Early Snow Leopard Sales More Than Double Those of Leopard

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/17/early-snow-leopard-sales-more-than-double-those-of-leopard/)

According to market research firm NPD, Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard has seen very strong sales (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_090917.html) thus far, having sold more than twice as many copies during its first two weeks on the market as Mac OS X Leopard did in late 2007. Early sales of Snow Leopard also exceed those of 2005's Mac OS X Tiger by nearly four times."Even though some considered Snow Leopard to be less feature-focused than the releases of Leopard or Tiger, the ease of upgrading to Snow Leopard and the affordable pricing made it a win-win for Apple computer owners - thus helping to push sales to record numbers" said Stephen Baker, vice president of industry analysis at NPD.The report notes that Snow Leopard generated significant sales momentum, with sales dropping only 25% from week 1 to week 2. Leopard and Tiger reportedly experienced approximately 60% drops in sales numbers in their second weeks on the market.

Research analyst Gene Munster had previously estimated (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/24/analyst-apple-likely-to-sell-5-million-copies-of-snow-leopard-this-quarter/) that Apple would sell approximately five million copies of Snow Leopard during its launch quarter, which ends later this month. Given that Apple sold over two million copies (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/10/30/apple-sells-two-million-copies-of-leopard-in-first-weekend/) of Leopard in just its first weekend, NPD's data suggests that Apple should easily reach Munster's target.

Article Link: Early Snow Leopard Sales More Than Double Those of Leopard (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/09/17/early-snow-leopard-sales-more-than-double-those-of-leopard/)

[WilliamG]

Amazing how many you can sell when you price the OS appropriately....

[kurenaiz]

just because it's cheap.

[iBookG4user]

Makes sense when the OS costs less than a fourth of the previous one.

[motulist]

Amazing what you can do when you price an OS appropriately....

Totally. For $30 you almost have to look for reasons why you shouldn't upgrade rather than why you should.

[Chintan100]

Totally. For $30 you almost have to look for reasons why you shouldn't upgrade rather than why you should.


+1 for that.... I love :apple:

[Drag'nGT]

$129 wasn't a bad price even for Leopard. You could also say "see what happens when you release 1 OS and not 3-4 versions of the same one?"

The only thing that may slow down SL is that there isn't any buzz from Apple out there on TV about it and what I see online is a lot of 'it's worth it but maybe not right now since not many apps out there can use the features' comments.

[coral]

This is great!


It will drive the adoption of the new set of technologies even faster! And open-sourcing GCD means that the technology hopefully will find it's way into every application soon.

[overanalyzer]

Of course the price certainly helps. I think the quick release of 10.6.1 helped too. I personally vowed to wait until the first point release before purchasing, in hopes of avoiding any immediate-adopter issues, and haven't had any problems so far. I suspect the eventual release of 10.6.2 will see a brief uptick again for people who want to wait for a couple point releases to be out before adopting a new OS version. Given the low price, I would assume that eventually pretty much every Intel Mac will be upgraded eventually, especially as applications begin utilizing the new core technologies and the performance benefit becomes more pronounced.

[VoR]

Given the low price, I would assume that eventually pretty much every Intel Mac will be upgraded

Given the nice low price, I would assume that a fair few copies are sold to people that are upgrading their Intel non-Macs with a nice retail disc too.

[mrboult]

That's funny. For me SL is the first update I have not purchased immediately. I guess I just got fed up with waiting for the rest of the OSX ecosystem to catch up. ie: I can't be bothered to again discover that various programs around my system suddenly don't work and I have to wait for updates.

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).
Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

[MalibuMatt98]

For $30 for improved performance, more hard drive space, you get nothing to lose. For the upgrade from 10.5.8 was smooth as promised, and I reclaimed approx. 22GB of HD space. Hopefully 10.7 will offer more features.

[starflyer]

That's funny. For me SL is the first update I have not purchased immediately. I guess I just got fed up with waiting for the rest of the OSX ecosystem to catch up. ie: I can't be bothered to again discover that various programs around my system suddenly don't work and I have to wait for updates.

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).
Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

Rosetta is available, although as an optional install.

[Winni]

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

No, the dropping of PPC support has nothing to do with Rosetta. Rosetta is still there as an optional install.

[*LTD*]

Indeed.

SL is just the right upgrade for the right price. Frankly, I was ready to pay $129 for it. A lot of us were.

[Winni]

This is great!

Unless you own any Apple stocks, those sell stats will hardly have any impact on your life.

Besides, on a global scale, the OS X market share still is - and will always remain - extremely insignificant.


It will drive the adoption of the new set of technologies even faster! And open-sourcing GCD means that the technology hopefully will find it's way into every application soon.

Maybe. But most of those applications will now run on non-Apple platforms, because what will happen with parts of GCD being under the Apache license is that some folks will port it to Linux, FreeBSD and Windows. And that is where you will see all those GCD-compatible apps...

[Nobita]

If windows has priced windows 7 the same as snow leopard and without the confusing 4 editions, I'm sure they could do pretty well.

[HONDAxACURA]

No matter what, Apple OS is a whole lot cheaper when compared to Windows XP or Vista.

I would rather pay for OSX than Windows.

[Stigma]

Totally. For $30 you almost have to look for reasons why you shouldn't upgrade rather than why you should.

Let's not forget the millions of people who bought a new Mac since July and get it for $10.

[unfrozen.jon]

$129 wasn't a bad price even for Leopard. You could also say "see what happens when you release 1 OS and not 3-4 versions of the same one?"

The only thing that may slow down SL is that there isn't any buzz from Apple out there on TV about it and what I see online is a lot of 'it's worth it but maybe not right now since not many apps out there can use the features' comments.

I would love to see the next Get a Mac ad with Mac showing off his new pet Snow Leopard. The Snow Leopard could maul the Windows 7 PC character!

