$29 Snow Leopard question.

[Signal-11]

jdechko,

Just because all Macs come with an OS, does not mean that Apple has been selling "upgrades" all along. Up to this point, each version of Mac OS X purchased is a full licensed version that have not required any particular previous version. For example, Leopard is not an upgrade. Your conclusion is not logical.

S-

At this point, you're just splitting hairs and in a logical fugue yourself. You're giving the conditions for a scenario that doesn't exist because each time someone gives you a similar example, you split the hair further. Precedence exists for Apple to do exactly what you're describing as illogical.

The point being that you don't know with certainty what the conditions will be until Apple says and Apple hasn't said so yet.

 

[brad.c]

Actually, neither you nor anyone who doesn't work at Apple knows that, so don't post as if you have absolute knowledge.

OP, you'll have to wait until the disks are available, but chances are high that you will be able to do a clean install, and you may or may not be able to do it onto an already blank drive.

jW

Again, +1.

Nobody knows how it will play out. There are lots of opinions, but no facts. I doubt there will be any restrictions, but I don't know. In the meantime, remember there is no difference between the single user and Family pack versions of Leopard. You can install the single user on as many formatted Macs as you see fit, and the Family Pack DVD will install more than five times, in as many households as you like. All possible, despite the fact it breaks the EULA.

 

[aidricksdad]

i'm more scared of half the apps i have installed not working with SL and having to wait or just be out of luck if the devs dont update soon....i know i can wait and see but im just too impatient for that

 

[sidewinder]

At this point, you're just splitting hairs and in a logical fugue yourself. You're giving the conditions for a scenario that doesn't exist because each time someone gives you a similar example, you split the hair further. Precedence exists for Apple to do exactly what you're describing as illogical.

The point being that you don't know with certainty what the conditions will be until Apple says and Apple hasn't said so yet.

No, I am not splitting hairs. Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X. All others versions of Mac OS X have not used that nomenclature nor have they required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price.

S-

 

[killerrobot]

No, I am not splitting hairs. Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X. All others versions of Mac OS X have not used that nomenclature nor have they required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price.

S-

They actually HAVE down use that nomenclature and HAVE required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price (was only 9.95).

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/369631/

The old link, now takes you to the Snow Leopard Upgrade page.

The same program only two years ago.

 

[sidewinder]

killerrobot,

That was not an upgrade. Not anyone with Tiger could take advantage of the "Up-To-Date" program. It was put in place for people that bought a system with Tiger even though Leopard was announced. This was done so people would not delay purchase of a Mac waiting for Leopard top be included in the box.

Nice try though....

S-

 

[killerrobot]

No, I am not splitting hairs. Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X. All others versions of Mac OS X have not used that nomenclature nor have they required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price.

S-

killerrobot,

That was not an upgrade.

My "Upgrade DVD" disagrees with you.

Nice try though.

 

[sidewinder]

killerrobot,

Let me state it more completely:

That was not an upgrade program for everyone with Tiger. Not anyone with Tiger could take advantage of the "Up-To-Date" program. It was put in place for people that bought a system with Tiger even though Leopard was announced. This was done so people would not delay purchase of a Mac waiting for Leopard top be included in the box.

You had to provide a photocopy of the purchase receipt of the qualify system. This will be the same with the $9.95 Snow Leopard Up-To-Date program.

In other words, this has nothing to do with a generally available upgrade program which is what I have been talking about anyway.

S-

 

[killerrobot]

Let me see if we can state this more completely.

You said:

No, I am not splitting hairs. Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X. All others versions of Mac OS X have not used that nomenclature nor have they required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price.

It isn't the first time. Please refer to pic again.
SL isn't available to all Mac users for $29, just like the last Leopard "upgrade" wasn't available to all users for $9.95, so that argument is moot.

 

[sidewinder]

killerrobot,

Here is what I said:

Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X.

Note the bold text.

The upgrade is available to all Leopard owners though.

You cannot get these $9.95 "Up-To-Date" upgrades off the shelf as a general retail package so they do not apply to what I was saying.

S-

 

[killerrobot]

killerrobot,

Here is what I said:

Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X.

Note the bold text.

