Lion Clean Install Requires Snow Leopard Disk?

[Slurpy2k8]

I'm glad I wasn't around messageboards when Apple dropped the 3.5' disk for USB. Can just imagine the outrage. APPLE WHAT ABOUT OUR OPTIONS WAAAAAAAA APPLE IS FINISHED I HATE YOU STEVE JOBS.

At least it would have been forgiveable then, because Steve had yet to prove himself. But now, after all he's done with the company, he hasn't earned a smidgeon of trust with these fanatics, demanding his head over such a trivial issue. Nobody is ****ing forcing you to upgrade to Lion, since apparently most of you are still on Leopard and couldn't care less about Lion's features, mocking it as a toy OS. You people are so out of touch with reality and what most people want or dont want, and where the industry is going. Digital distribution is the future, and Apple is positioning itself to lead, not follow, which it has done the past 10 years precisely by ignoring the 'advice' here. This gnashing of the teeth will never stop, which started with the first iPod being introduced, which outraged the hell out of the mac community. Apple was 'dead to them', so I hope they continue to ignore you all.

 

[OmegaRed1723]

The install of SL plus updaters takes under 1 hour. You will spend more time restoring files from time machine backups than that.

Just how often do you intend to do this?

Generally when I replace a hard drive I assume it will be a day long process. Luckily it isn't very often.

Don't you think it's asinine to have to spend an hour installing updates for an operating system you never intend to use? It's like bizarro-Apple.

 

[RoboCop001]

LMFAO at peeps getting all internet tough w/ each other.

Maybe they did it for teh lulz. I do! lol

 

[RoboCop001]

Don't you think it's asinine to have to spend an hour installing updates for an operating system you never intend to use? It's like bizarro-Apple.

Maybe this confirms something!

Think about it!... think about it for a sec...

They need you to install Snow Leopard first. And then Lion.

Blindingly ignoring the ability to clean install Lion from the hidden dmg, logic dictates Lion is just some add-on patches of stuff for Snow Leopard!

Oh the CONSPIRACY! What have I uncovered? Run! Run as fast as you can!

 

[sclawis300]

And you are assuming new macs will not come with restore disks.

Based on the available information that would seem like a very logical assumption. You are assuming that it will come with one. The fact is, none of us know.

I'm glad I wasn't around messageboards when Apple dropped the 3.5' disk for USB. Can just imagine the outrage. APPLE WHAT ABOUT OUR OPTIONS WAAAAAAAA APPLE IS FINISHED I HATE YOU STEVE JOBS.

At least it would have been forgiveable then, because Steve had yet to prove himself. But now, after all he's done with the company, he hasn't earned a smidgeon of trust with these fanatics, demanding his head over such a trivial issue. Nobody is ****ing forcing you to upgrade to Lion, since apparently most of you are still on Leopard and couldn't care less about Lion's features, mocking it as a toy OS. You people are so out of touch with reality and what most people want or dont want, and where the industry is going. Digital distribution is the future, and Apple is positioning itself to lead, not follow, which it has done the past 10 years precisely by ignoring the 'advice' here. This gnashing of the teeth will never stop, which started with the first iPod being introduced, which outraged the hell out of the mac community. Apple was 'dead to them', so I hope they continue to ignore you all.

You could argue that was different since you can just buy one that plugs in with the USB connection.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Don't you think it's asinine to have to spend an hour installing updates for an operating system you never intend to use? It's like bizarro-Apple.

Well I use 10.6.7 now. If I reinstall the OS I install 10.6.0 and then run an updater. This is nothing new. I don't get a followup disk that installs 10.6.7 for me.

How is this really such a stretch from what goes on now?

Beta testers have told me Lion installs very quickly. So it is minimal extra time. Like one more software update. Again you will spend so much more time waiting on the time capsule restore that this concern is just silly. And once again this is a cryptic email that may be from SJ or may not be. Even if it is, I doubt that is the end of the story.

Based on the available information that would seem like a very logical assumption. You are assuming that it will come with one. The fact is, none of us know.

And what makes you think for the first time new macs won't come with restore disks? I'd say getting all worked up over a possibility of something new like this happening when there is no reason to think it will is rather silly.

I don't see any information t make me think Apple will change and provide no disk.

As for those who say the difference is minimal between upgrading a clean installed system and clean installing a new system I will say this.

I tested Leopard on my computer cleanly installed. Then Snow Leopard upgraded from the Leopard cleanly installed (no app installed). Finally, I cleanly installed Snow Leopard. Performance-wise, Leopard performed pretty good, Snow Leopard clean not as good, and Snow Leopard upgraded was the worst.