[rdowns]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

[After G]

I would love to see the next Get a Mac ad with Mac showing off his new pet Snow Leopard. The Snow Leopard could maul the Windows 7 PC character!If we're going by codenames, that'd be a black comb and a can of vienna sausages then? :p

(Blackcomb and Vienna were the codenames for Windows 7)

[celtikmind]

No matter what, Apple OS is a whole lot cheaper when compared to Windows XP or Vista.

I would rather pay for OSX than Windows.

But you have to buy a more expensive, special hardware to run it. So Apple got you on that... ;)

[cb31]

No matter what, Apple OS is a whole lot cheaper when compared to Windows XP or Vista.

I would rather pay for OSX than Windows.Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

Still at £25 I upgraded both my machines because it was so cheap. Lets hope the next incarceration of OS X is also cheap, although I doubt it.

[costabunny]

But you have to buy a more expensive, special hardware to run it. So Apple got you on that... ;)

...you missed out 'prettier and possibly more reliable' :)

for my opinion - I paid £39 for the Family pack upgrade and yes - much much cheaper to re-OS several macs in the family than several Windows machines (and dont need to chase upgrades so often)

[richard.mac]

^(last page) new developer technologies in service packs? yeah right! i agree Microsoft patches a lot more security and stability issues in service packs for free, but Apple still does release regular point upgrades and security updates thru Software Update.

[celtikmind]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

True, true.

But knowing Apple, they'll probably market it as having amazing new Apple-innovated technology for HD movies called Blueray! ;)

[*LTD*]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

Still at £25 I upgraded both my machines because it was so cheap. Lets hope the next incarceration of OS X is also cheap, although I doubt it.

Leopard a service pack?

[richard.mac]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

Apple has bought some time to develop some new 'features'. i can see ZFS making an appearance and maybe the disc format of teh now typed below.

True, true.

But knowing Apple, they'll probably market it as having amazing new Apple-innovated technology for HD movies called Blueray! ;)

Blu-ray ;)

[numbersyx]

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

Not if Apple pile on the features and upgrade the UI (Marble - at last?) which is what I suspect they are working towards...

[celtikmind]

...you missed out 'prettier and possibly more reliable' :)

for my opinion - I paid £39 for the Family pack upgrade and yes - much much cheaper to re-OS several macs in the family than several Windows machines (and dont need to chase upgrades so often)

The sum to all things it's equal. Do it all at once or a piece at the time. It all depends on taste and more, what usage is required. Sometimes a Mac fits and sometimes it doesn't. But if one is happy playing in Apple's kindergarten there is really no reason not to be content with it.

As long as we have the option to choose either I'm happy. :)

[numbersyx]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.



Leopard would never have been a service pack in the Windows world.... And it would have been priced at over $200 if MS had released it.

[JimmyDreams]

I admit that I upgraded to SL not out of any knowledge of specific improvements, but rather the price.

It was a "new OS, it probably is better than the old one. It probably has new features I'll like. Heck, for THAT price, how can you go wrong?"

Victim of advertising? Guilty of having an extra few $$ to throw at SN? Probably yes on both. :cool:

[iGod 2.0]

What did you expect? The World's Most Advance Operating System has done it again :apple: forever.

[celtikmind]

Leopard would never have been a service pack in the Windows world.... And it would have been priced at over $200 if MS had released it.

Microsoft is mostly a software company, they do not sell computer systems.

Apple makes money on both software and hardware and as such they have adopted a different business model.

And during your Mac's lifetime, how many times would change the OS before you're "required", or want to, exchange your Mac? Apple is expecting you to buy new hardware within a calculated timeframe.

So until OS X is a 'freely' available, as in not tied to one specific brand, there is little point in having a discussion in terms of pricing. And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems. In terms of either platform being largely cheaper, it's an illusion.

In terms of choice though - it's yours.

[DipDog3]

It's not wonder when you can upgrade for $30 instead of $130!

[3dollarbridge]

Maybe its because the upgrade path to Leopard was hindered by the 867Mhz speed required. Now that there are so many new computers that meet the upgrade path requirements, it makes sense that coupled with a great price, that sales would increse

[KnightWRX]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

You're the one exagerating. service packs don't tend to introduce new APIs and functionality on the level of Time Machine.

The fact is, you can't compare Windows release/Service Packs to OS X releases/point updates. There is no analogie that really stands.

[baruch]

That's funny. For me SL is the first update I have not purchased immediately. I guess I just got fed up with waiting for the rest of the OSX ecosystem to catch up. ie: I can't be bothered to again discover that various programs around my system suddenly don't work and I have to wait for updates.

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).
Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

SL is a barely noticeable update. What is noticeable is a tad snappier performance all around. My PPC apps are running just fine, which was a concern. I did a full startup-disk backup of Leopard on an external HD in case my PPC apps were going to fail under SL but so far so good.

[emulator]

Makes sense when the OS costs less than a fourth of the previous one.
it also worth 1/4 of the previous one.

[daneoni]

Well duh at $29 who wouldn't buy it

[Eric S.]

Low price is a factor but it's still surprising since SL's features don't differentiate it much from Leopard.

Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

That depends on what's in 10.7. 10.1 was a free upgrade to 10.0, but people still paid $129 for 10.2.

[guzhogi]

Maybe its because the upgrade path to Leopard was hindered by the 867Mhz speed required. Now that there are so many new computers that meet the upgrade path requirements, it makes sense that coupled with a great price, that sales would increse

I don't think the 867 MHz requirement in Leopard was as bad as the Intel-only requirement in Snow Leopard. Quite a few people still have only PPC Macs.

As for opening up the Mac OS to other brands, that has it's positives & negatives. Positives would be more choice, cheaper products, etc. Negatives would be Apple would have less control over the software since it'll have to work with all sorts of hardware. That's the good thing about doing both hardware & software: you know what the consumer has and you only have to optimize your software for specific things.