S-

That's funny because I paid 9.95 plus shipping for my "retail Mac OS package".
Of course you can now argue the definition of retail all you want and keep adding all the stipulations you want.
It doesn't change the fact that Apple sold an upgrade, labeled it as an upgrade, and users upgraded their Tiger OS system to the Leopard OS system at a discounted price in 2007.

EDIT: We'll just forget that you also said "Up to this point, each version of Mac OS X purchased is a full licensed version that have not required any particular previous version."

If you don't want to admit any of this, then I'm all for agreeing to disagree.

 

[brad.c]

No, I am not splitting hairs. Apple, for the first time, is calling a retail Mac OS X package an "upgrade" package and are selling it for a reduced price to users with a specific previous version of Mac OS X. All others versions of Mac OS X have not used that nomenclature nor have they required a particular release to qualify for the upgrade price.

S-

That's funny because I paid 9.95 plus shipping for my "retail Mac OS package".
Of course you can now argue the definition of retail all you want and keep adding all the stipulations you want.
It doesn't change the fact that Apple sold an upgrade, labeled it as an upgrade, and users upgraded their Tiger OS system to the Leopard OS system at a discounted price in 2007.

EDIT: We'll just forget that you also said "Up to this point, each version of Mac OS X purchased is a full licensed version that have not required any particular previous version."

If you don't want to admit any of this, then I'm all for agreeing to disagree.

I think that I would define "retail package" similar to what sidewinder means--something available in a box on the shelf of the local Apple store or reseller, and available to anyone to install on a compatible, Apple-branded computer; but I still disagree with the implications.

I've made some of these points in similar threads, so excuse me for being repetitive, but:

1. The price point, while low for an OS release, is still higher than the traditional up-to-date disks.
2. Never before has a retail version used different installation disks for different user bases. The disk for the Leopard single is the same as Leopard family. Why would the $29 10.6 disk differ from the one in the $169 box set?
3. Consider that the box set for $169 contains $187 of software. Why would this also include single-step installation privileges?
4. There has also never been a 10.x.0 (or 9.x, or 8.x, or 7.x) release with so few advertised features. Most of the improvements are under the hood, which likely won't entice the average consumer without a significant price incentive.
5. How many people are there who have Intel boxes, but still only run Tiger? I'm sure there are some (and no disrespect), but enough to justify releasing installation restrictions previously never seen before?

So I think you will be able to buy the retail box for $29, and install it on any compatible hardware with no restrictions. And considering they have the nerve to ask Tiger users to spend $169 for a full OS license (without a $129 option for people who don't want iWork and iLife), I say screw'em.

 

[killerrobot]

I think that I would define "retail package" similar to what sidewinder means--something available in a box on the shelf of the local Apple store or reseller,

...

1. The price point, while low for an OS release, is still higher than the traditional up-to-date disks.
2. Never before has a retail version used different installation disks for different user bases. The disk for the Leopard single is the same as Leopard family. Why would the $29 10.6 disk differ from the one in the $169 box set?

Define "retail package" however you want to, you have to still have to pay for it.

If you look closely at my Leopard upgrade disk pic., there is a sticker on the top right of the DVD package that states "Not for resale".
I'd bet the $29 SL upgrade disk will carry the same restrictions and require Leopard be installed prior to installation just like my Leopard upgrade DVD checked that I had Tiger installed.
As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, even if the disks are the same, the user licenses will not be.

 

[lag1090]

To sidewinder and killerrobot,

All versions of OS X available in a store for purchase, also known as retail copies, have had the capability of a clean install. By conventional wisdom, this would deem the copies as "full" versions, not "upgrades."

However, the OS X EULA mentions language of only allowing install on a Mac. Apple has already subsidized your OS through a hardware sale, so it's in their best interest to not make too much of a hassle out of things. In the intellectual property/financial sense, OS X boxes have been "upgrades."

So let's recap. In technical terms, the copies have been full versions. In regards to licensing, they have been upgrades.

Your collective problem is that you're both trying to label them as only having attributes of one type of installer. Apple has decided to take features from both types of OS installers.

Just because Microsoft doesn't use this exact scenario with Windows sales, doesn't mean that such a full/upgrade version hybrid cannot exist from Apple.

