^^^ From what others here have posted, no. The $10 disc does check for Leopard before it installs.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/777053/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/777053/
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.
[Merged] $29 Snow Leopard vs. $169 Box Set Questions
- Thread starter Gregintosh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. Most definitely. I did an install on a Macbook with a brand new SSD just installed. No problems. I have looked through the main distribution file and haven't found anything that looks strange, as in something in the installer that would make it ignore certain computers.
Also, if the UTD disk is exactly the same as the full copy, you can modify the distribution file and remove the Leopard check. Then you reborn the disk. Similar to this guide:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/371302/
haha, it still seems like the $10 disk will let me do what I want in 3 years per my example.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/775088/
After reading that thread, it sure looks like you can do a complete install without a Leopard check first. Examples in there were wiping the drive first, then sticking in the disk. Also someone else put in a new hard drive.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/775088/
After reading that thread, it sure looks like you can do a complete install without a Leopard check first. Examples in there were wiping the drive first, then sticking in the disk. Also someone else put in a new hard drive.
argggg.. i want to bang my head on my desk.
the latest post just stated that the person tried to use the $10 with a new hard drive and it failed.
*doh...
The distribution file is one of the first things that run, it runs before you even get the option to install at least.
What happens is the installer comes up and by that time, it has been determined whether or not you can install. This is why you are allowed to then run Disk Utility and wipe your drive and then install.
See my post above, you may be able to modify the UTD disk. Someone would need to post the Distribution file from the UTD disk.
Yup, and it seems even from Tiger. Saw the thread this afternoon on MR.
(Sorry, gotta take some cred; myself and at least two other MR members confirmed that the $29 disc can do an install on a blank disk.)
THAT was funny!!
Thanks for the replies folks.
oh I just did the upgrade. took 45 min. easy peesy
LOL, you keep on mixing stuff up, now even more than before :XYes, I'm a troll
I "intentionally" left those parts out because I was specifically countering your point that there was no mention of a Leopard requirement in the SLA.
2.A. Mac Box Set
2.B. Family Pack Box Set
2.C $29 Upgrade and Up-to-Date Discs, as well as the Family Pack Upgrade
If the 29$ version is an upgrade than so is every other version! In the official press release they state the following:
There you go. What do you not understand about "The Snow Leopard single user license will be available for a suggested retail price of $29 (US) and the Snow Leopard Family Pack, a single household, five-user license, will be available for a suggested price of $49 (US)." ?
This is something to put into 2 (!) press releases:
- Apple Unveils Mac OS X Snow Leopard
- Apple to Ship Mac OS X Snow Leopard on August 28
As you can clearly see they use the word "upgrade" and verb "to upgrade" in the correct context. It's just pure linguistics and nothing else. There is also another problem if they were to use 2C. Since they use "upgrade" for both the upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard AND Tiger to Snow Leopard that would mean both versions are upgrade versions, well, at least the way you see it. The version targeted at those Tiger users is the Mac Box Set as many (wrongly) see. In other words, the Mac Box Set is an upgrade version from Tiger to Snow Leopard. The way you see it that would make the Mac Box Set fall under section 2C. Section 2C has the explicit requirement that you need to have a Leopard license. That requirement in this case would be illegal since a lot of laws do not permit this kind of practice. The EU (and especially Portugal and Belgium) have very strict rules about this and they forbid this. I think that even under US law such a license is not allowed.
So there are also legal issues if Apple would do the way you see and read the EULA. As you can see from the EULA and the press releases this is not the case. Section 2C only applies to the up-to-date program (that's why that program has Leopard as one of the requirements).
No, no and thrice no
If what you're saying is correct then the EULA would permit Tiger users to install using the $29 disc. Various media outlets have reported this to be against the EULA.
2C also refers to Family Packs. There is no "Family Pack Up-To-Date" - this is not the same as a Multiple Up-To-Date Request To Copy licence.
Give it up mate, this sub-thread is over
No, no and thrice no
If what you're saying is correct then the EULA would permit Tiger users to install using the $29 disc. Various media outlets have reported this to be against the EULA.
2C also refers to Family Packs. There is no "Family Pack Up-To-Date" - this is not the same as a Multiple Up-To-Date Request To Copy licence.
Give it up mate, this sub-thread is over
Seriously, just think about it. If apple went through the trouble to write up a comprehensive EULA with different scenarios, don't you think they would have bothered to say no to Tiger>SL for 29$? Use common sense, Apple wouldn't slip up on something as simple as basically putting into contract what they've been saying all along.
