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.
SNOW LEOPARD Free update or not??
- Thread starter markwise
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The upgrade timeframe had steadily been increasing:
10.1--9/2001
10.2--8/2002 (11 months)
10.3--10/2003 (14 months)
10.4--4/2005 (18 months)
10.5--10/2007 (30 months)
10.6--??6/2009?? (20 months)
If they get it out by June 2009, which is what they're suggesting:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html
then that's much quicker than the 10.5 upgrade. Still, I doubt it'll be June and will probably be roughly 2 years since 10.5 when it arrives.
Oh, and yes, definitely no discount, not free. More features will be announced as we get closer to release.
Not at all. The only reason you care about features is because it is the only way companies like Microsoft and Apple can sell operating systems. Hype it up as the next big thing to people who don't realise that all those new features are going to do is slow their computer down.
There's a big difference between bug fixes/patches and completely rewriting the core of the operating system.
You guys crack me up. Can you name any major software manufacturer that charges for a release with no new features and just touting performance and stability?
10.6 is going to have plenty of new features, they're just not going to be a bunch of gimmicky (and sometimes useless) features like Cover Flow in the Finder and Time Machine.
Multithreading, OpenCL, full 64-bit support, etc are huge features to actually get the most out of hardware that we have and will be getting in the next couple of years.
You didn't include Tiger on Intel, which was a huge project and can be classified as a specific release.
10.4 - 4/05
10.4 Intel - 1/06 - 18 months
10.5 - 10/07 - 22 months
10.6 - Spring 09 - 18-20 months
If Leopard wasn't delayed, it would have been 16 months. These are close to the goal SJ said of a new OS every 12-18 months.
I think it's a good comparison. It shows us how the consumer OS market is shaped, right or wrong. Think of it this way.. SP2 was a MAJOR update to Windows XP. What if Microsoft had charged $129 for it? Charged for an update that probably should have been there all along.
EDIT:
Let's look at this another way..
I don't want to have to pony up another $1000 for Snow Leopard Server, unlimited license!
I know Apple has done this with some software in the past (I don't believe the OS has been done this way, but I'm a more recent Apple user), but maybe they'll offer a good discount to Leopard owners, but charge full price for anyone using anything below Leopard?
True, but 10.0 was also a beta. Their computers still shipped with OS 9, but OS X was optional until Puma came out.
I really think this is what they'll do. $79 (or around there) for 10.5 users, $129 for everyone else.
It's nothing like 10.1. The Exchange support will cost Apple a pretty penny by itself.
For those of you whit a Power PC this was post today.
An Intel Processor
- An internal, external, or shared DVD drive
- At least 512 MB of RAM
- Display connected to an Apple-supplied video card
- 9GB of disk space, or 12GB for developer tools
I think is time to drop you apple
thats the system requirements for the snow
An Intel Processor
- An internal, external, or shared DVD drive
- At least 512 MB of RAM
- Display connected to an Apple-supplied video card
- 9GB of disk space, or 12GB for developer tools
I think is time to drop you apple
thats the system requirements for the snow
Well, to be fair...
This is the specs for the DEVELOPER'S release of Snow Leopard.
That does not mean these are the final specs for Snow Leopard.
Of course.. it might.
Nope. There was a beta release of 10.0 but then it was officially released as well.
Is it me, or are the Apple faithful a whiney bunch of babies this WWDC.
THIS WWDC? I didn't we relegated our whiny behavior simply to this WWDC..
It won't be free because Apple are pouring a lot of effort into it, and this is nothing like 10.0 -> 10.1 where apparently 10.0 simple wasn't ready.
What is under debate is the price. It depends on how Apple want to market Snow Leopard. The fact that they're using a variant of the leopard suggests a less significant release, we all know that.
What Apple don't want to do is tout this as a whole new OS and suffer poor sales because people can't see many tangible benefits to buying the new version. So either they'll throw in new features later in development (Exchange support can probably pass as a major new feature) or they'll offer the system at a lower price for current Leopard users, which will either encourage sales or save face if people decide not to upgrade for whatever reason.
What is under debate is the price. It depends on how Apple want to market Snow Leopard. The fact that they're using a variant of the leopard suggests a less significant release, we all know that.
What Apple don't want to do is tout this as a whole new OS and suffer poor sales because people can't see many tangible benefits to buying the new version. So either they'll throw in new features later in development (Exchange support can probably pass as a major new feature) or they'll offer the system at a lower price for current Leopard users, which will either encourage sales or save face if people decide not to upgrade for whatever reason.
Comparatively speaking, in the lifespan of Windows XP, I've spent $516 on Mac OS X.
If Microsoft could actually manage to get an o/s upgrade out every 18 months, I'm sure Windows fans would all be buying that up too.
They're just lucky that Microsoft isn't that productive with o/s upgrades!
Probably, but we'll never know, will we?
I'm still floored by the (IMO) ridiculous nature of how Vista is being sold. There's a million different flavors, and they all cost an absolute ******** of money. Home Ultimate? Ultimate Business? Business Home? Home Home?
Cheesus H Crackers!
Not likely, no.
I haven't looked into it at all as I packed off my last Windows PC a couple of years ago with no intention of upgrading. That must be why a colleague of mine was asking me which version she should buy. I didn't imagine it would be so hard to choose!
Reasons it might be free:
(1) It is a fixing up and tightening up of code. It is developers that care more about making Javascript work faster in Safari and being able to code at the core level, whatever that means. Jon Doe and Joe Public won't fork out money unless there is more whizz-bang or Apple force them to by making new iPods and iPhones only work on the new OS.
(2) If PPC support does get dropped then this OS needs to fly under the radar - seeded through Software Update as an Intel only update - so that too much fuss isn't made by our G4 and G5 brothers and sisters.
(1) It is a fixing up and tightening up of code. It is developers that care more about making Javascript work faster in Safari and being able to code at the core level, whatever that means. Jon Doe and Joe Public won't fork out money unless there is more whizz-bang or Apple force them to by making new iPods and iPhones only work on the new OS.
(2) If PPC support does get dropped then this OS needs to fly under the radar - seeded through Software Update as an Intel only update - so that too much fuss isn't made by our G4 and G5 brothers and sisters.
There are actually huge improvements to the OS that have already been announced. OpenCL is going to benefit everyone. Developers, because it will be easy to program with and end users because they will be able to use applications that run blazingly fast compared to their CPU bound brethren.
Just because it does not have bells and whistles does not mean there are no really impressive features included with the OS.
There is absolutley no chance that this will be a free upgrade, it is not going to be your typical 10.5.x upgrade, it is a 10.x upgrade. Now I can see them selling it for a little less than what they usually do for OS releases to maybe $99, because it won't be loaded with new features, but it will not be free.