I've given you actual numbers as reported by the installer, not some vague memory.
Not everyone
How you can claim QED when there is direct evidence in this very thread and the post you quoted against your theory is beyond me.
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.
Could OS X's success become its demise?
- Thread starter macrem
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've given you actual numbers as reported by the installer, not some vague memory.
Not everyone
How you can claim QED when there is direct evidence in this very thread and the post you quoted against your theory is beyond me.
Snow Leopard's wireless stack works perfectly in my MacBook. so it is NOT totally broken. I acknowledge for your configuration that you are having issues tho.
There never was a Quad G4 Power Mac, nor ANY PowerPC mac in 2007. The last PowerPC Mac was the Power Mac G5 which was replaced by the Mac Pro 1,1 in August 2006. Which makes it 3 years old. Funnily enough, most pro equipment IS replaced or cascaded down to lesser use after 3 years. So Apple went with the industry norm there. But Apple continue to support Leopard and will do until 10.7 (Just as they did with Tiger until Snow Leopard was released).
Apple does not only operate in the consumer market. Most creative professionals use exclusively Apple hardware with OS X and have used Macs since the late 80s. I personally don't see that changing as they were the fiercely loyal Mac users who dealt with far worse during the late 90s until Steve Jobs returned to Apple.
Because the "evidence" is arrived by looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Apple claimed it "freed" 7 gigabytes; that is, SL takes up 7 GB less space than Leopard. Critics latched on to the change in way gigabytes are measured to say the savings was false. Yes, it would be false if Apple made that claim. Apple didn't.
But empirical evidence -- this time without the quotes -- shows that an SL install does, indeed, take up less space than Leopard regardless of how the OS measures total acreage on a hard drive.
mt
I think the argument over space is much ado about nothing, not sure why it took over the this thread 
That said, it now uses non-standard (base 10 vs. base 2) measuring methods to report disk space that is saved through code removal and compression.
- Apple did change how it computes disk space
- Apple now employs compression to consume less space
- Apple removed PPC code from its libraries
That said, it now uses non-standard (base 10 vs. base 2) measuring methods to report disk space that is saved through code removal and compression.
I think the argument over space is much ado about nothing, not sure why it took over the this thread
- Apple did change how it computes disk space
- Apple now employs compression to consume less space
- Apple removed PPC code from its libraries
That said, it now uses non-standard (base 10 vs. base 2) measuring methods to report disk space that is saved through code removal and compression.
I must agree we've spent way too much attention on disk space when the thread really started on the subject of "watering down" Leopard features to make it more familiar to windows users...
I don't see much of a risk, really. < r0k dons helmet and ducks as he types this > I find windows explorer to be superior to finder in several ways. If Apple "beefs up" finder to support simple things like "refresh" and "cut" instead of only copy and to make it easier to navigate deep directory structures, it won't alienate OS X diehards but it will make it easier for windows users accustomed to an (arguably) better way to navigate. < whew >
For any windows user frustrated by navigation in finder, as soon as they click that eyeball and experience quick view, they are so impressed they are willing to find workarounds for navigation. I know I was.
Then there are other minor quirks and limitations of the OS. For instance, the inability to resize windows except by grabbing the lower right window handle. Again, I don't think Apple will bother with this. Frankly there isn't much to do. OS X is so intuitive that the few adjustments a windows user must make are trivial compared to the inherently better thought out user interface of OS X.
Keeping people in their "windows 3.11 comfort zone" has been Microsoft's downfall. Larger market share of OS X is very unlikely to lead Apple to make the same mistake. After all, Apple has a license to print money right now. Why would they mess up a good thing by windozing their user interface for a handful of cranky users? No risk. The success of OSX should not be its downfall unless Apple loses sight of the principals that have brought the company where it is today.