I'm glad Snow Leopard is doing well. Only thing better is if 3rd party apps would be updated so they work w/ Snow Leopard. While there's a lot of apps that do work, there's still enough apps that don't & that might make some people wait before updating. I wonder if that number is just the box sales or also includes Macs that came w/ Snow Leopard preinstalled.

[JGowan]

Amazing how many you can sell when you price the OS appropriately....BS, buddy,... total BS. The only other product that we can look to see how OSs should be sold is Microsoft's and you know how they are. 20 versions and all WAY more costly than the $129.

I don't know about you, but I use the mac for the software. Hardware, yes it's nice and it's superior in every way to the PC, but the software is king. $129 is nothing compared to what you get. The only reason to not upgrade in my opinion is if I'm using software that is incompatible with the new OS... then I wouldn't upgrade. Certainly not the money.

[celtikmind]

Low price is a factor but it's still surprising since SL's features don't differentiate it much from Leopard.


It's new.
It's shiny.
It's by Apple.

For some that is enough as usual. :rolleyes:

[jaw04005]

I'm over Snow Leopard. For the most part it was a "meh" release for me. It was $30, so I guess it was worth it. But I hope it doesn't start a trend of minor Mac OS X releases.

I predict 10.7 will be announced at WWDC '10 and released in the Spring of 2011.

[HLdan]

Given the nice low price, I would assume that a fair few copies are sold to people that are upgrading their Intel non-Macs with a nice retail disc too.

HUH! Hogwash! :p. Most of the hackintoshers are already breaking EULA's and are proud of it and have the audacity to have an excuse for doing it as if the excuse justifies it so if you think for one minute they are even willing to pay $30 when they can just torrent it you are giving them too much credit.

[BornAgainMac]

Microsoft is mostly a software company, they do not sell computer systems.

Apple makes money on both software and hardware and as such they have adopted a different business model.

And during your Mac's lifetime, how many times would change the OS before you're "required", or want to, exchange your Mac? Apple is expecting you to buy new hardware within a calculated timeframe.

So until OS X is a 'freely' available, as in not tied to one specific brand, there is little point in having a discussion in terms of pricing. And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems. In terms of either platform being largely cheaper, it's an illusion.

In terms of choice though - it's yours.

Good post. That makes sense.

[Eidorian]

The price is the only thing to talk about for Snow Leopard.

[seedster2]

The price is the only thing to talk about for Snow Leopard.

Agreed it's obvious cost is the major catalyst for the sales performance. It's cheaper than some of the iphone cases Apple pedals at their store. Apple had to do something to ensure widespread adoption. Im sure their next release will be back to regular price and sales will likely dip comparatively.

Thankful for friends with family packs. I upgraded my Mac Pro but I don't see the speed increases that others have experienced. There are some subtle UI updates that are cool, but nothing worth running out an upgrading. Ill keep my MBP at Leopard as I want all my peripherals to continue to work.

[djchuckc27]

it's cuz leopard's the ****, that's why.

[*LTD*]

And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems.

That's the last thing anyone in their right mind would want. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.

Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.

And by the way, the very last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.

[rhpenguin]

HUH! Hogwash! :p. Most of the hackintoshers are already breaking EULA's and are proud of it and have the audacity to have an excuse for doing it as if the excuse justifies it so if you think for one minute they are even willing to pay $30 when they can just torrent it you are giving them too much credit.

Not all of us are like that. I have 10.4 (albeit a PPC copy) through 10.6 retail discs in my closet. Not running 10.6 fulltime, but I've paid for my copy and in a few months time will use it.

[jmcguckin]

well, I can proudly say that as an early adopter, I'm part of this statistic :)... and as for what many of you are saying about price being a factor, I definitely agree, I wouldn't have been nearly as eager to buy my copy if Snow Leopard had been much more than $29, particularly since it's pretty much identical to Leopard feature-wise, but I can safely say that the drastic performance increase (at least for my MacBook) has made this the best $29 I've ever spent on a computer-related purchase.

[celtikmind]

That's the last thing anyone in their right mind would want. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.

Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.

And by the way, the very last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.

And here we go again... Excuses, excuses and more excuses from *LTD*, Apple-expert en grande. And on top of that you've failed to see what my comment was all about.

You're not a poster-bot, are you? Catching the sentence but missing the point of it? :p

[stainlessliquid]

Unfortunately this logic is not passed on to their computers. Make things cheaper and more people will buy them, make them overpriced and damn near nobody will buy them.

[davidbrummy]

SL is a barely noticeable update. What is noticeable is a tad snappier performance all around. My PPC apps are running just fine, which was a concern. I did a full startup-disk backup of Leopard on an external HD in case my PPC apps were going to fail under SL but so far so good.

Not for developers. We can not move over as a lot of our transcode software is build in C and now will not compile due to 64 bit issues.

[jaw04005]

Comparing sales figures of Snow Leopard, Leopard and Tiger is a joke anyway. There are millions more Mac users now than their were in 2005. While it makes a great PR headline, it's always going to be more with each Mac OS X release.

The only true way to compare OS releases would be by OS adoption percentages. What percentage of the Mac user base at the time upgraded to Tiger within the first two weeks? Leopard, etc.

That would give you a better sense of the successfulness of Snow Leopard. This is likely what Apple looks at internally.

Just take a look at the exponential growth in Mac shipments since 2006.

http://switchtoamac.com/site/mac-shipments-lowest-in-15-years-first-yearoveryear-drop-in-55-years.html

[stagi]

Normally I get in a new OS the first day (not on my main computer for work but try it out on my laptop first and then update the rest) With snow leopard I am still waiting, since there aren't a ton of great new features I am just waiting for the dust to settle and make sure there are no major problems with my apps before upgrading, might be sometime in the next few weeks though :)

[VoR]

That's the last thing anyone in their right mind would want. Apple succeeds spectacularly with Macs and OS X precisely because it's a closed, controlled ecosystem. Anything else (or anything less), and OS X becomes a Windows clone. And who the hell would want that?? The whole reason behind Apple's business model when it comes to Macs (and their resulting success) is that OS X is tied to Apple's hardware. This is the reason customer satisfaction rates are so high, year after year. This is the reason the also-rans of the industry aspire to render their products more "Mac-like" in every way possible.

