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
really? because "full" versions of OS X have never been over $129. This one, which is touting a whopping 1 "new" feature, as opposed to the 150 or 300 of versions past, is 159 and you get iLife for free?
I wonder if you might be interested in my bridge?
It is for sale. Only $50. My only requirement is that you also buy my deluxe pencil sharpener. It's $37.4 Million. Come on, a real bridge for only $50. How can you say no? I must be crazy.
OS X has never "come with ilife" before. If it's considered part of the deal, then it should be included in the 29 dollar upgrade version, too.
Apple is being scammy if this info is correct...
I really cant argue with that. Ive been stuck behind microsoft licensing for so long, and being a mac noob, the $169 cost for an OS seemed "normal" for me.
i dont get why you guys dont understand the word 'upgrade' means.
$29 snow leopard is an UPGRADE thus why you need Leopard ALREADY installed and its stated under the requirements that you NEED Leopard.
if you already have Leopard installed, just put in the SL disc and install. it will most likely overwrite some files and still retain your programs and personal datas.
i dont see a reason why it would ask for you to format your harddrive.
you cant use an upgrade disc to install full OS on an empty hdd.
$29 snow leopard is an UPGRADE thus why you need Leopard ALREADY installed and its stated under the requirements that you NEED Leopard.
if you already have Leopard installed, just put in the SL disc and install. it will most likely overwrite some files and still retain your programs and personal datas.
i dont see a reason why it would ask for you to format your harddrive.
you cant use an upgrade disc to install full OS on an empty hdd.
As long as Erase and install is an available option when I put in the SL upgrade DVD, I'm not really bothered about having to have Leopard installed beforehand. So what if it takes an hour or so to install both from scratch. I'm not planning to re-install OS X every other week.
For an OS that releases very soon it seems odd that Apple would be so quiet about it. There have been 5 OSX iterations that followed a distinct install method and now that Apple changed it all around they dont seem to want to make any official announcements as far as what the install discs do. I guess we will just have to wait...
Erm, no. They're crying after seeing the Windows 7 upgrade matrix
There's nothing new here - Apple's Up-To-Date OS X discs have always been the same. What is new is that we don't know whether the $9 and $29 Snow Leopard discs are essentially the same i.e. they will not install on a blank hard drive.
isnt an upgrade disc a lot cheaper than a full version OS disc?
if that was the case, then wouldnt everyone just buy the upgrade disc instead of the full?
Because you had to have purchased the previous version in full. It didn't install straight away; it took an additional step during the install (to a blank hard drive) to verify you had the previous version full installer discs. I did this exact thing when I upgrade my old iMac G4's hard drive.
Yeah, me too.Mac OSX along with just about every application common folk will ever need for $170. Unheard of in the Windows camp.
Then you could wait until 2010
(If you've survived this long without Leopard, you can surely wait another 3 months for Snow Leopard+'10)
If they wanted all Leopard users to upgrade to SL they would have made it more program compatible.
At this point it's like, yay cool OS... but not if half my apps won't work.
I see the OP's point. There's no reason why iWork & iLife have to be bundled with Snow Leopard for Tiger users. Just do what others suggest - buy a cheap copy of Leopard and then SL.
How many Tiger users are running it on an Intel Mac? I bet less than .5%. Snow Leopard is for Intel Macs.
I gave a G4 eMac to my brother. I had installed Leopard on it, but told him it ran a little sluggish. He asked me to put Tiger on it, so I did, and it is quick G4 Mac. Tiger has a very small footprint and requires legacy hardware.
I gave a G4 eMac to my brother. I had installed Leopard on it, but told him it ran a little sluggish. He asked me to put Tiger on it, so I did, and it is quick G4 Mac. Tiger has a very small footprint and requires legacy hardware.
wait three months till snow leopards bugs have been ironed out. then buy a cheap factory sealed leopard disk from a legal source (best buy, fry's, micro center, ?amazon?) and snow leopard for $29. by that you can legally upgrade for most likely less than $60.
Intel Macs were released January 2006, and Leopard released Oct 2007. So thats a period of about 22 months, less 2 months for mac-up-to-date program = 20 months of intel macs sold with Tiger.
Probablyquite a few million macs sold in that time period, many of them potential buyers of Snow Leopard.
At times I don't understand the feeling that some owners have that they "have to" upgrade their OS or application software just because there's a new box on the shelf at the Apple Store.
In the OP's situation . . . you've gotten on with Tiger all these years . . . why would you switch to SL?
In the OP's situation . . . you've gotten on with Tiger all these years . . . why would you switch to SL?
I just can't imagine Apple forcing us to buy a complete Mac Box Set AGAIN, just to let us use the full stand-alone installer of 10.6.
ATM, you have to buy the upgrade, really. Almost all Intel-Mac owners have 10.5 and iLife and / or iWork 09 already.
All these people will be very annoyed if they need to have 10.5.x installed to be able to get 10.6 installed....
I like to use Disk Utility to create a new RAID 0. And I like to use the newest Disk Utility to achieve that, i.e. 10.6 Install DVD's version.
I know Apple did use the "upgrade" check for the drop-in DVD's, but that is very different to a must-buy upgrade DVD.
Only time will tell.
ATM, you have to buy the upgrade, really. Almost all Intel-Mac owners have 10.5 and iLife and / or iWork 09 already.
All these people will be very annoyed if they need to have 10.5.x installed to be able to get 10.6 installed....
I like to use Disk Utility to create a new RAID 0. And I like to use the newest Disk Utility to achieve that, i.e. 10.6 Install DVD's version.
I know Apple did use the "upgrade" check for the drop-in DVD's, but that is very different to a must-buy upgrade DVD.
Only time will tell.
Well I suppose I will wait a few weeks/months and wait for the dust to settle before I decide to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
For me, Snow Leopard offers the advantages of leopard ( quick look, spaces, time machine etc) with its own adavatnges of new 64 bit apps, slimmer footprint and more refined codebase. I will still wait it out for a while longer, like you say,Ive waited this long i can wait a bit longer...
This thread is nonsense. None of us will know until Friday. This is a $29 upgrade, I doubt they will be so aggressive about protecting it, when they do not even do the license key / activation stuff.
I guess the thing is that if you haven't paid for Leopard, but you want to get Snow Leopard, you're getting a really cheap upgrade if they let you install to a bare drive. That's not fair to all of us that forked out $129 for Leopard. Therefore, checking for Leopard seems reasonable. The alternative would have been to charge us all $129 for Snow Leopard - which most of us here would have probably paid.
$29 is a steal and IF they make me install 10.5 first, then so be it.
I guess the thing is that if you haven't paid for Leopard, but you want to get Snow Leopard, you're getting a really cheap upgrade if they let you install to a bare drive. That's not fair to all of us that forked out $129 for Leopard. Therefore, checking for Leopard seems reasonable. The alternative would have been to charge us all $129 for Snow Leopard - which most of us here would have probably paid.
$29 is a steal and IF they make me install 10.5 first, then so be it.
Laughing because they're already decades ahead of us at the "obscenely unnecessarily confusing OS install" game.