prepare for 10.7 and beyond. We will not be charged again until 10.7 for OS X.

This is just a guess, but the $29 pricetag is probably designed to ensure quick adoption by all who can adopt Snow Leopard (read: anyone with an Intel Mac). The changes in Snow Leopard's APIs are significant enough that developers who take advantage of them might have a hard time keeping compatibility with 10.5.

True..there's little excuse as a developer to stick with Leopard unless you want to target PPC but then you're going to be debugging for two different processors with PPC being the vast minority. If I was developing and I knew I was targetting Intel based Macs I'd certainly leverage Snow Leopard to the hilt. I'm not going to pass up on the optimizations and new stuff because someone wants to save $29. I could see $129 but not %25 of that amount.

[win39]

Have I slipped through the looking glass?
Snow Leopard is not an OSX update. It is a Leopard only update. It only installs on Leopard, does it not? You cannot update any prior version of OSX with the $29 disk. So for the first time Apple is charging money for an incremental update. Any prior OSX upgrade that you had to pay for would install over the version you had or give you a brand new operating system with a clean install. Now if you want to update a prior version to need to buy Leopard plus Snow Leopard. It is a huge price increase and to disguise as a bargain is just deceptive.

[Lebensmuede]

It's funny that no one has pointed out the similarities between upgrading from Leopard > Snow Leopard and from Windows Vista > Windows 7. Both are in essence, as the previous poster rightly observed, incremental updates.

Just pure coincidence...?

[cueballio]

It's great that they are bringing back "Put-away". I hope that the trash window can also be sorted by the date and time the items were moved to trash. The current trash window is fairly useless IMO since you cannot tell what order the items were moved to trash. This is one feature that is much better implemented in Windows. There, the trash is sorted by default by date/time moved, with a column showing the date/time when it was moved to trash. So it is simple to select, for example, the last 100 items, or all the items in the last hour, to put them back. Very good when thinning out contents of folders, such as jpgs, to know that the results are fully and easily recoverable until the trash is emptied. When I thin out collections of jpgs, of which I have thousands and thousands, I now move them to Windows, to sort and thin, and then back to Mac, in order to get this easily undo-able move to trash. Hopefully that will not be necessary with Snow Leopard.

[bigpics]

{quote:title=win39 wrote:}{quote}Have I slipped through the looking glass?
Snow Leopard is not an OSX update. It is a Leopard only update. It only installs on Leopard, does it not? You cannot update any prior version of OSX with the $29 disk. So for the first time Apple is charging money for an incremental update. Any prior OSX upgrade that you had to pay for would install over the version you had or give you a brand new operating system with a clean install. Now if you want to update a prior version to need to buy Leopard plus Snow Leopard. It is a huge price increase and to disguise as a bargain is just deceptive.

First, you're correct that Apple points out in their site copy that the $29 version is available to "Leopard users."

I haven't read anywhere else that you'll have to do a "double upgrade" to get from Tiger
to Snow. The Apple site is mute on the topic from my first search, but
intutively, unless you have a link to post that says otherwise, I
expect the cost won't exceed $129. If it is $159, then I will eat these electrons and join you in hissing and booing Cupertino.

That aside, until the facts are clear, this is clearly much more than a point release - it's a rearchitecting of OS X - full 64 bit in most ways that count, while still handling legacy apps (yes, ight?) - Grand Central - Open CL and a ton of engineering on much else.

Windows' shift to 64 bit has been (q'uelle surprise) much more disjointed and disruptive for users.

Also, I don't believe Vista users can upgrade to anything useful for anything like $29. In fact, I think it's time for Apple to start talking about the Windows "upgrade tax" - with all their multi-hundred dollar versions.



Next, Finally, even if it does cost Tiger/Panther users $129 (as I expect), that's no more than Mac users have been paying to upgrade one or two versions.

Finally, not @ you, the article title's misleading - we all knew there'd be some new features - we just didn't know which and many.

[Lebensmuede]

{quote:title=bigpics wrote:}
That aside, until the facts are clear, this is clearly much more than a point release - it's a rearchitecting of OS X - full 64 bit in most ways that count, while still handling legacy apps (yes, ight?) - Grand Central - Open CL and a ton of engineering on much else.

Windows' shift to 64 bit has been (q'uelle surprise) much more disjointed and disruptive for users.{quote}

http://news.cnet.com...l?tag=rtcol;pop

[benji888]

$29 to upgrade from Leopard.... hmmm... I really think that, unlike previous MacOSX upgrades, this will NOT include the newest versions of iLife. It will likely be a separate upgrade. I think I recall upgrading to MacOSX Tiger included upgrading iLife. If I am wrong in this, please let me know. (My current MacBook came with Leopard and iLife '08).

[cueballio]

{quote:title=
}{quote}
I expect the cost won't exceed $129. If it is $159, then I will eat these electrons and join you in hissing and booing Cupertino.

According to "Snow Leopard gets a September ship date" by Philip Michaels,

http://www.macworld....nowleopard.html

"If you?re still running Tiger on an Intel-based Mac, Apple is offering a Mac Box Set which will include Snow Leopard, iLife ?09 and and iWork ?09. The Mac Box Set costs $169, with a family pack available for $229."

But will that be the only option? I imagine not.

[folklore]

benji888 said:

$29 to upgrade from Leopard.... hmmm... I really think that, unlike previous MacOSX upgrades, this will NOT include the newest versions of iLife. It will likely be a separate upgrade. I think I recall upgrading to MacOSX Tiger included upgrading iLife. If I am wrong in this, please let me know. (My current MacBook came with Leopard and iLife '08).

You're wrong.

iLife is included with the purchase of a new Mac, and as such is on the restore discs that ship with that Mac. Retail boxes of Mac OS X have never included iLife (at least, Tiger and Leopard did not include iLife).

[bastion]

Quote

What makes this change even better is that the services items themselves are now contextual too. That is, you’ll only see the services that are compatible with the selection you’ve made.

Oh, goody. So long motor memory.

[bastion]

{quote:title=Taivo wrote:}{quote}
Rob Griffiths writes:
"One final new feature is actually a really old feature. Snow Leopard will have a Put Back command that moves a file from the trash back to its originating folder. The long-time Mac users out there will remember this command from OS 9 as Put Away (Command-Y; it’s still in my memory banks), and it’s very useful for those times when you change your mind about deleting a file. Score one more for the old timers!"
Seeing the return of command-Y is certainly nostalgic, however, currently in Mac OSX command-Z will undo that file's moving to the trash. Strange to re-introduce this.

Not strange at all. I wrote a suite of trash utilities and one of the top requests I get is if there's anything I can do to bring that functionality back. And I do, but only in a limited way because it really does require Finder support to do it correctly. The put away command was much more reliable and general purpose than being able to undo the most recent file move.
Considering it takes about 6 lines of code to store the "put away" location and maybe a dozen to actually use it to put the thing back whence it came, it's a cheap solution to a problem people are actually experiencing.

[bastion]

ReeceTarbert said:

"Another area that has seen speed and efficiency improvements is the OS
X installation process. It’s now up to 45 percent faster than Leopard,
and uses up to 6GB less drive space"

Maybe I'm picky but, as Snow Leopard is going to drop support for PPC, I should say that these "improvements" are just the side effect of using x86 only binaries instead of Universal ones.

You should only say that if you know it to be true. I'd be surprised if that's not part of it, but it's also explicitly noted that part of it is achieved by compressing some items on disk. And I'd also be surprised if the system libraries are not still universal which almost certainly takes up for more space than the PPC code in the stock applications.