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period. Hackintoshes and mucking around with the OS and wailing about "freeing" it is alright for that small segment of Apple's user base (a segment which in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential anyway), but it would be a monumental disservice to the average user.

Apple succeeds because of these specific differentiations. It's a coveted business model that others only wish they could emulate successfully. We're at the point now, where if the average user has $1000+ to spend (and apparently, plenty of them do!) a Mac will be near or at the very top of their list. That's quite an accomplishment. It's the reason Ballmer ends up looking stupid, flustered, and tongue-tied at press conferences, especially when he's in a room-full of Macs.

And by the way, the very last thing Apple's numbers, record Mac sales, and dominance of consumer mindshare and opinion would suggest is for Apple to free its OS. There's simply no demand for that and no reason to do so.

I'm in my right mind, and I want it - I really couldn't care less about apples business strategy. I also couldn't care less about what an average computer user wants or needs (I think most people would be better off with an oss distro btw), I'm in it for myself and I'm the sort of guy that reads and posts on tech forums... I'm part of the statistic, I bought a copy of snow leopard, and I don't own any apple branded computers any more - go figure?

It may surprise you to know that osx 10.5/6 runs pretty much (or completely) out of the box (once booted) on many intel systems.

I'm sure for many obvious reasons, all financially benefiting apple (you realise they're just a big greedy corp like everyone else right?), that it won't happen - what they're doing at the moment is working fine.

Customer satisfaction rates? I wish I could voice my opinion in one of these one day. Anyway, rather arrogantly I'd like to say that pretty much every user I know, knows nothing.

[*LTD*]

And here we go again... Excuses, excuses and more excuses from *LTD*, Apple-expert en grande. And on top of that you've failed to see what my comment was all about.

You're not a poster-bot, are you? Catching the sentence but missing the point of it? :p

Had I wanted to deal with the rest of your post, I would have quoted the rest.

And you can call Apple's record successes - in a recession, excuses.

I call it facts.

[iSlave]

An OS, priced at a third of the cost of the previous one, goes on to sell almost twice as many copies?????

WHODATHUNK!!!!!???????????
:p

[iyacyas]

it's cuz leopard's the $H!T, that's why.

I agree not only that people are scrambling to fix their recently purchased crappy Macbook (Less than) Pro computers. Since apple will not fix the problems or even recognize them people are hoping apple silently put the fixes int the Magical, almighty, holy than tho Snow Leopard.

Sorry, just my 2 pennies!

[twoodcc]

of course they sold more. look at how much cheaper it is. i hope they sell more than 5 million copies in that timeframe though

[mdriftmeyer]

Amazing how many you can sell when you price the OS appropriately....

This isn't Windows where you have a bazillion clone options. You still need to by the hardware to run it so a lot of the old base and new users are coming aboard to the latest hardware.

[adamberti]

Well they would sell one more if they could keep my local Apple Store in stock. Everytime I go there they are out of copies. How long has it been out now? It's a burned DVD, not an iPhone - last time I checked paper and DVDs were in great supply....

[*LTD*]

Unfortunately this logic is not passed on to their computers. Make things cheaper and more people will buy them, make them overpriced and damn near nobody will buy them.

Except people are.

Record Mac sales (during a recession, no less) don't happen by accident. The price drop a few months ago wasn't all that substantial. And the envrionment was even more volatile with those Laptop Losers ads. Except Apple actually sold more Macs.

91% share in the $1000+ notebook (physical store purchases) segment means no one is buying them? Apple rules the Premium end. And Macs are priced accordingly. Not every income bracket is going to participate, naturally.

Macs have never sold better. Apple's growth has outpaced the rest in the industry in this area several years running.

Oh, and here's more good news to add to the ever-growing pile:

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/apple_mac_desktops_notebooks_iphone_ipods_top_pc_mags_annual_reader_satisfa/

[xIGmanIx]

makes sense since this is an upgrade to leopard, thus the install base that already has leopard is going to be larger probably then the folks that are going to change OS's completely like the switch from Tiger to Leopard.

[Captain Planet]

Of course, the low cost for the upgrade did help the sales numbers. However, there's more Mac users than before. Also, there were a lot of people still using Tiger that hadn't upgraded to Leopard. So, a lot of those users probably felt the need to upgrade to Snow Leopard since they would be two operating systems behind... adding this factor with a low price cost gives this sale boost.

[ArcaneDevice]

BS, buddy,... total BS. The only other product that we can look to see how OSs should be sold is Microsoft's and you know how they are. 20 versions and all WAY more costly than the $129.


Hardly BS.

Only reason I bought Snow Leopard - $30.

Only reason I bought a Windows 7 upgrade - $50 special at Amazon.

Reason I'm still using Tiger on my primary Mac - $130

[ArcaneDevice]

And if Apple really had any balls they would start marketing OS X for other computer systems.

They've had the balls once, and when Amelio's got cut off during the clone years they decided to keep Steve's intact.

[*LTD*]

An interesting read:

http://finerthingsinmac.com/

[Eric S.]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

I think the whole point is that Leopard and Snow Leopard aren't available in the Windows world.

[heisetax]

Totally. For $30 you almost have to look for reasons why you shouldn't upgrade rather than why you should.

$24.99 with free shipping from Amazon.com, $29 plus shipping from Apple if you don't spend at least $50 now. We won't even mention sales tax as that is an item that is supposed to be paid by most people, but probably isn't.

[heisetax]

$129 wasn't a bad price even for Leopard. You could also say "see what happens when you release 1 OS and not 3-4 versions of the same one?"

The only thing that may slow down SL is that there isn't any buzz from Apple out there on TV about it and what I see online is a lot of 'it's worth it but maybe not right now since not many apps out there can use the features' comments.

