[KBeat]

The most promising feature for me, is one that hasn't been mentioned in this article or, for that matter, by Apple. I am incredibly excited about what Snow Leopard is going to mean for Apple's Pro Apps. Aperture & Final Cut, two apps that I rely on extensively, have been patiently waiting for the release of Snow Leopard. The new Snow Leopard architecture (64-bit, OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, QuickTime X, h.264 acceleration) are going to allow for significant upgrades to these venerable programs. Shooting daily with a 5D Mark II, I've got RAW files well over 20 MB each (130 MB each when converted to 16-bit TIFFs), and hours of h.264 native 1080p video. These image and video files bring the current apps to their knees on Leopard and will benefit hugely from Snow Leopard's features with upgrades designed to take full advantage of them.

[thebiggfrogg]

So what if it has a smaller footprint because it no longer has universal code and is only coded to Intel? It is still a smaller footprint (a bummer for my old, still-road-worthy and used iBook G4 (still running Tiger anyway), but a boon to my MacBook Pro).

[LetItSnow]

Snow Leopard is dead on track with what I want: Refinements of an already very good OS. Refinements of the UI and reworking the technology underneath. Very nice.

Sadly there is no word from Apple re. some schrankschanden that exist within Leopard:
- No XMP support with Spotlight. Ouch!
- The integration of FileVault and TimeMachine is ... well, it virtually doesn't exist
- MPEG2-support in QuickTime. VLC can somehow handle the license implications. Why can't Apple?

[19ertim]

Snow Leopard checks your applications to make sure they’re compatible and sets aside any programs known to be incompatible.
What does this mean?? Sets aside and they will nto function with Snow Leopard?

[KBeat]

19ertim said:

Snow Leopard checks your applications to make sure they’re compatible and sets aside any programs known to be incompatible.

What does this mean?? Sets aside and they will nto function with Snow Leopard?

Obviously if they're not compatible with Snow Leopard, they will not function with Snow Leopard. I wouldn't worry about it too much unless you're running very old legacy applications. By the time SL is released, devs will have had plenty of time to update their apps for compatibility.

[MacPro2007]

Well, I know of one legacy app I consider almost indispensable - and it will not be upgraded to anything because it's an early version of Photoshop Elements.

None of the later versions match PSE 2.0 when it comes to doing one vital function: Masking and Selection. I can't believe Adobe botched this in all their later versions - but they did. In PSE 2.0, all you had to do was select the Mask / Selection Brush (button) and choose which function you wanted to use. Later versions have reworked Masking and Selection, making it less accurate (big-big reqiurement) and more time consuming. I have Photoshop CS3 - Extended, it's just about as clunky as Photoshop Elements (at least, it requires yet another learning period and I don't have that much time to re-learn what should be a grab and go feature).

PSE 2.0 "stopped working" with the advent of 10.5. That's one big reason I never upgraded from 10.4. If that were the only thing - then maybe - I'd be eager to upgrade to 10.6. But there's going to be more work involved than just "install and play" - believe me. Those rushed upgrades you mention: they will also require download and install (and tryout) time for each and every one.

Also - the implication behind Apple's description of the "set aside" process is: it means we need to know beforehand whether or not to get an upgrade for a presently unknown number of applications. Or - wait until we see how many of our apps have been set aside - THEN - figure out how to get an upgrade for an app that's been "set aside" by the OS installer.

So I'm not so optimistic as to think some of us don't have to be concerned. I agree that Snow Leopard looks to be a leap forward - but past experience tells me there's gonna be a fair amount of "forced" work involved. That is, for people who are using their Macs for more than "average kinds" of tasks.

[lawalkowski]

I had planned to upgrade at the NEXT billable upgrade, whenever it happened. Y'know, every other one. Save money.

Now I have 10.5 in my iMac. To take the upgrade now, $29.99.

If I wait as originally planned, what do I have to look forward to? $129 for current 10.4 users sends a clear signal to upgrade NOW, don't wait.

Guess which choice I"ll make???

I am sure this will result in many more 10.6 sales for Apple. They ain't so dumb.

[Mac_Cat]

My point is that Mac users value QUALITY and performance.

As a rule, we don't mind paying for the higher quality OS and applications.