Leopard: not freezes in daily use for some time.

Snow Leopard Clean: Occasional beach balls, takes time to do stuff (like opening Macintosh HD).

Snow Leopard Upgraded: Worse…

AnonMac50

I just had to go through an install of SL because I bought a 750GB drive. I directly installed SL. Install and software update took under an hour on a 2009 laptop. Time machine restore the rest of the day over wifi.

SL runs great for me. Better than leopard. I don't have beach balls on opening HD.

Check your activity monitor and see if something is tying up resources.

Also after an install I run disk utility to fix privileges. Give that a shot. Also don't have a bunch of stuff on auto launch on login. I found that is a pain when multiple things try to start.

 

[iBug2]

Yet people who buy Macs don't want to play games? Funny, but many BUY Windows to do just that (because even the games that ARE available for the Mac run like crap because of old OpenGL and even older video card drivers, which are the fault of Apple and no one else). And games are made for a platform based on users that might play them. During the first half of the past decade, Macs had very few users (and even fewer running OSX when the games were made for OS9).

Now Macs have enough users for some gaming support, but they run like crap due to slow GPUs, old drivers and old OpenGL versions (i.e. bad/slow APIs). Running the Windows version on the same hardware typically results in 2-3x faster frame rates and that's SAD because it's mostly Apple's fault. They claim to have the "most advanced OS in the world" (or did at least), but it lags in several key areas behind Windows and has a giant hole in the desktop lineup (i.e. a consumer tower at consumer prices).

People who buy macs do want to play games, but you couldn't market Mac for gaming, nobody would pay that amount of money to play games. It's simple as that. So Mac never had a shot at gaming market. People who wanted to play games and only play games bought PC's for 1/3 of a Mac price, which was the reasonable thing to do, so games sold much more for PC's, obviously, so gaming market belonged to Windows.

Crap Open GL drivers are not the fault of Apple, at least not solely Apple.

Open GL drivers are written by Apple together with ATI and Nvidia. Nvidia supplies some of the code, Apple supplies the rest, same with ATI. And neither ATI nor Nvidia spends the amount of money and time to develop Apple Open GL drivers, because the hardware they have to support on Windows is considerably more, so the biggest portion of R&D goes to Windows ports of drivers, again for obvious financial reasons.

When you say "now Macs have enough users", that "enough" is still extremely small compared to Windows gamers, even today. Not to mention, the difference in performance is not simply due to subpar drivers. It's also due to DirectX vs OpenGL. Games are mostly developed on DirectX and sometimes ported to OpenGL later on. And Microsoft does not license DirectX.

Given all this, I think the gaming on Mac is still not at a terrible position.

 

[robeddie]

Based on the available information that would seem like a very logical assumption. You are assuming that it will come with one. The fact is, none of us know.

This.

Its a valid concern at the moment.

And dont explain again about the ability to make a boot disk with the developer copy. It's fair to be a little concerned that that 'feature' was for the developer copy only, and may not be part of the 'official' version.

Because if they do supply it, then at what point woukd that install disk 'require' your apple ID? Would it run without registering it with an apple ID? (unlike the downloaded version).

So many questions.

 

[kingtj]

This proves zilch ....

I know you're just stating your personal experience here, but I have to counter that it's rather irrelevant. Why did you experience the results you did where doing the upgrade over a clean install was "slower" and/or "less reliable" than the clean install of Snow Leopard onto an empty drive?

Could be a simple matter of disk fragmentation, as one possibility. On a freshly formatted, empty drive, every file that gets copied to it goes to the first available free sectors of the drive. Assuming we're not talking an SSD drive here, that means on all the tracks closest to the inside spindle of the platter, with all the files neatly stored right up against each other. That's pretty much optimal for disk performance.

If you already loaded a whole OS (Leopard) first like this, and THEN came along and loaded a Snow Leopard upgrade over the top of it, you've got all sorts of files getting deleted or modified as new ones are saved, which WON'T result in as optimal an arrangement on your hard drive.

If this is the cause of the problem you saw, then running a disk utility to optimize/defragment the drive should bring it back to the same level of performance you saw with the clean Snow Leopard install to the empty drive.

As for those who say the difference is minimal between upgrading a clean installed system and clean installing a new system I will say this.

I tested Leopard on my computer cleanly installed. Then Snow Leopard upgraded from the Leopard cleanly installed (no app installed). Finally, I cleanly installed Snow Leopard. Performance-wise, Leopard performed pretty good, Snow Leopard clean not as good, and Snow Leopard upgraded was the worst.

