Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

$29 Snow Leopard question.

Um it's faily simple. The $9.95 disc is exactly the same as the $29 disc. No special voodoo or magic involved and nothing missing. You can install however you like, so long as Leopard is on the computer.

I just think the 3 pack (OS X, iWork , iLife) is just a way to get every one on the same page. The OS disc will be the same for all of them.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
 
Teh Don Ditty said:
Um it's faily simple. The $9.95 disc is exactly the same as the $29 disc. No special voodoo or magic involved and nothing missing. You can install however you like, so long as Leopard is on the computer.

I just think the 3 pack (OS X, iWork , iLife) is just a way to get every one on the same page. The OS disc will be the same for all of them.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Click to expand...

Actually, if history is anything to go on, the $9.95 disk for the Up-To-Date program will be the one that's different. Both the $29 disk and the one included in the $169 Box Set will likely be full install disks with no check for a previous system, while the $9.95 Up-To-Date disks will check for Leopard installed on the drive before installing. However, as my usual disclaimer here, no one but Apple (and likely a handful of people there at this point) knows how this will work. All we can do is guess until the actual release of Snow Leopard on Friday, September 25, 2009*.

*Also a guess.

jW
 
Mal said:
Actually, if history is anything to go on, the $9.95 disk for the Up-To-Date program will be the one that's different. Both the $29 disk and the one included in the $169 Box Set will likely be full install disks with no check for a previous system, while the $9.95 Up-To-Date disks will check for Leopard installed on the drive before installing.
Click to expand...

This really makes no sense. Since both the $9.95 and $29 licenses are for customers that already have a license for Leopard, it makes sense that both install discs will require Leopard to be installed on the system. As I have said repeatedly, why would Apple sell a $29 "upgrade", to anyone that wanted it, that did not require Leopard to be present? They would be selling Snow Leopard to anyone that had a system capable of running it for $29.

S-
 
sidewinder said:
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-
Click to expand...

My apologies for not knowing about Apple OS prior to X. But in that case, yes, if you could in fact upgrade to 10.2.x, then I would have to say that you had a prior license that qualified for an upgrade for an OS that hadn't been released yet. That's the way that upgrade licenses are supposed to work.

If you have Windows XP/Vista (2000 & ME ?), you can upgrade to Windows 7 for a reduced price, despite the fact that when those systems were released, Windows 7 didn't exist other than on paper, perhaps. Most versions of Windows will even perform a full install from the "upgrade"-branded media, provided that you show ownership of a previous version (either installing over or providing a disk).

Sure, Apple could go this route, making you either install it over leopard or providing a valid leopard disk. And that's pretty much what we're arguing about here. Personally, I highly doubt that they will do this because it's a pain for users. In the past, Apple hasn't made people jump through hoops to install OS X the way that they do for other programs (or the way Microsoft does for Windows). I don't believe they will start now.
 
sidewinder said:
This really makes no sense. Since both the $9.95 and $29 licenses are for customers that already have a license for Leopard, it makes sense that both install discs will require Leopard to be installed on the system. As I have said repeatedly, why would Apple sell a $29 "upgrade", to anyone that wanted it, that did not require Leopard to be present? They would be selling Snow Leopard to anyone that had a system capable of running it for $29.

S-
Click to expand...

From a business standpoint, I totally agree with you. It doesn't make sense. But as I mentioned before, they really don't make much sense when it comes to piracy and their OS. They don't do serial numbers, nor do they do activation. They sell the Family pack to give honest people with multiple Macs the opportunity to do the right thing while giving them a financial break. But there's nothing preventing someone from buying a single license for Leopard and putting it on 5, 10 or 50 machines any more than there is 1 machine.

What they do, however, is make up the difference in lost OS sales via hardware sales. It comes down to that. Apple is a hardware company that practically gives their OS away. Microsoft is a software company that makes money through selling their OS.
 
sidewinder said:
This really makes no sense.
Since both the $9.95 and $29 licenses are for customers that already have a license for Leopard, it makes sense that both install discs will require Leopard to be installed on the system. As I have said repeatedly, why would Apple sell a $29 "upgrade", to anyone that wanted it, that did not require Leopard to be present? They would be selling Snow Leopard to anyone that had a system capable of running it for $29.

S-
Click to expand...
Sure it does. The $9.95 option is the same up-to-date program they've used for systems sold between OS announcements and final shipping dates. Similar to drop-in disks sold in the interim between final OS release, and when the manufacturing segment sells out of previous OS-installed systems.

The question is, why are they calling 10.6 an upgrade and selling it for $100 less to Leopard users. I mentioned that previously:

brad.c said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
This is how it SHOULD work:

$29 Leopard disc should ask for Leopard disc if no Leopard is installed already

...But, this is how I feel it's going to work:

Honest users will buy the $29 disc if they have Leopard, but this same disc will do full installs regardless of what OS is installed already.

Of course... nobody (outside of Apple Headquarters) knows for sure yet. NOBODY, here and I don't think random Apple reps know either.
 