We know we can't run all the flash mini-apps and computer games on a Mac,

nor can we find drivers to use 3rd party hardware. But, that is a small price

to pay for stablity, speed, and security.



I really don't care how much the OS upgrades cost. I will gladly pay for them

if they continue to add value to my highly prized computers.



I do a lot of computer consulting - mostly on Windows, because they are the ones

that get hopelessly bogged down with bloatware, viruses, and adware. They

spend less up front, but they pay dearly at the back end, with progressivly slower

performance, with crashes, lost data, and devistating file corruption. And, their

hardware choices aren't that great, either. They can't resist the $500 price point,

and then the complain when the hard disk crashes after 60 days.



Let get real. Apple makes a high quality product. They took a bad turn a few

years ago with some low-end crap and some 3rd party hardware that didn't

measure up. The wisely dumped both and moved foward, not down. That's

why companies like Apple can hold their price-points. I really don't care if

my Mac cost apple $176 to build and they made 70% profit. They have great

employees who are focused on the right target. This is not a mass market, it's

all about quality. Something very few American companies understand (excpet Bose).



Who else? Certainly not any of our car and truck companies. Not our banking industry.

Not the medical industry. Perhaps Boeing and Starbucks, but certainly not Microsoft.

I'm still on the fence about

Adobe.

So, my point is that it's not about the cost, it's about the Performace.



I can't stand mediocre hardware or software!

[cueballio]

>(Apple) took a bad turn a few years ago with...some 3rd party hardware that didn't

Quote

measure up.

I assume you are referring to the clone market in the mid-nineties, under System 7. PowerComputing and UMAX clones ran circles around the Apple offerings at the time. What killed them off was not their features, performance, or price; but Apple's refusal to extend licenses when System 8 came out.

>They have great employees who are focused on the right target.

How do you know? Apple is totally secretive about what they are focused on. Where's the desktop positioned between the Pro and the Mini, that so many of us clamor for? (Other than the FrankenMac, that is.)

>This is not a mass market, it's all about quality. Something very few American companies understand (excpet Bose).

Bose? Really?? IMHO, Bose is always overpriced, and is always about marketing, marketing, marketing. I have yet to audition a Bose product that impressed me. I have always returned them and bought a superior competitor.

Quote

Not the medical industry. Perhaps Boeing and Starbucks, but certainly not Microsoft.

Starbucks?? Again about marketing over quality. A while back, Starbucks did studies to find out why their profits were falling. They decided that the coffee bins of their automated barista machines were too tall. Not that their prices were too high, nor the coffee drinks produced by the automatic machines weak and inferior to the previously hand-produced drinks. Now Starbucks will not even sell brewed decaf after noon. A coffee store that won't brew decaf past noon? I see their deluded MBA marketing-think systematically taking them right off the board. Peets in San Francisco is far superior to Starbucks. They have always stressed quality over rampant expansion. No comparison.

Quote

I can't stand mediocre hardware or software!

I'm with you there, but fan-boyism is not the means to that end.

[MacPro2007]

cueballio,
Judging from this one post, I'd guess you might be a purchasing professional (as I was before retirement).
The only improvement I could offer over what you said would be to say that "It's not about brand loyalty."

Brand loyalty people (buzzword, "fanboys") is just goofy unless it is consciously provisional and every statement about your favorite product starts with, "So long as..."

My father and his father were both "brand loyal" to Chrysler Plymouth cars. Look where that company ended up. They actually prolonged the agony of Chrysler's slow-motion demise by staying loyal through a couple of product cycles which should be memorialized in The Worst Car Ever Hall of Fame. Of course, being a Chevy or Ford fan never got those companies past their own mistakes. Lesson: We do Apple no favors by excusing / ignoring / evading their (product / service) failings.

So I say: So long as Apple continues to provide hardware and an OS which satisfies my needs on a value for value basis, I will remain an Apple customer. (Necessary addendum: So long as that is true versus other companies & products in the computer market.)