Leopard: not freezes in daily use for some time.

Snow Leopard Clean: Occasional beach balls, takes time to do stuff (like opening Macintosh HD).

Snow Leopard Upgraded: Worse…

AnonMac50

 

[ten-oak-druid]

This.

Its a valid concern at the moment.

And dont explain again about the ability to make a boot disk with the developer copy. It's fair to be a little concerned that that 'feature' was for the developer copy only, and may not be part of the 'official' version.

Because if they do supply it, then at what point woukd that install disk 'require' your apple ID? Would it run without registering it with an apple ID? (unlike the downloaded version).

So many questions.

What makes you think there will be no restore disk?

There is a flaw with the logic: Lion requiring download does not equal no disk with a new computer.

What OS are you running when you download Lion? SL

So they give you a SL disk. Its a disk!

 

[robeddie]

What makes you think there will be no restore disk?

There is a flaw with the logic: Lion requiring download does not equal no disk with a new computer.

What OS are you running when you download Lion? SL

So they give you a SL disk. Its a disk!

We're talking about the macs that come out with lion installed, in a couple months. Presumably you wont be able to boot them with SL.

So the question of a bootable lion disk is important, alongs with the 'authorization' that bootable disk would 'likely' require.

 

[kingtj]

re: profit

Uh, I wouldn't QUITE call someone naive for arguing with your statement ...

Sure, a business has to make a profit, or else it will eventually cease to exist. But claiming that the ONLY function is to make a profit isn't really accurate. That's overly simplistic at best. Ask ANY small business owner why he or she started the business they did. 9 times out of 10, I think you're going to find it stemmed with a true interest in whatever product or service was being offered. If nobody cared about *anything* but profit, they'd all gravitate towards whichever industries were proven to generate the most revenue with the least effort. (And that would probably be such things as financial/banking businesses, since they can generate HUGE sums of profit without exerting any labor at all. Loan money at X% interest rate, and sit back and collect payments. Profit!)

But no... in reality, many people give their all to start businesses that nobody is even very sure will succeed, much less be extremely profitable. Sometimes people are quite content to run a business that makes JUST enough money to keep their bills paid and able to put food on the table, make rent each month and pay a car note. For them, it beats working for someone else who is always telling them what to do and how to do it -- and they're doing something they like.

Apple will have reached the best compromise between customer convenience, long term customer loyalty and profit. Remember, the ONLY function of ANY business is to make profit. Apple does NOT make computers, it makes MONEY.

And if you believe anything else, you're phenomenally naive.

 

[calcvita]

sure. how can icloud services keep your devices in sync if they dont know what (free) apps youve downloaded? your AppleID is the primary key. also for future upgrades to your known-apps.

but if you really dont want to log in w/ an AppleID, you are free to download free stuff from anywhere on the web.

actually that's not quite the case. i have mplayerx installed, i have never logged into the mas but when i open it it shows me that mplayerx is installed and that even an update is available. if i had more than one apple devices and i didn't install the same app on that other devices, then maybe i didn't want to
but i can understand what you're saying. if it were for purchased apps then the mas of course had to know what apps i purchased so that i can install them on other macs, too. (always according to the mas terms of use of course). but with freeware there are no such limitations. well, as long as i can get it (along with other freeware apps i'm using) from somewhere else too, i guess it will be ok. no harm done

sorry for the oftopic

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

People who buy macs do want to play games, but you couldn't market Mac for gaming, nobody would pay that amount of money to play games. It's simple as that.

I'll say it again since you apparently don't actually read the posts here. If you already own a Mac (that would mean nearly everyone on here), WTF wouldn't you want to game on it? Why would you want to buy a 2nd computer just to game if you could get one computer to do everything you want to do? I don't 'just' normally buy a computer for gaming. I'd get an XBox or Playstation if I only wanted to game. What you're essentially saying is that Mac users don't game. That's why so many install Windows on their machines also...because they DON'T want to game.

It's not the hardware. Current Macs can run Windows. The same games in Windows on the same Mac hardware runs 2-3x faster on average than in OSX. It's a combination of outdated OpenGL, outdated drivers and poorly optimized software. OpenGL certainly doesn't have to be slower than DirectX. Valve proved that time and again in the past.

So Mac never had a shot at gaming market. People who wanted to play games and only play games bought PC's for 1/3 of a Mac price, which was the reasonable thing to do, so games sold much more for PC's, obviously, so gaming market belonged to Windows.