I'm one of those that preordered it at Amazon for $29 & only had to pay $24.99 when it shipped. I have it installed on a separate partition on a backup drive on my Intel Mac Pro. I try to run it everyday to see if there are any problems or there are anything that seems to make it better. So far the results are not very consistent. I've had a couple of crashes but one of those programs also had a little problem with 10.5.8. I've had some noticeable slowdowns, but not any noticeable speedups.

So the result is I'll keep testing until tax becomes a 120-140 hour a week work schedule. At the current time I expect to use 10.5.8 as my running system on all of my Macs. 10.6 may not be running well enough to trust my business to how well it actually runs. It will not be the version number that Apple is shipping then, but how it runs with my particular group of software programs.

[joueboy]

After the upgrade I can no longer watch videos on ABC.com TV shows when I use Safari. Firefox works fine with the TV shows but on Safari only ad shows or preview videos works okay. But when I click on featured shows the loading animation will show up, but just the loading animation the show won't start at all. So far that's the only major problem I have since updating to Snow Leopard the rest are just minors. Anybody else has the same problem?

[cumanzor]

This "freely use computing hardware the way they want" notion lives and dies in small corners of the internet, and in the even smaller corners in which Apple fan sites live, fuelled mainly by the geek/tech-enthusiast minority that (wrongly) thinks it knows whats best for everyone else. In fact, Apple seems to know best. Period

I see, us Linux users don't know what's best for everyone but Apple and their users do.



:confused:

[synth3tik]

odd, I don't know a person that is running SL.

[Plutonius]

It's not rocket science :).

Low price = high sales.

[*LTD*]

I see, us Linux users don't know what's best for everyone but Apple and their users do.



:confused:

Judging by the state of Linux today, judging by the direction in which the entire industry is moving (where Apple leads), absolutely.

Apple has tapped in to the technological sweet spot of our time, and they're capitalizing on it. The day everyone tries to be more "Linux-like" (probably the first and last time you'll ever read that phrase), the rights of the argument might shift.

[KnightWRX]

91% share in the $1000+ notebook (physical store purchases) segment means no one is buying them?

91% revenue share, not market share. The distinction is important.

[iPoodOverZune]

Not all of us are like that. I have 10.4 (albeit a PPC copy) through 10.6 retail discs in my closet. Not running 10.6 fulltime, but I've paid for my copy and in a few months time will use it.

I agree. I always have bought the retail copies. Even though now I have three hackintoshes (can use torrented stuff) and one powerbook (cannot install SL), I am still going to order SL very soon. And then I will install SL on all Hac Pros

[BrianKonarsMac]

Indeed.

SL is just the right upgrade for the right price. Frankly, I was ready to pay $129 for it. A lot of us were.

Why? I haven't read anything positive about Snow Leopard yet - what would make you want to pay $129 for strictly under the hood improvements (which based off what I've been reading aren't necessarily improvements)?

[heisetax]

HUH! Hogwash! :p. Most of the hackintoshers are already breaking EULA's and are proud of it and have the audacity to have an excuse for doing it as if the excuse justifies it so if you think for one minute they are even willing to pay $30 when they can just torrent it you are giving them too much credit.

I was one that purchased 4 9500/9600 Mac Clones. They worked great with Apple's OS up to OS X. They were only licensed to go to about 8.1, whatever was the last release before HFS+. We were not treated as outlaws when we used the new versions of the Mac OS.

Now people running Hacintoshes are labeled as criminals. When I get time to build one I will like many will purchase our own copy to go with our Mac OS running computer. Just as there is a group of Windows computers that like to assemble their computer from the parts they want, the same hods true in the Mac group. Apple is really only spending money & effort on those companies that openly sell the Mac OS installed on the non Mac hardware. They knew that when they went to a computer that was really generic, like a Windows's PC that they would have to give up total hardware control. If they didn't then their head is farther in the sand than I would imagine.

Make your own Hacintosh, you may like it better thanyou thought you would.

My old name that came during the Mac II, IIx IIfx time frame was Dr Frankentosh. This was earned when I built my Mac IIfx from parts. It never had a case or speakers.

[Spinnetti]

SL was cheap because there's nothing to see.... Unfortunately, as Apple gets more popular, its quality keeps falling. I've collected a serious of inexcusable bugs so far, including problems with mail rendering, inability to use some photo hosting sites, and also the primary purpose of my iMac, which is iPhoto. My machine no longer recognizes my cameras, even after the .1 release. This is a mess, and I may have to backgrade to a known good release (even 10.5.7 introduced sev1 bugs like my bluetooth no longer working (with Apple hardware) and that's the only input devices I have)

[KnightWRX]

SL was cheap because there's nothing to see....

It's not because you don't see it that it's not there. SL is a huge jump forward.

[*LTD*]

I haven't read anything positive about Snow Leopard yet

:confused:

Have you been reading at all?

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars


SL was cheap because there's nothing to see.... Unfortunately, as Apple gets more popular, its quality keeps falling. I've collected a serious of inexcusable bugs so far, including problems with mail rendering, inability to use some photo hosting sites, and also the primary purpose of my iMac, which is iPhoto. My machine no longer recognizes my cameras, even after the .1 release. This is a mess, and I may have to backgrade to a known good release (even 10.5.7 introduced sev1 bugs like my bluetooth no longer working (with Apple hardware) and that's the only input devices I have)

Are you sure your problems aren't just your own that you're projecting on to everyone else? That seems like a hobby around here.

[celtikmind]

Had I wanted to deal with the rest of your post, I would have quoted the rest.

And you can call Apple's record successes - in a recession, excuses.

I call it facts.

Are you so blind you can't read or do just not bother? Or both? I never mentioned nor brought up anything general about their sales. I was strictly talking about the usefulness in price comparisons.