@xxSpudxx, if you're worried about losing your Leopard disc and only having the 10$ up-to-date disc, couldn't you just legally use a downloaded copy of Leopard? And why would you have more of a chance of losing your leopard disc than a $29 SL disc? Personally I would stick with the up-to-date disc and go buy a Vermonster at Ben and Jerry's with the savings. You won't forget something like that...
I just wiped my HD to ZERO, shut down-then restarted;
SL booted just fine;
NOW either it doesnt matter that you have 10.ANYTHING to install 10.6-or my first install of SL on top of 10.5 detected 10.5-and changed my firmware to accept a SL boot from now on-I didnt relish having to keep a 10.5 disc around to be able to do a clean install;
I noted that my "upgrade" box said RETAIL on the UPC sticker-and neither the disc face-the box, the UPC sticker-or the Install process said one word about UPGRADE
moral:
you may not need 10.5 to install 10.6;
JUST SPEND THE $29
instead of going after trojan infected copies on the web
or agonizing over spending $170
Apple should have $50 upgrade discs for pre Leopard users
seems like this "buy it all-or nothing" approach just makes people mad
SL booted just fine;
NOW either it doesnt matter that you have 10.ANYTHING to install 10.6-or my first install of SL on top of 10.5 detected 10.5-and changed my firmware to accept a SL boot from now on-I didnt relish having to keep a 10.5 disc around to be able to do a clean install;
I noted that my "upgrade" box said RETAIL on the UPC sticker-and neither the disc face-the box, the UPC sticker-or the Install process said one word about UPGRADE
moral:
you may not need 10.5 to install 10.6;
JUST SPEND THE $29
instead of going after trojan infected copies on the web
or agonizing over spending $170
Apple should have $50 upgrade discs for pre Leopard users
seems like this "buy it all-or nothing" approach just makes people mad
I have thought about it thanks. The EULAs make perfect sense to me now, but evidently not to everyone in this thread. Their problem. The EULA does specifically state that you must own a Leopard licence to qualify for using the "upgrade" licence versions of Snow Leopard. That means Tiger users must purchase the Mac Box Set or Family Pack Mac Box Set. QED.
I like how your own example of "common sense" is to download an operating system from a non-trusted source on the Internet
Media have also reported an awful lot of false stuff in the past and the present as well. If there is one thing you need to be careful with it is the media. CNN once reported that 99% of the patriots were able to hit other missiles. In fact this was the other way around: only 1% wre able to hit the other missile and unfortunately this mostly caused a lot more trouble than not hitting it (as in 3 or 4 pieces of missile coming down to earth and wreaking havoc instead of just 1). Also, most media only repeat what Apple told them in the press releases. Arstechnica is the only one saying something different (which is btw false information).No, no and thrice no
If what you're saying is correct then the EULA would permit Tiger users to install using the $29 disc. Various media outlets have reported this to be against the EULA.
Why is not the same, please explain for once.
Only when you start explaining things and start pointing at where Apple explicitly says the things you think they say. Please stop saying it's wrong and start responding to the quotes in my previous post.Give it up mate, this sub-thread is over
Unfortunately you are one of the people who evidently do not understand the EULA or even the legal risks your point of view has for Apple. Please provide where in the press release, website and EULA Apple states you have to buy the Mac Box Set as a Tiger user. Doing a grep on the EULA will not return anything about Tiger, taking a look at the press release also does not return anything about Tiger (being limited to the Mac Box Set or having to have a Leopard license) or anything else for that matter. Please respond to the quotes in my previous reply since you failed to do so.
Again: the EULA and the press releases clearly state that as a Tiger user you can buy the Mac Box Set but you can also buy the single user license or family pack if you want. The EULA and the press releases also clearly state that there is NO limitation on those versions regarding having to have a Leopard license. In fact this would be a violation of the law if it did.
The only limitation that is mentioned by Apple on their site, in their EULA and their press releases would be the up-to-date program. If you look in the MacOS X subforum you'll see a topic where people actually experience this limitation (yes, it's also a technical one).
Yeah, that example is just ridiculous but it has some truth to it. In fact it does not really matter where you got the installation media from, it's the license that matters. It's a bit easier to prove you have such a license by showing the original dvd you have to buy in the store.I like how your own example of "common sense" is to download an operating system from a non-trusted source on the Internet
Its a violation of the EULA which in turn is a violation of the law because apple can technically sue you? idk
Read post #313 and the last part of this reply.
SLA is a Service Level Agreement which has got nothing to do with a EULA. Again, read post #313. The only "upgrade" version that is available would be the up-to-date program because everything else is either single user or family pack. Read post #313 and you'll see that those versions are exactly what is advertised. So the question should be: where does it say you need Leopard to be able to use the single user or family pack licensed Snow Leopard/Mac Box Set?