Again, buying a computer JUST to game seems a little odd unless you're a hardcore LAN gamer or something. Most people pick a computer for various other reasons (operating system being the biggest one in my mind). Once you have the computer, you tend to look for software. But apparently Mac users don't game. Yes, that's why SO MANY have put Windows on their Intel Macs.

Crap Open GL drivers are not the fault of Apple, at least not solely Apple.

NVidia improves their base drivers all the time. It's up to Apple to update their drivers for the Mac. Or they could outsource the job to NVidia (who already maintains their Windows and Linux drivers).

When you say "now Macs have enough users", that "enough" is still extremely small compared to Windows gamers, even today. Not to mention, the difference in performance is not simply due to subpar drivers. It's also due to DirectX vs OpenGL. Games are mostly developed on DirectX and sometimes ported to OpenGL later on. And Microsoft does not license DirectX.

OpenGL has support for all the DirectX equivalent calls (OpenGL 3.x contains DX10 equivlents and OpenGL4.x contains DX11 equivalents. OpenGL also contains professional features that DirectX couldn't care less about). Apple is supposedly just getting to a full OpenGL 3.x implementation in Lion. OpenGL 4.x has been available for over a year now, though (currently at 4.1).

Valve has developed a full OpenGL engine for Source (used in Steam), but that only solves part of the problem for Mac gaming. The Mac still has poor drivers and slow GPUs. Again, this is Apple's fault.

Apple could offer an expandable mid-range consumer Mac and thus offer quality GPUs for those that want them (that could be used in OSX or Windows). This is the best solution for me since I'd prefer to not run two separate desktops in the future, but have one computer that could game when I want it to (even if I have to load Windows) and run OSX when I don't (and Linux if OSX keeps going down hill).

 

[ten-oak-druid]

We're talking about the macs that come out with lion installed, in a couple months. Presumably you wont be able to boot them with SL.

So the question of a bootable lion disk is important, alongs with the 'authorization' that bootable disk would 'likely' require.

There is absolutely no reason to suspect the new macs won't run SL.

As a matter of fact there is more reason than ever to suspect the new macs will run the older OS based on the method of Lion installation. Furthermore the incremental changes from Leopard to SL and SL to Lion appear to be minor. The small price reflects this.

This confirms that this is simply a made up bunch of nonsense. There is no way Apple would release new macs that can't run SL but require SL to install Lion. NO WAY.

But please everyone. Carry on with this silly concern. You have until the new macs and OS come out to pretend it is a real issue. Enjoy!

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This confirms that this is simply a made up bunch of nonsense. There is no way Apple would release new macs that can't run SL but require SL to install Lion. NO WAY.

New Macs will come with Lion already installed and with a restore partition and/or discs. This is not the same as having a retail Lion install disc (many PCs only come with an emergency restore disc, not the full version of Windows). In other words, I don't see how your logic invalidates the current rumor at all. It can and has been done that way before.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

I just read an article written by a Lion beta tester.

He stated that you can absolutely install Lion on a clean partition without SL being installed first. He also states the reason SL is currently required is for the purchase of it.

As for why SJ may have said what he did in the email, the context of the email suggests a crash with no way to get to the installer. So SL gets you the
App store to download Lion.

As for this nonsense about new Macs either not having restore disks or the ability to boot SL that is just complete nonsense.

And while we are at it, every mac user should have an external rescue drive anyway. If you don't then you should. If you can't start your mac, an external allows you to see if it is internal drive and its OS that is the problem or something else. You can run diagnostics like disk utility and disk warrior from the external too. I'm sure some looking to extend this discussion to some hopeless situation will argue it shouldn't be necessary. it isn't. Apple will include a restore disk as they always have. And you will be able to install SL anyway and get to Lion. But an external drive is something you should have anyway. If you really are a Mac user, set up your external rescue drive now if you have none. Later you can install Lion from it.

Now go back to your debate on this "hopeless situation" Apple is about to unleash on us all.

 

[sclawis300]

There is absolutely no reason to suspect the new macs won't run SL.

As a matter of fact there is more reason than ever to suspect the new macs will run the older OS based on the method of Lion installation. Furthermore the incremental changes from Leopard to SL and SL to Lion appear to be minor. The small price reflects this.

This confirms that this is simply a made up bunch of nonsense. There is no way Apple would release new macs that can't run SL but require SL to install Lion. NO WAY.