Again, let me spell it out for you. My comment was about the point of discussing the price of Windows in regards to OS X and vice versa. They're both parts of different business strategies so comparing them price to price is pointless.

Thus over to the next part in my post, for a price vs price comparison to be useful we would need for both OS's to be available under the same type of distribution strategy.

Now if, and only if, Apple would have the balls they would make it available. The tragic result, unfortunately, of Apple taking Microsoft head on would probably leave them smeared all over the wall so let's just hope they don't. Competition is the best for all of us end-users.

If you need a more elaborate explanation than that, find a friend to do it for you. Though I don't think you're even trying and that's the really sad part. There's really little point in having any discussion with someone as heavily biased as you. It just doesn't bring anything to the table. Heck, even Laguna has his moments but he at least he reads the posts from start to end.

If you would like to admit that you missed my point and missinterpreted the whole thing, feel free. It would only make you greater.

[AidenShaw]

Are you sure your problems aren't just your own that you're projecting on to everyone else? That seems like a hobby around here.

There's plenty of evidence that a lot of people are having problems with 10.6 - so your "nothing's wrong" attitude is just as misplaced as the post that you are criticizing.

[cumanzor]

where Apple leads

:D

[Spinnetti]

:confused:

Have you been reading at all?

http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars




Are you sure your problems aren't just your own that you're projecting on to everyone else? That seems like a hobby around here.

what a clueless fanboi. I bet I've had macs longer than you have. I do software project management for a living and know what quality is and isn't. You want to recreate my issues? I can give you the details.. I repeat. This is a mess quality wise, and Apple has acknowledged most of the bugs I've reported to them.

[hwmillerster]

After getting my internet wireless connectivity problems solved, I am thoroughly pleased with 10.6. It seems to boot up twice as fast as it did. The improvements are refinements. I notice when I use Checkup, both processors now seem to be doing an equal amount of work. In 10.5 processor 1 did 80% of the work. Even Sierra Watcher the driver for the USB 881 air card is nice and stable, no reinstalling the device every third or fourth launch. Apple better have some good tricks up it sleeve for 10.7.
:D

[AidenShaw]

I notice when I use Checkup, both processors now seem to be doing an equal amount of work. In 10.5 processor 1 did 80% of the work.

In general, it's a bad thing to see both CPUs at 50% vs seeing one CPU at 100%.

There's significant overhead and costs with dealing with cache and other state if you "ping-pong" a thread between CPUs.

On the other hand, if before it was 80% on one CPU and with 10.6 it's 80% on both CPUs - then you're getting twice the work
done!

[*LTD*]

Are you so blind you can't read or do just not bother? Or both? I never mentioned nor brought up anything general about their sales. I was strictly talking about the usefulness in price comparisons.

Again, let me spell it out for you. My comment was about the point of discussing the price of Windows in regards to OS X and vice versa. They're both parts of different business strategies so comparing them price to price is pointless.

Thus over to the next part in my post, for a price vs price comparison to be useful we would need for both OS's to be available under the same type of distribution strategy.

Now if, and only if, Apple would have the balls they would make it available. The tragic result, unfortunately, of Apple taking Microsoft head on would probably leave them smeared all over the wall so let's just hope they don't. Competition is the best for all of us end-users.

If you need a more elaborate explanation than that, find a friend to do it for you. Though I don't think you're even trying and that's the really sad part. There's really little point in having any discussion with someone as heavily biased as you. It just doesn't bring anything to the table. Heck, even Laguna has his moments but he at least he reads the posts from start to end.

If you would like to admit that you missed my point and missinterpreted the whole thing, feel free. It would only make you greater.

So having balls to do something in this case would be to act stupidly anyway. You're implying that Apple having the guts to do something would only result in failure. So why imply that at all? Even if Apple *did* have the balls, they still wouldn't do it because they aren't stupid.

There's nothing wrong with the spirit of your post. Just your logic. Or lack thereof.

And yes, I most certainly am heavily biased toward Apple. Why wouldn't I be? MS does an excellent job ensuring that, year after year as well as the rest of this sleepy industry.

I'm probably a "fanboi" because most of what MS has done for the past decade, and are doing now, really doesn't merit any significant level of excitement.

You'll forgive me if I have little to no faith in a company that has been in a near-comatose state when compared to a rival half its size and half its resources.

When it comes to the consumer sphere, MS hasn't known WTF it's doing for years. Sorry for not being super-pumped about their latest me-too attempt - the Zune HD, for example, a device that is yet again, trying to ape what Apple has already chewed up and spit out. How the hell am I supposed to react after years of MS mediocrity when we have a company like Apple churning out winning products on a regular basis?


what a clueless fanboi. I bet I've had macs longer than you have. I do software project management for a living and know what quality is and isn't.

No problem. Tell me how long and I'll arbitrarily beat it by at least three years. The internets are fun like that.

In cyberspace, we're all experts. With years of experience, managers and designers all.

As if any of that actually means anything. No one really cares. And I'm the Easter Bunny, and know what quality is and isn't.

So let's see your list of problems so the rest of us can reproduce them.

[AidenShaw]

So let's see your list of problems so the rest of us can reproduce them.

Seriously, *LTD*, you should start many of your posts with </tact> - since they're totally lacking in it.

Lighten up a bit, and accept that both "half full" and "half empty" are valid viewpoints. Apple's not perfect, Apple's not complete crap, Microsoft's not perfect, Microsoft's not complete crap.

[IBradMac]

Kudos!!

I think the main reason for the sales spike is the lack of incompatibility with apps and other devices. Apple=awesome!

[Chundles]

We ordered the same number of copies that we sold in the first two weeks of Leopard's launch and we sold out in an hour and a half.

It's selling very bloody well.

[slughead]

Early Snow Leopard Sales More Than Double Those of Leopard

This just in: $130 (leopard) is more than double $30 (snow leopard).

http://palmgoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the_more_you_know2.jpg

[Chimpy]

Early Snow Leopard Sales More Than Double Those of Leopard

This just in: $130 (leopard) is more than double $30 (snow leopard).

http://palmgoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the_more_you_know2.jpg

While that's funny, I think they mean unit sale, not dollar volume.

