I'ma let you finish, but I managed to make my own USB Lion installer. It worked perfectly. So basically, you're talking rubbish.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Starts Selling $69 OS X Lion USB Thumb Drive
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'ma let you finish, but I managed to make my own USB Lion installer. It worked perfectly. So basically, you're talking rubbish.
Windows 7 Home Premium = Stripped down Windows 7 for $189.99
Mac OS X Lion = full version $29.99 or $69.99
For anyone complaining about the USB price, it's still cheaper.
Mac OS X Lion = full version $29.99 or $69.99
For anyone complaining about the USB price, it's still cheaper.
I wonder why everyone who downloads the installer has to use it to download the OS, when people like you can extract the OS from the installer. Seems like Apple is wasting some online resources and bandwidth.
It installs just like Snow Leopard you don't need an Apple ID to install the program..
It's not really rocket science..just a little geeking
and to make it even better you can drag the installer to a seperate HDD so you have the click install again
----------
You are not down loading a installer...thats why it's a 4 gig download..
I always try explaining this to friends and coworkers but they just don't get it. Microsoft = software company, thats what they make their money on. Apple = hardware company, thats what they make their money on which is why Apple software is dirt cheap for what it does.
I don't think some are considering that it is not just the copy of Lion ($29.99) plus the cost of the USB drive. It is the labor to get the thumb drive made on a production line (labor, setup, building,etc), and packaging costs, transportation, stocking etc. Testing. Plus the employees at the Apple Stores(s) selling it. None of those are free.
Plus the incentive to get people to use the AppStore (this is a big one). Plus the cost to avoid having to upgrade to Snow Leopard if you are running Leopard. That is another $29 (assuming this is a non SL required upgrade - I think the App Store requires 10.6.8 for 10.7.0 because of the App Store, given that you can install from a USB drive that you made without 10.6.8.)
Plus you have your backup right there instead of making your own.
And just think if they'd had to wait to press DVDs/make USBs, Snow Leopard would've been a month later!
The alternative is to go to an Apple store or some place with broadband and make your own.
Plus the incentive to get people to use the AppStore (this is a big one). Plus the cost to avoid having to upgrade to Snow Leopard if you are running Leopard. That is another $29 (assuming this is a non SL required upgrade - I think the App Store requires 10.6.8 for 10.7.0 because of the App Store, given that you can install from a USB drive that you made without 10.6.8.)
Plus you have your backup right there instead of making your own.
And just think if they'd had to wait to press DVDs/make USBs, Snow Leopard would've been a month later!
The alternative is to go to an Apple store or some place with broadband and make your own.
Doesn't everything you mentioned other than the copy of Lion fall under "cost of the USB drive"?
I mean, if I find an empty USB drive in the same store, did that USB drive not need production time labor? packaging cost? transportation? stocking?
Is the Lion USB drive the first one to not magically appear on store shelves, at no cost to anyone?
I have a feeling that is a misprint carried over from the download requirements. You can make your own and install without 10.6.8 on the machine. It is doubtful Apple would make it a requirement on their own USB drive. The 10.6.x requirement was for the AppStore to function properly.
Apple's requirement sets the general standard, it is never supposed to be the crude "minimal requirement."
I agree. There are a lot of improvements. Most notably for the long term are the security related ones plus improvements in OpenCL.
Specifically:
1. FileVault 2 - this is a big one and will be more important as time goes on.
2. Better address randomization. Again, much better than 10.6 and great for security.
3. Cloud storage APIs - this includes many features that could have been in the Mac-ZFS implementation. Which means better reliability and thus security of your data.
4. OpenCL performance is 25% to 50% faster than on 10.6.8 on the same machines. (I've tried it on 3 machines so far, primarily with Radeon 5870s.)
Should these have been a 10.6.9? Perhaps, but many are big enough to warrant a non-point release. Many are under the hood of course, but still those are important.
Yes, to make up the ~250 new features, many are eye candy, but there are some real improvements in 10.7. For $29 (or $69) it was a good upgrade, particularly with the new AppStore license.
Specifically:
1. FileVault 2 - this is a big one and will be more important as time goes on.
2. Better address randomization. Again, much better than 10.6 and great for security.
3. Cloud storage APIs - this includes many features that could have been in the Mac-ZFS implementation. Which means better reliability and thus security of your data.
4. OpenCL performance is 25% to 50% faster than on 10.6.8 on the same machines. (I've tried it on 3 machines so far, primarily with Radeon 5870s.)
Should these have been a 10.6.9? Perhaps, but many are big enough to warrant a non-point release. Many are under the hood of course, but still those are important.
Yes, to make up the ~250 new features, many are eye candy, but there are some real improvements in 10.7. For $29 (or $69) it was a good upgrade, particularly with the new AppStore license.