But please everyone. Carry on with this silly concern. You have until the new macs and OS come out to pretend it is a real issue. Enjoy!

you may want to check your url because I think you are lost. This is a rumors site. Who are you to say it is nonsense? I did not realize you were one of the developers.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

New Macs will come with Lion already installed and with a restore partition and/or discs. This is not the same as having a retail Lion install disc (many PCs only come with an emergency restore disc, not the full version of Windows). In other words, I don't see how your logic invalidates the current rumor at all. It can and has been done that way before.

Instal SL for $29 if you have lost your disk.

 

[anthorumor]

well this sucks. The three machines in our household have eventually been upgraded to Snow Leopard. If they have Lion installed and need hard disk replacements not only do I have to hunt for the Leopard discs, but I would have to wait for that to install, then grab the delta update, then go to the AppStore, download that, then wait and wait... Even worse is if Lion is 'bought' again under a different account (which is possible if the user is unaware of it).

As if the non-savvy person knows how to burn their own bootable disc from the Lion image.

This Lion is tamed by Steve...

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Be sure to give Apple your feedback if you are very concerned about this situation:
Apple Feedback

 

[JordanNZ]

I'll say it again since you apparently don't actually read the posts here. If you already own a Mac (that would mean nearly everyone on here), WTF wouldn't you want to game on it? Why would you want to buy a 2nd computer just to game if you could get one computer to do everything you want to do? I don't 'just' normally buy a computer for gaming. I'd get an XBox or Playstation if I only wanted to game. What you're essentially saying is that Mac users don't game. That's why so many install Windows on their machines also...because they DON'T want to game.

It's not the hardware. Current Macs can run Windows. The same games in Windows on the same Mac hardware runs 2-3x faster on average than in OSX. It's a combination of outdated OpenGL, outdated drivers and poorly optimized software. OpenGL certainly doesn't have to be slower than DirectX. Valve proved that time and again in the past.




Again, buying a computer JUST to game seems a little odd unless you're a hardcore LAN gamer or something. Most people pick a computer for various other reasons (operating system being the biggest one in my mind). Once you have the computer, you tend to look for software. But apparently Mac users don't game. Yes, that's why SO MANY have put Windows on their Intel Macs.



NVidia improves their base drivers all the time. It's up to Apple to update their drivers for the Mac. Or they could outsource the job to NVidia (who already maintains their Windows and Linux drivers).



OpenGL has support for all the DirectX equivalent calls (OpenGL 3.x contains DX10 equivlents and OpenGL4.x contains DX11 equivalents. OpenGL also contains professional features that DirectX couldn't care less about). Apple is supposedly just getting to a full OpenGL 3.x implementation in Lion. OpenGL 4.x has been available for over a year now, though (currently at 4.1).

Valve has developed a full OpenGL engine for Source (used in Steam), but that only solves part of the problem for Mac gaming. The Mac still has poor drivers and slow GPUs. Again, this is Apple's fault.

Apple could offer an expandable mid-range consumer Mac and thus offer quality GPUs for those that want them (that could be used in OSX or Windows). This is the best solution for me since I'd prefer to not run two separate desktops in the future, but have one computer that could game when I want it to (even if I have to load Windows) and run OSX when I don't (and Linux if OSX keeps going down hill).

Every point release of OSX over the last year or so has contained updated graphic drivers. When steam was first released for mac, Portal was running painfully slow. Portal2 actually runs faster under OSX (by a couple of fps) than it does under Windows7 on my iMac (with 6970m).

 

[Duke15]

well thats dumb, hopefully u can do it from the recovery partition

 

[sclawis300]

All of you just **** about inability to clean restore. I just ****ing did it with my Lion Beta 1/2 hr ago. Copied the image to disk, booted from it. Why the hell are you all assuming this will be impossible in the final version? Oh I know, cause you're all drama queens who are desperate to get outraged about anything apple does. Pathetic concern trolls. What a non-sense thread and a non-issue. But hey, carry on for another 50 pages. Why not?

well that would actually require being able to get Lion in the first place now wouldn't it. And who that crap made up such a stupid term? I have a new one, narcissus troll, there I can do it too.

 

[calcvita]

@Slurpy2k8

i was just about to quote your post, but apparently you deleted it. anyway…….

if it's a non-issue for you and all the others "non-issuers" then why are you answering? does it make you feel sad that someone criticizes your beloved company? as far as i know this is a forum where users meet to exchange thoughts and their concerns. if every one of us had the same opinion on everything, man that would be certainly boring as hell. you and the others made their point, we got it. let us, the "concern trolls" do our thing and don't bother answering, simple as that

sites like macrumors and other forums of that kind doesn't only exist to praise apple, you know?