But I like the "More You Know" graphic :).

[kernkraft]

I wonder, how much interest the new OS would generate if it was the regular 129 USD. Personally, as I recently got rid of my 1st generation unibody MacBook and got a slower MacBook Pro with a better screen and Firewire, I can update for free (or some P&P). So far, I haven't.

If it was my choice, I would still have Tiger. My first Apple portable had Tiger on it and it was great. With Leopard came endless upgrades, patches, bugs and features that I don't use. Eventually, I will upgrade, but it will not happen before 10.6.2, I think. I became very cautious about Apple's efforts recently.

Some Apple nazis and fanboys might feel differently, but I have more regret that I missed out on the free Windows 7 release candidate offer. I wouldn't use it as a primary OS, but I know that that is the OS that has real relevance. 10 % is still a relatively small minority. There is more need for a good MS OS than a polished version of Leopard. That will be the OS that MS Office will be based on, that most game designers will base their products upon; and that will be the OS that the overwhelming majority of people will use most of the time.

And whoever says that "At the current rate, Apple could immediately cease OS development for a decade and still be ahead of Microsoft in the operating systems "race."", is an infatuated moron.

[Eric S.]

My first Apple portable had Tiger on it and it was great. With Leopard came endless upgrades, patches, bugs and features that I don't use.

Leopard had endless upgrades and patches? Tiger went to 10.4.11, and how many "Security Updates" since then?

[Rodimus Prime]

hmm i find it funny apple is making a killing on basically a big Service pack for OSX.

[theAppleGuru]

just because it's cheap.

and because its has proven to be an worthy successor of OSX 10.5 Leopard

[theAppleGuru]

hmm i find it funny apple is making a killing on basically a big Service pack for OSX.

Service pack ?? this is not Windows buddy. Giving full 64bit support itself justifies it to be an new OS and its much more than that

[djchuckc27]

i bought an iPhone 3GS today!!! And SL rocks!

[A Macbook Pro]

Indeed.

SL is just the right upgrade for the right price. Frankly, I was ready to pay $129 for it. A lot of us were.


LOL! No, I wasn't going to. It a few refinements, it isn't worth $120.

[A Macbook Pro]

Service pack ?? this is not Windows buddy. Giving full 64bit support itself justifies it to be an new OS and its much more than that

Windows has had 64 for years buddy. It should have come as a service pack.

[Manic Mouse]

I wonder, how much interest the new OS would generate if it was the regular 129 USD. Personally, as I recently got rid of my 1st generation unibody MacBook and got a slower MacBook Pro with a better screen and Firewire, I can update for free (or some P&P). So far, I haven't.

If it was my choice, I would still have Tiger. My first Apple portable had Tiger on it and it was great. With Leopard came endless upgrades, patches, bugs and features that I don't use. Eventually, I will upgrade, but it will not happen before 10.6.2, I think. I became very cautious about Apple's efforts recently.

Some Apple nazis and fanboys might feel differently, but I have more regret that I missed out on the free Windows 7 release candidate offer. I wouldn't use it as a primary OS, but I know that that is the OS that has real relevance. 10 % is still a relatively small minority. There is more need for a good MS OS than a polished version of Leopard. That will be the OS that MS Office will be based on, that most game designers will base their products upon; and that will be the OS that the overwhelming majority of people will use most of the time.

And whoever says that "At the current rate, Apple could immediately cease OS development for a decade and still be ahead of Microsoft in the operating systems "race."", is an infatuated moron.


I don't think I'd be able to live without Spaces, Stacks or Quick Look. Those three features alone have drastically changed how I use (and can use) OSX for the better.

If you can live without them more power to you. But for me Snow Leopard is light-years ahead of Tiger. SL is quick as lightning on my MBP, stable and feature-packed. Could not be happier with the way OSX is going.

EDIT: And I don't believe the person who said Apple could cease development of OSX for a decade and still be ahead of MS was too far off. Not only at the user level, but at the developer level with all the infrastructure of OSX (Core services, Open CL, GCD, Cocoa etc). Windows is heaving under the weight of 20 years of backwards compatibility. If MS were to gut Windows and start from scratch they'd have an awesome OS, as is it's a snail pace of progress due to so much baggage.

[Manic Mouse]

Windows has had 64 for years buddy. It should have come as a service pack.

Do you believe the same for Win 7? After all, it's simply what Vista should have been just a few years late.

[*LTD*]

I don't think I'd be able to live without Spaces, Stacks or Quick Look. Those three features alone have drastically changed how I use (and can use) OSX for the better.

I caouldn't live without them, either. Did wonders for my workflow. Spaces and Quicklook especially. Quicklook is unique, but Spaces is really a no-brainer to have in an OS. It just makes sense. I've got Spaces set to a hot corner, as well as Exposé. Quicklook on the space bar.

[Goona]

Let's not exaggerate, we all know that Snow leopard and maybe even Leopard would be free service packs in the windows world.

Still at £25 I upgraded both my machines because it was so cheap. Lets hope the next incarceration of OS X is also cheap, although I doubt it.

So which version of OSX isn't a service pack?

[celtikmind]

So having balls to do something in this case would be to act stupidly anyway. You're implying that Apple having the guts to do something would only result in failure. So why imply that at all? Even if Apple *did* have the balls, they still wouldn't do it because they aren't stupid.

There's nothing wrong with the spirit of your post. Just your logic. Or lack thereof.

And yes, I most certainly am heavily biased toward Apple. Why wouldn't I be? MS does an excellent job ensuring that, year after year as well as the rest of this sleepy industry.

I'm probably a "fanboi" because most of what MS has done for the past decade, and are doing now, really doesn't merit any significant level of excitement.

