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.
Removing Snow Leopard
- Thread starter Chaney2k
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You cannot downgrade a Mac
Snow Leopard is the current Operating System so if it came out of the box with SL installed that's it. You will be able in install the next Operating System but not the previous one.
OSX 10.3. Panther: October 24, 2003
OSX 10.4. Tiger: April 29, 2005
OSX 10.5. Leopard: October 26, 2007
OSX 10.6. Snow Leopard: August 28, 2009
S.
Snow Leopard is the current Operating System so if it came out of the box with SL installed that's it. You will be able in install the next Operating System but not the previous one.
OSX 10.3. Panther: October 24, 2003
OSX 10.4. Tiger: April 29, 2005
OSX 10.5. Leopard: October 26, 2007
OSX 10.6. Snow Leopard: August 28, 2009
S.
You should be able to use the 10.5.6 retail discs for the Macbook Pro. Otherwise you'll need to clone or image from a Mac running 10.5.8.
What are you talking about? As long as you have the DVD, there's nothing standing in the way of doing an erase and install over SL?
This is not exactly true. In cases where the hardware is the same you can indeed put a previous OS on the machine without issue. The Install DVD may not work due to the checks in the distribution file or it may be an older version than what the of similar hardware MBP shipped with. However, one could easily drop a Leopard image on a machine that ships with Snow Leopard.
An example would be the newly released Minis. There is no reason one could not get Leopard onto them, despite the fact that they will only ever ship with Leopard.
What are you talking about? As long as you have the DVD, there's nothing standing in the way of doing an erase and install over SL?
Yes there is.
You can not install a version of Mac OS X earlier than the one that came with your Mac (unless it is just a minor refresh to the line) because earlier versions of Mac OS X do not have the correct drivers included.
It's not irrelevant at all. If I were a SysAdmin and my system required CAA, why on earth would I add a user machine to a whitelist that could then be compromised? lol. Think please.
Clean Access Agent -> Cisco, not Microsoft.
And no, it can't be fixed until Cisco does anything about it, which means that at the moment Snow Leopard won't work for the OP. But yeah... you're not going to be able to downgrade to Tiger.
Your first & second sentences are non sequitur. I am not here to help sys admins of draconian programs that attempt to protect MS Windows users from viruses (the irrelevant part): 1. I am here to help SL users, 2. others have asked and successfully been put on the whitelist.
Also why is everyone ignoring the other solutions??
1. I am here to help SL users, 2. others have asked and successfully been put on the whitelist.
Also why is everyone ignoring the other solutions??
You are looking at it from a user standpoint, I am looking at it from a Sysadmin standpoint. Who is going to win? Smart sysadmins don't let unsecured machines onto their network. Those that managed to be put on a whitelist shouldn't feel safe about using their computer on a network since their security administrator is obviously a moron.
No. You're just overly paranoid and probably work at a place that's more like a prison than a real work place.
And who needs a whitelist anyway when most users in a corporate environment have their passwords written on sticky notes glued to their monitors?
Like today's ridiculous security checks at airports, your fancy Cisco security tools also only sell an illusion of safety.
Leopard will work just fine. Ashka is way off in regards to your particular case.
Or, as it seems other people imply, you should quit your job because everything at your workplace doesn't run on Apple products.
Or, as it seems other people imply, you should quit your job because everything at your workplace doesn't run on Apple products.
Well, this is the client section of an OS X forum.
What good is a draconian security system that influences users to find ways around it by installing older, less secure software, workarounds, maybe even software that includes trojan code that they will bring behind your firewall? How good is a security system when it does that?
No, I work in an institution in which security policy actually matters.
The weakness of the password as a "security" measure is well documented. I agree- weak passwords (and social engineering) are the #1 and #1a threats to computer security. Fortunately you can take measures to drastically reduce the likelihood of both.
They're not "mine." I would never touch a Cisco product. Sometimes the illusion of security is enough.
"It's better to have mediocre security now than perfect security never." There will never be a perfect system. Security is all about risk management, and if you're competent in setting up your network defenses none of those are going to be a serious issue.
Why would Cisco allow a whitelist in their software in the first place if it's less than mediocre security? As Miles pointed out, allowing someone in the whitelist opens the remote possibility (1 in a million?) for someone else to exploit it, in this case spoofing the MAC address of devices in the whitelist. It is also possible AFAIK to turn off this entire feature & still have some other security benefits that do not outrage your users. Draconian rules influence users to circumvent the system in ways that'll be out of the sys admin's control.
Look how many users are out there sharing details about their school/work network exposing themselves to social engineers. Is that what the sys admin wants vs. the risk of a MAC address in a whitelist?
Look how many users are out there sharing details about their school/work network exposing themselves to social engineers. Is that what the sys admin wants vs. the risk of a MAC address in a whitelist?
Did not miss your link - thought about it overnight - will try the whitelist, user is not a threat to system. Will wait a little longer for CISCO.
Chaney2k: Let us know if that happens. It is true that Macs cannot use a previous reference release. Sometimes a version before a minor update also won't work, as in the iMac Slot-Load that could boot to OS 8.5.1, but not to 8.5. As far as "haven't been upgraded", it isn't related to the processor or graphics set. It is the bootrom file. Did Apple change the bootrom for the first group of Macs that shipped with 10.6? Probably. They have to give free phone support for 90 days and they don't want to deal with any previous version installations.
Fyi, OpenVPN works great with SL, as with all versions of OS X I've tried + Linux. When my MBP wakes up from sleep, for instance, OpenVPN re-establishes the connection seamlessly. Very nice!
OpenVPN supports Linux, Solaris, *BSD, OS X, and Win 2000/XP. IMO it is shortsighted if IT does not offer a solid solution for *nix, & I explained why earlier, above.
OpenVPN supports Linux, Solaris, *BSD, OS X, and Win 2000/XP. IMO it is shortsighted if IT does not offer a solid solution for *nix, & I explained why earlier, above.