£42 + tax = £48. Still not £55
----------
Very pointless post there buddy. If you're going to slate me at least backup your posts with why you think I have no clue. Until you can do that, try not to make yourself look stupid again.
Edit: Interestingly if you read USER reviews on neutral websites (I.E not on Apple fan sites because they are understandably bias) you'll find most people are very underwhelmed with Lion. A quick google search for OS X Lion review threw the following link up as the first result. Read the USER reviews in the comments section. http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...ng-systems/apple-os-x-10-7-lion-982954/review
When you take your head out of the iClouds its actually a pretty poor update, not worthy of a complete new OS. Apple boasts 250 new features. What they don't tell you is that those features include the most minuscule of changes, like increasing the font size by 1pt in Finder results, and widening the spotlight search bar.
Don't bother arguing back to me about how awesome it is until you've pulled your head of of your....
And Microsoft doesn't resort to hyperbole when it markets it's own operating systems? come on, Windows 7 features were more like, "well it is about bloody time! I was expecting it in Vista, not 2 years later!" - hardware GDI acceleration after removing it in Windows Vista and fine graining it so that the GUI doesn't get locked up, that alone was a good expiation for the improvements in responsiveness for starters.
Mac OS X Lion was over hyped not because it lacked features but because what was added you simply cannot explain to Joe Sixpack in terms of just how important these changes are - check out WWDC2011 and then read the features blurb on the Apple website, the Apple marketing material doesn't do the operating system justice for what has gone on under the hood that benefit end users.
Please, watch all the WWDC2011 videos relating to Lion then come back and claim it is 'lacking in features'.
It is a different beast when you have an empty vs non-empty drive. You have the extra layer of packaging for Lion, extra layer of production (to add Lion to the blank drive, test it etc), an extra layer of transportation (send to Apple's factory) etc. Someone has to make the USB drive first, then add the software, packing etc to it.
Everything has costs is the point - I've never said or implied that everything prior to it was free. Just that the extra marginal cost to have USB+Lion is NOT just the cost of Lion plus the cost of a blank USB drive.
And it would have been a month later - a bit deal for the back-to-school crowd.
Everything has costs is the point - I've never said or implied that everything prior to it was free. Just that the extra marginal cost to have USB+Lion is NOT just the cost of Lion plus the cost of a blank USB drive.
And it would have been a month later - a bit deal for the back-to-school crowd.
Thanks, but I already did. That's how I know that the USB drive they're selling is different.
EDIT: Sorry, I see that this uses some application to make the boot disc, so it might be different from the one I use and everyone else is talking about.
The MacRumors article omits an important piece of information that 9to5mac.com, Thisismynext.com and macstories.net all reported (originally from 9to5mac.com)
If you install Lion with this USB drive, you will be unable to use the recovery partition. I guess it just doesn't create one during the install. Of course, the likelihood is that you have crappy internet and so you would always want to use the USB stick. It seems that if you want a physical backup of the installer, it's best to make your own.
If you install Lion with this USB drive, you will be unable to use the recovery partition. I guess it just doesn't create one during the install. Of course, the likelihood is that you have crappy internet and so you would always want to use the USB stick. It seems that if you want a physical backup of the installer, it's best to make your own.
The kids from this forum do not realize how much they bitch. I cannot believe some comments here.
69 USD is a perfect price for an OS that normally would cost $129 easily.
Exactly. The price of the USB option is way less than normal. The price of the download is wwwaaayyyyy less than normal.
The funny thing is that on the one hand we have people saying Lion's just a service pack with no important new features worthy of a new OS, on the other hand, there are people endlessly complaining and turning off features because they can't or aren't willing to get used to the change it has on their workflow (see Autosave,Versions,Resume). So which is it? Not enough change, or too much change?
The kids from this forum do not realize how much they bitch. I cannot believe some comments here.
69 USD is a perfect price for an OS that normally would cost $129 easily.
yes but still. £55 or $69 in the us for a USB pen wish i quote. CAN NOT BE ERASED, is pathetic. you pay half the price for the software. so the actually pen itself must be made of Titanium or Zinc if it were to cost twice as much as whats actually on the drive
and $129 (or more, for Windows and some other OSes) on a DVD that CAN NOT BE ERASED is a better deal.
$69 for an OS is a good deal. $69 for an OS on an non-erasable USB is a better deal that $69 for an OS on a non-erasable DVD because it's faster to install.
If you want a USB drive that you can erase, there are cheaper options. If you want an OS, there are more more expensive options on even worse media.
Any can you use this USB installer without internet? If so, good for you, here's a cookie.
Why would you need a recovery partition when you have the usb to recover the system