The law in the EU with Portugal and Belgium in particular which forbids any company to sell a product where the customer has to buy another in order to make it work. In your (wrong) point of view that would be that the Tiger user has to purchase Leopard after purchasing Snow Leopard in order to be able to run Snow Leopard. This law is about protecting the customer and that's why such practice is forbidden. Belgium and Portugal are one of the most strict countries in cases like these. The Netherlands and others are more flexible but still they don't allow something like the Leopard-Snow Leopard thing. The up-to-date program is not violating this law because they limit the Macs for this program to Macs already running Leopard so in essence you buy the same as the 29$ (and other versions) Snow Leopard version.
Same questions for you: where does it state exactly the false information you are still giving?
Oh, btw, did you check out the license in the Online Apple Store?
Snow Leopard: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL?mco=Nzk2MjE4OQ (it says "single user" aka section 2A and "family pack" aka section 2B).
Mac Box Set: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC209Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA&mco=Nzk2MTEzOQ (and yet again it says "single user" aka section 2A and "family pack" aka section 2B).
It says so in the EULA, it says so in the press release and it says so in the Online Apple Store. Are you that blind to see that you are simply wrong about the license? :X
Actually, Apple calls them Software License Agreements, SLAs, not EULAs.
Snow Leopard's SLA said:
Take a look at Leopard's SLA - it has no mention of an upgrade license, yet it also had an UTD version. Snow Leopard was the first to have the cheaper Upgrade version, and the first SLA to have a mention of the Upgrade license.
This law also doesn't apply in the US. Where does anything say a Tiger user needs to purchase Leopard in order to run SL? They don't. They need to purchase the box set.
Using your logic, I could sue Sony for requiring me to purchase a PS3 in order to play the Madden I bought for it.
Here:
I've highlighted where it says this is an upgrade.
BTW, your argument about where it says Single User ... notice that it doesn't say LICENSE TYPE, it is just asking if you are going to buy one copy or the family pack.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the PR, it doesn't mention the specifics of licensing - only the SLA does.
Ok.
I took a look at the EULA for Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard and there are similarities between Snow Leopard and Leopard and there are also a lot of differences between the 3. All three have had UTD's....
It says so in the press release and everywhere else. Apple is talking about Snow Leopard being an upgrade which is what you guys are pointing out again and again and again. You simply do not realise that this would also be the case for the other products with Snow Leopard in them like the Mac Box Set
As you stated earlier, you need to have Leopard when you have the upgrade license so in that regard you need Leopard if you buy the Mac Box Set.Not quite the same but it looks somewhat similar. If Sony were to put something like that in the EULA than yes it's forbidden by law. However they won't because there is no need to since PS3 games won't run on something like the Wii or Xbox. It would have been a better comparison if you would have to buy the previous Madden version in order to play the newest Madden version just because of the license. In Belgium for example this leads to the situation where you have to buy a telephone and the subscription for it separately. If they sell it together than that is a violation of their law. That's why Apple sells the iPhone separately in Belgium. You can go and buy just the iPhone without any subscription and without any telco lock. Quite unlike the situation with AT&T where you have to get a AT&T subscription in order to get the iPhone.Using your logic, I could sue Sony for requiring me to purchase a PS3 in order to play the Madden I bought for it.
Have you also noted the part where it says single user and family pack?
Now try and do the same thing with your own Snow Leopard copy, you know, the box. I tried to locate something that would tell me it's an upgrade and failed to do so. The only words that were even closely connected to anything like a license were "Install DVD", "Family Pack" and "Retail". Looking at that box and its contents there is no information whatsoever that says its an upgrade, actually the only thing that matches anything from the EULA are the words "Family Pack" or "Single User". The exact same thing goes for the Mac Box Set. The only people that are able to find anything with "upgrade" are the ones with a UTD disc.
Even the system requirements does not say anything about a previous OS X version. The only thing it tells me is that I need an Intel Mac.
Legally this would mean that whatever the box says is what the license will be which is either section 2A or 2B (and for the UTD people it apparently will be section 2C).
Again you fail to understand that part since it really does not have anything to do with the EULA or whatever. It's all about how a company creates a product and tries to sell it. You'd know if you have ever sold anything yourself. It's the same reason a company like Cisco is not making ads for home users to come and buy one of their routers. It's not a product for home users, it's for an IT department. In that regard it's not strange why Apple is only talking about Tiger users when they are speaking of the Mac Box Set. Since Snow Leopard that product has become a bit "weird" since there really isn't much of a market for it any more as Snow Leopard dropped PowerPC support.