[bigpics]

> > This is not a mass market, it's all about quality. Something very few American companies understand (excpet Bose).Bose?
Really?? IMHO, Bose is always overpriced, and is always about
marketing, marketing, marketing. I have yet to audition a Bose product
that impressed me. I have always returned them and bought a superior
competitor.
> Not the medical industry. Perhaps Boeing and Starbucks, but certainly not Microsoft.
Starbucks?? Again about marketing over quality. A while back, Starbucks
did studies to find out why their profits were falling. They decided
that the coffee bins of their automated barista machines were too tall.
Not that their prices were too high, nor the coffee drinks produced by
the automatic machines weak and inferior to the previously
hand-produced drinks. Now Starbucks will not even sell brewed decaf
after noon. A coffee store that won't brew decaf past noon? I see their
deluded MBA marketing-think systematically taking them right off the
board.
[/quote]
Good post - all points spot on. To add to a few:
There's even an old commonly known audio industry maxim:
bq. "No highs, no lows, it must be Bose."
A decent, not-horrible looking $200 radio for only $400! Wowsers. There are also, or more likely were, some Bose stores in trendy malls a few years back. Heart attack prices for what was being offered. Multi-thousands for nothing special audio systems.
Still, though, if Apple ever starts doing late night infomercials that don't give the price of the product, offer easy payment plans and are filled with badly acted testimonials and thrice repeated pitches, be afraid, be very afraid. The Big A we know today may not value marketing over quality, but they certainly don't undervalue marketing and advertising either.

Executives at Microsoft and every other computer maker would sell their grandmas to get the buzz and essentially free advertising Apple gets, not to mention the whole gamut of Apple-oriented news and rumor sites that far surpass what any other corp. dreams about.

So right now they are a potent combo selling both the steak and the sizzle. To see if they a) continue to have the drive to create "insanely great products" in the post-Jobs era (whenever that comes) or b) someday succumb to resting on their laurels with rehashes of the same old same old putting profit over true product innovation is something that communities like this one should give great scrutiny to in coming years and not be such fanbois/gurlz that we're unable to hold Apple's feet to the fire when it's called for.

And don't let me get started about Starbucks as another role model I hope Apple would never emulate whatsoever. I'll just give an "amen" to what you said.

[cueballio]

MacPro2007 said:

cueballio,
Judging from this one post, I'd guess you might be a purchasing professional

Just a discerning consumer, in my own mind anyway.

Quote

Brand loyalty people (buzzword, "fanboys") is just goofy unless it is consciously provisional and every statement about your favorite product starts with, "So long as..."

Otherwise, it just invites complacency and mediocrity.

Quote

My father and his father were both "brand loyal" to Chrysler Plymouth cars.

Funny, my Dad was too. I don't remember any of his cars being good. His last car was a Plymouth Volare, which guzzled twice the fuel the EPA predicted .

Quote

Lesson: We do Apple no favors by excusing / ignoring / evading their (product / service) failings.

I couldn't agree more.

[LetItSnow]

As much as I look forward to Snow Leopard. At least for now Apple does not mention some long-standing issues in OS X:

- resize windows on all edges, corners (such a time saver! Most switchers from Windows miss this.)
- rename/delete files in open-/save-dialogs (very useful to quickly resolve file name conflicts when saving)
- no decent tagging mechanism in Finder, Mail, ... (sorry, but Spotlight comments just don't cut it, e. g. no rating, difficult to manage tags)
- editing tools for formatted text in Mail fall far behind what is in TextEdit. Why?
- Safari's bookmark folders are not spring-loaded

Then there's a lot of tiny stuff. For instance, have you ever noticed that
- the filename field in open/save dialogs does not grow if you increase the dialog box
- cannot search e-mails by size (only sort)
- can only edit drafts if they're in the drafts mailbox
- cannot "cut" items in the Finder, i. e. cmd-x, only "copy" i. e. cmd-c
- cannot configure that the menu bar shows the application icon (not the name) next to the Apple icon

[griffman]

While we won't know for sure until Snow ships, I would wager good money that none of those issues are addressed. They've been that way since the first beta (or even pre-date OS X), and as such, clearly aren't very high on Apple's radar.

There are workarounds for some things via third-party apps (A Better Finder Rename, MondoMouse, MercuryMover, Path Finder). For the rest, however, I believe that if you want to use OS X, you'll be stuck with those issues for a very long time.

-rob.