Now stop before it gets out of hand.

 

[greenlightracer]

Sidewinder,

Your so off-base with multiple things, that I, someone who only reads macrumors daily and normally never posts, felt COMPELLED to chime in..

First off. This is not the first time an update was released to the public at a reduced price. OS 10.1 was a free update to ALL USERS, and ALL VERSIONS of 10.0. I know, I was there, I had 10.0 and I upgraded to 10.1 for free. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_v10.1

Again, sidewinder, ALL USERS, AND ALL VERSIONS of 10.0 (meaning those that shipped with macs at that point and those that were bought off the shelves.. cause I know you'll nit pick about that)

And, getting back to the point that started it all (I'm pretty it was this point anyway lol), they did not require any activation code of any sort. So there.

Apple gave an update away that didn't require a code.

 

[brad.c]

As someone mentioned earlier in this thread, even if the disks are the same, the user licenses will not be.

And this is nothing new.

 

[killerrobot]

snip

Please reread my posts and what I've said about the upgrade disk
(Hint... you buy it at a discounted price, it checks for previous OS before allowing for complete erase and install or archive and install, it provides a full version of the OS, it's not marked for resale)

I believe you (lag) and I are in more agreement than you think.
Except your "conventional wisdom" should be replaced with "modern wisdom" because "retail copies" are also sold on Amazon, which has no store front that I can walk into and physically hold or purchase a copy.

And this is nothing new.

Absolutely positively agreed upon.

 

[TheSpaz]

10.0 — Full retail disc
10.1 — Labeled as upgrade, but also does full install
10.2 — Full retail disc
10.3 — Full retail disc
10.4 — Full retail disc
10.5 — Full retail disc
10.6 — Labeled as upgrade, but also does full install

That's what I think will happen. Those special upgrade discs that people were buying because they bought a new Mac with the previous OS on it were NOT retail discs.

10.6 has 2 versions: Retail upgrade ($29) and special upgrade disc ($10). I believe the $10 disc will be just like the special upgrade disc that Tiger users had for 10.5.

These are just my thoughts.

 

[kryptonianjorel]

Killerrobot, sidewinder is correct in a few things. I want to help clarify something you don't understand:

Your $9.95 Leopard Upgrade was part of the "Up-To-Date" Program. Since you don't understand that, I'll post a link for you.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/

See, since Snow Leopard's release date was announced at WWDC, they introduced the "Up-To-Date" program, just like 2 years ago. They do this so that people who want to buy new macs still will without fear that they will have to pay the full price (was $129 for leopard, is $29 for SL). This is to prevent a sales slump. ONLY people who bought a new mac on or after June 6, 2009 can qualify for the Up-To-Date program, aka buy SL for $9.95

This program has NOTHING to do with the price of SL, whether upgrade or retail. I believe there will be some sort of check mechanism. Apple clearly stated that the $29 SL would be available to all LEOPARD users, therefore making it an UPGRADE copy, not a full, retail copy. Panther, Tiger and the other OSXs are not "allowed" to use the upgrade copy. Sure, there will be work arounds available very soon after release (assuming there is a check), but I believe the check will be there nonetheless.

I think apple should have a $129 full copy that people could buy (for those who don't want the Mac Box Set)


Considering that Snow Leopard is for intel-based macs only, maybe they don't see a "need" for a $129 copy. All PPC users are out, and Leopard has been out for the majority of the intel-mac life, they may see that a small minority hasn't upgraded to Leopard yet, and may see that since these people haven't updated to Leopard, they wouldn't update to SL either. I think it's a pretty logical assumption, but I have no proof to back that up.

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Considering that Snow Leopard is for intel-based macs only, maybe they don't see a "need" for a $129 copy. All PPC users are out, and Leopard has been out for the majority of the intel-mac life, they may see that a small minority hasn't upgraded to Leopard yet, and may see that since these people haven't updated to Leopard, they wouldn't update to SL either. I think it's a pretty logical assumption, but I have no proof to back that up.

This.

Or they could blow all of your collective minds and have the installer do a model check. If you have one of the leopard shipped models, it'll go, if not, you'll have to insert a leo disk first, while still doing the model check.

