Is it "safe" to get Snow Leopard yet?

[Eidorian]

I'm close to having a nervous breakdown here unless I can talk to an Apple Engineer as to why upgrading from Leopard is the only way to preserve my Spotlight comments.

 

[SmugMac]

Clean install Just make sure you backup first.

There's something really 'right' about doing a clean install. It's also a great opportunity to clean up and filter out that Apps you don't want or need anymore.

 

[Dry Rot]

I bought my 17" uMBP in July so I bit at Apple's $10 SL upgrade deal, well worth it. I did a clean install - erased HDD through disk utility- and have experienced ZERO problems with SL. I only use a few apps, but I can say MS Office 2004 has performed flawlessly for me so far. At the very least if it doesn't work for you , you can try neo office or open office (I think is the name), they are free.

Thanks.

Just bit the bullet - went down the upgrade path. Worked perfectly and seems to be snappier.

Office 2004 is working fine for me so far - seems a bit quicker.

Only issue so far is that some old OCR software doesn't work anymore, despite loading Rosetta.

I'm pleased.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Actually, it is Apple's problem. If software that works on 10.4/10.5 doesn't work on 10.6, that means Apple can't even maintain compatibility between their OS releases. That is Apple's problem. They (and you) have to wait for developers to port their apps to 10.6.

It would be a lot easier if Apple just made Snow Leopard compatible with 10.5 apps.

And, the nicer interpretation is that Snow Leopard is simply full of bugs. ("My God, It's full of bugs!")

Actually it isn't, most of the problems come from Haxies, which developers were warned not to use. IE Apple has never officially supported them. Any App that was correctly developed according to Apple's guidelines does indeed work properly.

 

[Amdahl]

A major point of Snow Leopard is it is cleaning out the old cruft and crap and preparing everything for the future. Apps are bound to break and it is the responsibility of the 3rd party developers to fix their apps for their customers.

Strange.. It seems it is the responsibility of the customer to pay for new versions that run on new systems. If Apple doesn't want this to be the customers problem, they shouldn't create software that isn't compatible with the previous version of itself.

Trying too hard to maintain backwards compatibility is what gets you garbage like the Windows codebase.

There is a big difference between trying to hard, and Apple, who isn't trying at all. Not even being compatible one release back is completely inexcusable. They may as well call it Apple OS 3, rather than pretend it is a member of the OSX family.

Actually it isn't, most of the problems come from Haxies, which developers were warned not to use. IE Apple has never officially supported them. Any App that was correctly developed according to Apple's guidelines does indeed work properly.

Unless you are saying Adobe and Apple don't follow guidelines, then your argument makes no sense. What makes more sense is that Apple is not a computer company, and they don't put much effort in creating and maintaining a supportable system architecture. Rather, every opportunity to screw up a product they already sold is an opportunity to potentially make another buck.

 

[HLdan]

What makes more sense is that Apple is not a computer company, and they don't put much effort in creating and maintaining a supportable system architecture. Rather, every opportunity to screw up a product they already sold is an opportunity to potentially make another buck.

Completely ridiculous post.