TheSpaz said:
This is how it SHOULD work:

$29 Leopard disc should ask for Leopard disc if no Leopard is installed already
Click to expand...

This is how Microsoft would do it. This is how they (Microsoft) have handled upgrades in the past, and present.

TheSpaz said:
...But, this is how I feel it's going to work:

Honest users will buy the $29 disc if they have Leopard,
Click to expand...

I think that this is the way that it will be done.

TheSpaz said:
but this same disc will do full installs regardless of what OS is installed already.
Click to expand...

As it should do (Even Windows does this). What happens if a user needs to do a clean install? It takes twice as long to install Leopard and then upgrade it. Or the disk does a full install after the user provides the computer with a valid leopard disk. But we've already established that the latter isn't a great idea for the user, and the former is even worse.

TheSpaz said:
Of course... nobody (outside of Apple Headquarters) knows for sure yet. NOBODY, here and I don't think random Apple reps know either.
Click to expand...

Agree with you 100%. But this is a rumors site, and absent anything else, this is the most fun thing to speculate on. ;)
 
jdechko said:
From a business standpoint, I totally agree with you. It doesn't make sense. But as I mentioned before, they really don't make much sense when it comes to piracy and their OS. They don't do serial numbers, nor do they do activation. They sell the Family pack to give honest people with multiple Macs the opportunity to do the right thing while giving them a financial break. But there's nothing preventing someone from buying a single license for Leopard and putting it on 5, 10 or 50 machines any more than there is 1 machine.

What they do, however, is make up the difference in lost OS sales via hardware sales. It comes down to that. Apple is a hardware company that practically gives their OS away. Microsoft is a software company that makes money through selling their OS.
Click to expand...

This trip down the rabbit hole started because of the following statement, back on page 1:

sidewinder said:
The simple fact is that it makes no sense to sell a $29 upgrade through Amazon that can be installed on a blank drive when Amazon how absolutely no way to verify if you own Leopard.

Apple would have be stupid or not care. I don't believe they will not care and they are not stupid. So....
Click to expand...
 
Signal-11 said:
This trip down the rabbit hole started because of the following statement, back on page 1:
Click to expand...

I think my head's gonna explode. :) I'm seriously considering avoiding all things Snow Leopard until it's released, but I know that'll never happen.
 
TheSpaz said:
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.
Click to expand...

10.1 wasn't labeled anymore of any upgrade as the other versions of OS X.
 
The way I see it, this is Intel Macs only. So, you can run 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 only on your Intel Macs. I'd be willing to be that 99% of people running Tiger have no plan to upgrade to Leopard/Snow Leopard. The $29 Snow Leopard is both a bargain and a courtesy. Snow Leopard is just an under-the-hood update to Leopard, so not enticing to most users (we don't count, we're of a nerdier variety) especially at the $129 price. So, $29 for Snow Leopard for nearly all Intel Macs, and for the people who skipped Leopard, they have to pay for "Leopard" in the form of the Mac Box Set. Apple doesn't want to screw over people who updated to Leopard only to have SL come out not too long after, but they also want the money that went into Leopard's features (which subsequently went into SL)

After looking at the iPhone jailbreaking debacle, I'm hard to believe that Apple will be that trusting of us. I'm sure they won't lock us down with some iron-clad upgrade protection, but I don't think it's too much trouble to have to pop your Leopard disc in when installing.
 
Any news?

Oh and why was my other five star thread deleted? It was epic.
 
definitive said:
Any news?

Oh and why was my other five star thread deleted? It was epic.
Click to expand...

The only news is what we've heard from Walt Mossberg's review today -- that a clean install is possible (hiding in Disk Utility) and that you can go straight from Tiger to Leopard.
 
Teh Don Ditty said:
Um it's faily simple. The $9.95 disc is exactly the same as the $29 disc. No special voodoo or magic involved and nothing missing. You can install however you like, so long as Leopard is on the computer.

I just think the 3 pack (OS X, iWork , iLife) is just a way to get every one on the same page. The OS disc will be the same for all of them.

If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.
Click to expand...

I was right. The $29 disc will work on Tiger. Apple is just trying to milk Tiger users of more money.
 
ziggyonice said:
The only news is what we've heard from Walt Mossberg's review today -- that a clean install is possible (hiding in Disk Utility) and that you can go straight from Tiger to Leopard.
Click to expand...

So how is the clean install accomplished?
 
sidewinder said:
This really makes no sense. Since both the $9.95 and $29 licenses are for customers that already have a license for Leopard, it makes sense that both install discs will require Leopard to be installed on the system. As I have said repeatedly, why would Apple sell a $29 "upgrade", to anyone that wanted it, that did not require Leopard to be present? They would be selling Snow Leopard to anyone that had a system capable of running it for $29.

S-
Click to expand...

They are, thy just don't want you to know that. Why do you think they are not selling a $129 version? Because it would be the same as the $29 one. They want Tiger users to pay extra because they have not bought Leopard. If the $29 disk is really just a upgrade and that you really needed Leopard to install it, then they would be selling a $129 disk for Tiger users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back