I use OS X at home and Windows at work. There are some "band aids" that bring a few OS X features over to windows but the main ones I miss are Quick View and the overall speed of the OS. I have a slower processor on my home machine but it runs circles around Win XP Pro on my work laptop. My wife is somewhat frustrated by OS X so I bought her a couple of Snow Leopard books for Christmas. She still doesn't know windows all that well. She is the archetype of the user this thread is about. She doesn't want to learn any more about a computer than the bare minimum required to do whatever task she is doing right now. And she is surviving well with OS X. If somebody flipped a switch at midnight tonight and 80% of the world's machines booted OS X tomorrow morning, tech support calls would actually DECREASE.
I agree to a point. While I personally do miss cut/paste feature for files and we have a very long running thread about that here so lets hopefully not dredge up that argument again
I do find the finder to be very dated and limiting with regards to features and usage. I now use pathfinder that's much better then finder but I do think windows file explorer is superior in a number of ways. Hopefully apple will look at the finder and improve it.I agree to a point. While I personally do miss cut/paste feature for files and we have a very long running thread about that here so lets hopefully not dredge up that argument again
I think MS actually reduced the functionality and usability of Explorer in Vista and 7. I speak mainly (but not exclusively) of a feature I use a lot at work which is real time updating of the status bar as you select more files. I found an app to do this which places itself in the menu bar in OS X but it just isn't quite as smooth as Explorer in XP was. Overall I feel Finder to be far better (even if I do agree that it is missing a few features here and there) than Explorer in windows 7 for my uses other than what I have described and I don't use coverflow much if at all.
Interesting topic
Apple has been more willing to drop old features and push its user base to new methods. On the hardware front, there's the floppy drive, DVI connectors, FW400 among others. Ditto for various software technologies. I think it was 10.4 that dropped Classic; 10.5 dropped PPC. Windows has a lot more in terms of legacy. There's still a floppy drive on the Dell I bought a couple of years ago (major investment in lab hardware and a MacPro wasn't an option).
So, it is something to beware, but Apple has been relatively fearless in that regard. It's an interesting topic. Congrats to the thread starter.
And with regards to HD size:
Probably about as many as are going on about whether or not we're in a new decade.
BB
Apple has been more willing to drop old features and push its user base to new methods. On the hardware front, there's the floppy drive, DVI connectors, FW400 among others. Ditto for various software technologies. I think it was 10.4 that dropped Classic; 10.5 dropped PPC. Windows has a lot more in terms of legacy. There's still a floppy drive on the Dell I bought a couple of years ago (major investment in lab hardware and a MacPro wasn't an option).
So, it is something to beware, but Apple has been relatively fearless in that regard. It's an interesting topic. Congrats to the thread starter.
And with regards to HD size:
Probably about as many as are going on about whether or not we're in a new decade.
BB
Innovation Adoption
It is amazing to me that the responses in this thread largely ignore the original post, while inadvertently arguing its point.
The question raised was not whether you prefer Snow Leopard or Tiger or whether you think Apple is still innovative. It was whether OS X has run it's course on the innovation adoption curve and thus attracted a conservative customer base that finds innovation itself anathema. If that is the case, further innovation could actually hurt their bottom line.
OS X moved through the innovation adoption curve over a period of about five years. Innovators grabbed 10.0 when it was released in the spring of 2001. Early adopters were on board when their innovator friends told them that 10.1 was more stable and ready for prime time. The speed and feature improvements to Jaguar reached the early majority, and the late majority was on board for Panther. Laggards switched from OS9 (or Windows) to Tiger in 2006 or later. By then no one (statistically) was still using OS 9 - not even the laggards who at first didn't like OS X, but by now have forgotten that fact, and instead don't like the newest new thing. (I realize that you have your reasons, those of you who don't like Leopard or SL, but this is not personal, it's statistical).
Leopard is now entering the late majority phase, and the laggards are hanging on to Tiger until their PPC dies. Laggards that have switched will naturally grumble, especially if they installed Leopard on a G4. That's how the curve works, and it says nothing about Apple's inability to further innovate. Those same folks likely did not jump into 10.0 in March of 2001. That's ok. That's what early adopters are for.
There will always be people resistant to change. As long as there are enthusiastic innovators and early adopters it simply doesn't matter. If I don't like 10.9, but enough people love it to get the adoption ball rolling, that will be my tough luck.
