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

How the hell is Snow Leopard only $29.99??

I

iMacJunkie

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 7, 2011
188
51
I remember paying at least $200 just to get Windows.

Is this really how much Snow Leopard costs for the full install version?

Yeah, since no one has answered my thread, I'm thinking it's impossible to get those beautiful blue scrollbars on Lion, so I'm reverting back to Snow Leopard on my new iMac this weekend.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1228070/
 
Because Microsoft is a software company, and Apple is a hardware company. Apple wants to sell you into an ecosystem that requires hardware purchases. Microsoft wants to sell you their software.
 
can you still go back to snow leopard? i thought like new air's,mini ect you couldn't go backwards.....?

and yes sl is $29 + $6 ground shipping (i just ordered last week for my late 2006 17" isight imac 2.0)
 
Apple could give it away and still profit handsomely.

They command such a high profit margin on their products they don't have to price it higher. It's well known Apple operates between 30% to 40%, whereas MS & others are hovering around 7% to 11%. That's quite a different.

Pure proof that Steve was the worlds greatest salesman. Influencing people to part with so much money it's simply amazing. Yes the products are good, but he spun the hype to new heights.

It's going to be interesting when Apple has to stand on their own sometime in the future.
 
tom vilsack said:
can you still go back to snow leopard? i thought like new air's,mini ect you couldn't go backwards.....?

and yes sl is $29 + $6 ground shipping (i just ordered last week for my late 2006 17" isight imac 2.0)
Click to expand...

As long as the computers shipped with Snow Leopard initially then you can upgrade to Snow Leopard.
 
It's just a typo. If the computer originally shipped with 10.6 (such as the current MBPs) then you can install 10.6, even if your particular machine came with 10.7.
 
Nermal said:
It's just a typo. If the computer originally shipped with 10.6 (such as the current MBPs) then you can install 10.6, even if your particular machine came with 10.7.
Click to expand...

I guess it could be inferred as a typo. But by computer shipping with Snow Leopard initially it was meant that when the computer was released Snow Leopard was the current OS. And if upgrade was misunderstood, it was a jive at Lion.
 
Nermal said:
It's just a typo. If the computer originally shipped with 10.6 (such as the current MBPs) then you can install 10.6, even if your particular machine came with 10.7.
Click to expand...

Not "easily" In all cases.
I have seen quite a few 2011 MacBook pros recently that will not boot from a 10.6 retail DVD but only a specific 2011 MacBook Pro 10.6 specific build.

These computers shipped with Lion but the users are using some specific DJ software that is not yet ready for Lion and forced to downgrade to SL.
 
pawtracks said:
Not in all cases.
I have seen quite a few 2011 MacBook pros recently that will not boot from a 10.6 retail DVD but only a specific 2011 MacBook Pro 10.6 specific build.

These computers shipped with Lion but the users are using some specific DJ software that is not yet ready for Lion and forced to downgrade to SL.
Click to expand...

This is because the retail disk might have come out before the MacBook Pro did. Thus the retail disk would not have the drivers for the MacBook Pro.
 
Seriously SL was just like a few performance tweaks for Leopard. No new features that would warrant paying any more. And Lion, pfft if anything its less reliable than SL ever was.
 
Smacky said:
Seriously SL was just like a few performance tweaks for Leopard. No new features that would warrant paying any more. And Lion, pfft if anything its less reliable than SL ever was.
Click to expand...

performance tweaks enough to significantly speed up my machine and allow most of the third party software I use to grow with the new platform. Which sadly can not be said for Lion which is full of bugs and third party applications have problems lets just say
 
Confuzzzed said:
performance tweaks enough to significantly speed up my machine and allow most of the third party software I use to grow with the new platform. Which sadly can not be said for Lion which is full of bugs and third party applications have problems lets just say
Click to expand...

You're mad that a 7 week old OS doesn't have every bug ironed out and third parties haven't gotten off their asses to update applications?

----------
Smacky said:
Seriously SL was just like a few performance tweaks for Leopard. No new features that would warrant paying any more. And Lion, pfft if anything its less reliable than SL ever was.
Click to expand...

I've never understood this sentiment. 10.6 was one of the most stable OS's I have ever used.
 
Apple used to charge $129 for new OS's. I think the real key is that in Snow Leopard and Lion they introduced a lot of newer design paradigms...Grand Central Dispatch, OpenCL, all the iOS-like stuff in Lion, and they're willing to take a hit on profit margin to get those newer features standardized upon. They want users to all be on Lion and developers to be targeting Lion. Better experience for all, which sells more hardware via word of mouth and reviews.

It also encourages developers to hop between iOS and Mac OS X as they get more similar.
 
jayhawk11 said:
You're mad that a 7 week old OS doesn't have every bug ironed out and third parties haven't gotten off their asses to update applications?

----------



I've never understood this sentiment. 10.6 was one of the most stable OS's I have ever used.
Click to expand...

Lion is more than 7 weeks old, its been in development long enough that a public release should be mostly clear of major issues.
 
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