You'll forgive me if I have little to no faith in a company that has been in a near-comatose state when compared to a rival half its size and half its resources.

When it comes to the consumer sphere, MS hasn't known WTF it's doing for years. Sorry for not being super-pumped about their latest me-too attempt - the Zune HD, for example, a device that is yet again, trying to ape what Apple has already chewed up and spit out. How the hell am I supposed to react after years of MS mediocrity when we have a company like Apple churning out winning products on a regular basis?



AGAIN, where is the logic flawed in the uselessness of comparing OS's in price vs price?

Especially when the total sum of picking up either type of system is pretty much equal, it's down to pure taste and how suitable it is in it's appliance. Is a Mac applicable to my needs? Access to AutoCAD and the performance required is one area where OS X would fail. Boot camp still requires Windows.

Besides where did I claim Microsoft wasn't flawed? I was discussing Apple not having any balls, if anything. At the very best I was claiming Microsoft having the greatest share of the OS market.

Quit misdirecting with your senseless proganda and pay up.

As in regards to your tagline, I have to agree with kernkraft. If Apple could they surely would slow down on the development which is costing them a considerable amount of money. The "fact", as you'd like to call them, they don't is clearly a disproof to your statement. They're not continuing their research & development, wasting large funds just to spite Microsoft, I you ever had that in mind when you wrote it.

Just to be extra clear, when, and if, I turn to Apple I want to know what they're good at. In those cases I don't give a ***** about Microsoft or what Apple does better, i.e. I'm not going to turn to Volvo when looking to buy a motorcycle (and vice versa of course). In those cases I'm only interested in what Apple does and them alone. If they really are better they can also stand for themselves, no need for smug swings at everyone else. Comparisons are the poor way of saying you want to be better.

[KnightWRX]

Windows has had 64 for years buddy. It should have come as a service pack.

Your broad definition of service pack stretches to include many versions of Windows also. By your definition, Windows NT 3.1 is the last true OS sold and everything after it was just a "Service pack".

Of course, that's non-sense, but I do get a vibe that you're not here to discuss apple products.

[SinfonianShrek]

You know, there are a few of you who, while not saying it, think that SL should have been a free upgrade. Some of you are openly winging that there's no glaring changes. Some are even calling it the equivalent of a service pack.

My arguments? Well, first and foremost: a LOT of work went into the background of the OS. While this is transparent to many users right now that will change. Take GCD for example. It's an impressive piece of programming and tech. Do you think it's free to get teams of developers to work on something that in depth and involved?

Secondly, I'll concede that there's not much noticeable change for your basic, everyday users. Aside from breaking the occasional poorly written app. But you know something? That is the user's individual choice whether to upgrade or not. Apple isn't sitting there saying, "UPGRADE OR YOUR GRANDMA'S BRAINS PAINT THE HALL A NEW SHADE OF GRUESOME!"

Thirdly, Comparing Windows to Mac OS X in terms of release equivalence and business practice similarities is downright ludicrous. As stated elsewhere in this thread, Apple doesn't just produce and sell the software. They sell the whole experience: hardware, software, peripherals.Point out one Windows XP service pack that did all of the following: drastically modified the UI, added new API technology, improved overall performance, and integrated new native technologies.

My last point, in summation, is that Apple is a company. A business. Their main motive is to turn as much of a profit as possible . The problem many people seem to have is that in order to consistently turn a profit you have to either find new revenue streams or constantly create new reasons to generate profits in your current one.

[ctucci]

hmm i find it funny apple is making a killing on basically a big Service pack for OSX.

Well in one sense, if I pay 29 for a service pack, that pays for the programming time + profits, and perhaps keeps the overall cost of the next os low.

I mean, mebbe free service packs are why new Windows OS's that are worth anything ( not Home, I mean ) run over 200 bucks...

[mackandproud]

Let's hope so. Full list of $29 is absolutely stupid, in a good way. And I am certain many have and will take advantage of the $25 sale price which popped up soon after it's release.

Unfortunately, Apple eroded much of it's goodwill with it's bumbling itunes 9, one of the saddest entries onto the Mac scene in quite some time.


Pricing Snow Leopard at @ $29 will make it harder to sell 10.7 at $129.

[CQd44]

Well in one sense, if I pay 29 for a service pack, that pays for the programming time + profits, and perhaps keeps the overall cost of the next os low.

I mean, mebbe free service packs are why new Windows OS's that are worth anything ( not Home, I mean ) run over 200 bucks...

Pretty sure the average user doesn't need anything more than Home edition.

[Cabbit]

Unfortunately, Apple eroded much of it's goodwill with it's bumbling itunes 9, one of the saddest entries onto the Mac scene in quite some time.
I must ask what is wrong with iTunes 9 in your opinion, all i have noticed is a colour change to the background of my music in album view and a much easier to navigate iTunes store.

[*LTD*]

I must ask what is wrong with iTunes 9 in your opinion, all i have noticed is a colour change to the background of my music in album view and a much easier to navigate iTunes store.

THere's nothing wrong with it at all. It just got better. That column view navigation feature is very nice.

[Xibalba]

Amazing how many you can sell when you price the OS appropriately....

exactly...

[Xibalba]

Pretty sure the average user doesn't need anything more than Home edition.

i agree but most people want to try and get everything for all of the bells and whistles...

[California]

Also I have a question (I know this probably isn't the correct place, sorry).
Will SL run my old PPC Apps? I still use MS office purchased in about 2002/2003 when i was using a powerbook. Does the lack of PPC support in SL mean no more Rosetta to run old apps?

Excellent question... will SL run my year 2001 OSX edition of Word?

[*LTD*]

Excellent question... will SL run my year 2001 OSX edition of Word?

I haven't tried it yet, but I believe if Rosetta is required, SL will ask you if you want to install it, so it's available.

Does Pages '09 not have feature parity with a 7+ year old version of Word? Not sure why you'd want to run old software like that, but if it aint broke . . .