Apple has a pretty successful pace for their adoption curve. Compare it to Microsoft. More than one in four Mac users is now running Snow Leopard; less than one in four is running Tiger or older. Nearly three out of four Windows users are still using XP or older, and the percentage of Windows 7 adoptions is still in the single digits. Apple is doing just fine with the adoption curve.
Here's the rub. If 10.7 is innovative enough to convince the early adopters, those folks will in turn convince the early majority. That's how it works. The OS will continue to get better, and the laggards will miss their favorite bit that fell by the wayside (remember when you missed the classic Apple menu? - yes even you, innovator, missed that at first!), but eventually they will find something to love in the newer OS, once it's not new anymore.
The good news for Apple - and for those of us who value innovation - is that the laggards only represent 16% of the market. What Apple (and anyone marketing anything really) is looking for is a fast blow through the curve. There needs to be something great in a new OS that makes innovators and early adopters jump in immediately, and that gets to the early majority phase relatively quickly. As demonstrated above, Apple is usually excellent at this. Innovators generally like Apple's offerings, as do most early adopters, and the majority follow happily in short order.
There are some users who miss Tiger, but the reviews of the early Leopard adopters showed that they absolutely loved Time Machine, Quicklook, Spaces, and Boot Camp/Parallels. And the majority followed. In less than two years, more than half of Mac users worldwide were running Leopard.
Early adopters of SL loved the rejuvenation of their three year old Macs, and thereby it's life extension. And once the early adopters are convinced, the majority follow and the presence of the laggards is just part of the model
Microsoft doesn't need as many adopters, because they will eventually sell their software to more than 90% of computer users bundled with a computer. Their slogan could almost be "You don't have to like us." Apple needs a successful adoption, because you need to love their software to justify buying their hardware, which is really the business they are in. That business has never been been better, and they have yet to drop the innovation vision. I wouldn't predict that they will do so anytime soon.
It is amazing to me that the responses in this thread largely ignore the original post, while inadvertently arguing its point.
The question raised was not whether you prefer Snow Leopard or Tiger or whether you think Apple is still innovative. It was whether OS X has run it's course on the innovation adoption curve and thus attracted a conservative customer base that finds innovation itself anathema. If that is the case, further innovation could actually hurt their bottom line.
OS X moved through the innovation adoption curve over a period of about five years. Innovators grabbed 10.0 when it was released in the spring of 2001. Early adopters were on board when their innovator friends told them that 10.1 was more stable and ready for prime time. The speed and feature improvements to Jaguar reached the early majority, and the late majority was on board for Panther. Laggards switched from OS9 (or Windows) to Tiger in 2006 or later. By then no one (statistically) was still using OS 9 - not even the laggards who at first didn't like OS X, but by now have forgotten that fact, and instead don't like the newest new thing. (I realize that you have your reasons, those of you who don't like Leopard or SL, but this is not personal, it's statistical).
Leopard is now entering the late majority phase, and the laggards are hanging on to Tiger until their PPC dies. Laggards that have switched will naturally grumble, especially if they installed Leopard on a G4. That's how the curve works, and it says nothing about Apple's inability to further innovate. Those same folks likely did not jump into 10.0 in March of 2001. That's ok. That's what early adopters are for.
There will always be people resistant to change. As long as there are enthusiastic innovators and early adopters it simply doesn't matter. If I don't like 10.9, but enough people love it to get the adoption ball rolling, that will be my tough luck.
Apple has a pretty successful pace for their adoption curve. Compare it to Microsoft. More than one in four Mac users is now running Snow Leopard; less than one in four is running Tiger or older. Nearly three out of four Windows users are still using XP or older, and the percentage of Windows 7 adoptions is still in the single digits. Apple is doing just fine with the adoption curve.
Here's the rub. If 10.7 is innovative enough to convince the early adopters, those folks will in turn convince the early majority. That's how it works. The OS will continue to get better, and the laggards will miss their favorite bit that fell by the wayside (remember when you missed the classic Apple menu? - yes even you, innovator, missed that at first!), but eventually they will find something to love in the newer OS, once it's not new anymore.