This will make it smooth for those who already have leopard machines (the majority with unibody owners) and make it easy to put a halt to psystar and, unfortunately, the hackintosh scene (which would be an unfortunate victim in this fray).

 

[kryptonianjorel]

This.

Or they could blow all of your collective minds and have the installer do a model check. If you have one of the leopard shipped models, it'll go, if not, you'll have to insert a leo disk first, while still doing the model check.

This will make it smooth for those who already have leopard machines (the majority with unibody owners) and make it easy to put a halt to psystar and, unfortunately, the hackintosh scene (which would be an unfortunate victim in this fray).

Under your plan, if the model check fails, then it woud ask for your leopard disc, which would be fire for psystar and hackintosh. Psystar would either give you a "Leopard" cd, or would hard-code a model number into the machines. Hackintosh would just bypass that with a cracked copy of SL (which psystar would take and profit off of, again)

 

[killerrobot]

I want to help clarify something you don't understand:

I want you to understand something:
This whole things was never about the "up-to-date program" (BTW thanks for the link that I already linked to 10 posts back that's within the other forum link that I guess you never looked at).
It was about whether Apple ever used the term, nomenclature, packaging etc... "update" or not on their software and whether each version was a "full" version that required no previous version to install.
When it was shown that they did, sidewinder wanted to keep adding stipulations and splitting hairs to try and prove his stance.
Please read all the posts before you tell me what I understand.

 

[jdechko]

I want you to understand something:
This whole things was never about the "up-to-date program" (BTW thanks for the link that I already linked to 10 posts back that's within the other forum link that I guess you never looked at).
It was about whether Apple ever used the term, nomenclature, packaging etc... "update" or not on their software and whether each version was a "full" version that required no previous version to install.
When it was shown that they did, sidewinder wanted to keep adding stipulations and splitting hairs to try and prove his stance.
Please read all the posts before you tell me what I understand.

Those "upgrade" disks are also included in machines that were shipped to stores before launch, but sold after (or at) the release of the new OS. For instance, I worked Apple retail during the Leopard launch. The store closed at 4pm, and reopened at 6pm for the launch. During that time, all of the floor demo machines were reimaged with Leopard. All of the machines for sale were opened up, and a Leopard upgrade disk was dropped in (just like the one you posted). Those are special cases and are not retail upgrade copies.

Sidewinder, you wrote:
Up to this point, each version of Mac OS X purchased is a full licensed version that have not required any particular previous version.

You are right in that no particular version was required. Leopard didn't require Tiger which didn't require Panther, etc. But you had to have had a license some previous version of OS X. It would be impossible not to as EVERY Mac already has a license to OS X. So if you're machine was fast enough, and I know that there were some >1GHz G4's that shipped with Panther, you could have gone from Panther straight to Leopard.

As I have posted many times before, I strongly believe that the disks are going to be identical. Regardless of what you want to call them, I think that the DMG of both disks will have the same MD5 (ie: Exactly the same). But I think the licenses will be different. What will stop a Tiger user from using the $29 disk? The same thing stopping a single-user from installing Leopard on multiple machines. Nothing except honesty. That's just my opinion, though.

 

[sidewinder]

You are right in that no particular version was required. Leopard didn't require Tiger which didn't require Panther, etc. But you had to have had a license some previous version of OS X. It would be impossible not to as EVERY Mac already has a license to OS X. So if you're machine was fast enough, and I know that there were some >1GHz G4's that shipped with Panther, you could have gone from Panther straight to Leopard.

Are you trying to tell me that the Power Macintosh G3 that shipped with Mac OS 8, which supports up to Mac OS X 10.2.8, had a license for an OS that was not even released yet?

You could go straight from Mac OS 8 to Panther. This just shows that the retail boxes were not "upgrades" to an existing Mac OS X license.

S-

 

[TheSpaz]

Are you trying to tell me that the Power Macintosh G3 that shipped with Mac OS 8, which supports up to Mac OS X 10.2.8, had a license for an OS that was not even released yet?

You could go straight from Mac OS 8 to Panther. This just shows that the retail boxes were not "upgrades" to an existing Mac OS X license.

S-

10.2.8 isn't Panther