The good news for Apple - and for those of us who value innovation - is that the laggards only represent 16% of the market. What Apple (and anyone marketing anything really) is looking for is a fast blow through the curve. There needs to be something great in a new OS that makes innovators and early adopters jump in immediately, and that gets to the early majority phase relatively quickly. As demonstrated above, Apple is usually excellent at this. Innovators generally like Apple's offerings, as do most early adopters, and the majority follow happily in short order.
There are some users who miss Tiger, but the reviews of the early Leopard adopters showed that they absolutely loved Time Machine, Quicklook, Spaces, and Boot Camp/Parallels. And the majority followed. In less than two years, more than half of Mac users worldwide were running Leopard.
Early adopters of SL loved the rejuvenation of their three year old Macs, and thereby it's life extension. And once the early adopters are convinced, the majority follow and the presence of the laggards is just part of the model
Microsoft doesn't need as many adopters, because they will eventually sell their software to more than 90% of computer users bundled with a computer. Their slogan could almost be "You don't have to like us." Apple needs a successful adoption, because you need to love their software to justify buying their hardware, which is really the business they are in. That business has never been been better, and they have yet to drop the innovation vision. I wouldn't predict that they will do so anytime soon.
Maybe we would actually have some thoughts and ideas if you didn't limit yourself to philosophizing. How about some concrete examples? Your lack of arguments is why your post got replies by a bunch of luddites complaining that Tiger was better (again without saying why) and nit pickers whining that Snow Leopard doesn't actually give users more space.
Snow Leopard did pave the way for the 64-Bit transition and (at least on a newish system) it has given OS X a speed boost. So that's an improvement in my book. And worth the $29.
I bought (2) 1.5TB drives from Newegg for 100 bucks each a few weeks ago. Storage space (especially in the amounts mentioned here) are of little consequence (to me at least
)EDIT: And $30 for an OS upgrade makes it too cheap to care whether it added 300+ new features for end users.
It was slightly more stable than Leopard until 10.5.6. It was also quicker on PPC hardware than Leopard.
Snow Leopard it's too early to tell yet. I use Snow and find it good enough, but feel it could be so much more.
Occasionally there have been minor changes which I took as bad signs, e.g., when zoom behavior was modified to maximize iTunes instead of switching to the mini player (later reverted back) + some other UI changes that made it a little duller & "corporate", such as muting the transparent menus with blur effect.
I am quite happy with SL's improvements & for the future want a continuation of what Apple is currently doing, NOT 1001 more GUI options, maximizing windows, menus in the app windows, a complex Finder, etc. requests we read about here.
Hehe your wife reminds me about mine. She was a windows user ever since, and when I bought our iMac she absolutely hated it. Everything was new, she didn´t find anything and just kept on complaining.
After 2 years with the iMac we had a talk a few days ago where she said she still would be glad if she got windows back. I asked: "How often have you seen a bluescreen?, How many data have you lost? How many viruses have we removed? How often did the iMac need a complete reinstall?" The answer to all the questions were "Never". talk ends.
Back on topic: I´m the archetype of an early adopter: Bought SL on release day and installed it on production machine, bought iPhone 1st generation in release day, got second and third generation. installed every mac/win/iphone update without looking in the interewebs for hiccups, am now rocking my second hdtv television (loewe connect media DR+ - ahhh i love you) and my second blu ray player. I love new and shiny gadgets and software, take part at the office 2010 beta, had the windows 7 beta since day 2 I think and so on.
And as of now I hadn´t any serious meltdowns. Never lost much data, sure had a few bugs and quibbles here and there but in the end my experience wasn´t so dangerous and facepalming as some of you would suggest.
I even rocked vista from day one and in my experience it wasn´t so bad as everybody and their dogs would say.
But YMMV!
Later I let her try Windows 7 which I have installed on my Macbook. She hated it. Everything was knew compared to her rememberings of Win XP. Me: "Your problem isn´t Mac OS or Win. Your problem is new and unknown or old and tested." talk ends.