Snow Leopard - massive anti-climax and proof Apple are faultering

[Maury]

OSX crashes more than XP.

No it doesn't. It might on your particular install, but on my particular install I've had about six crashes in three years, and five of them were due to the EyeTV USB driver. I don't know if there was 6th, I'm just being generous.

My XP box crashes about once every eight hours of use. It doesn't make a difference what you're doing during that time, playing games, surfing, whatever. It just goes non-responsive and a reboot is the only way back.

The measured averages and straw polls all clearly suggest that OS X is far, far more stable than XP.

Maury

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Which, luckily, is the minority sentiment. Note that the 3GS is outselling the 3G.

Maury

Luck has nothing to do with it. The 3GS is an incrementally better device than the 3G. However, whatever the device, there will always be inexperienced people on the sidelines with unrealistic expectations, which would include those disappointed in the 3GS.

 

[TheSpaz]

I'm extremely happy with Snow Leopard so far.

It's hard to find anything wrong with it really.

Snow Leopard was needed to tie off the loose ends in Leopard. It really shows that Apple took their time and got it right on the first try. I like that.

 

[TheSpaz]

Some guy walks up to me on the street and says "I can make your computer faster and run smoother for only $29". Then he handed me the Snow Leopard install DVD.

 

[wolfpackfan]

I haven't really noticed any big speed increases with SL. It was nice getting back a little disk space though. IMO the $29 is worth the minor tweaks. I especially like the new QT appearance. I really don't think Apple ever marketed SL as being anymore than it is, so people shouldn't be disappointed.

 

[Eidorian]

Snow Leopard does feel very anti-climactic. At $30 for effectively a full install you let it slide.

I don't think Apple played anything this time around and tried to keep the hype low. Lower your expectations a little bit.

Hopefully Apple can wow us with something besides a low price next time around.

 

[parapup]

I haven't really noticed any big speed increases with SL. It was nice getting back a little disk space though. IMO the $29 is worth the minor tweaks. I especially like the new QT appearance. I really don't think Apple ever marketed SL as being anymore than it is, so people shouldn't be disappointed.

You are right of course on SL not being anything substantial from an upgrade perspective - it is mostly minor tweaks.

But on Apple marketing - I will differ. They did over hype it - by a factor of 10 or so. They basically glorified what is in Windows parlance a Service Pack, if that. Dropping PPC and not installing printer drivers and making noises about "Gain Disk space with our inventions" OR saying "Finely Tuned" when there are really no user visible speed differences in any area of the operating system - that was bad marketing for example.

Then the French Guy ( I think Apple needs a new guy to run their OS show, give him a break already - all he has done is add lame, useless features but that not withstanding - he at least has shown no real invention or fresh perspective) went on stage at WWDC and ridiculed Windows 7 as being Vista as opposed to Snow Leopard which was real improvement. That was ridiculous.

To understand why people feel let down by Snow Leopard and are generally almost uniformly appreciating Windows 7 a comparison is necessary - Windows 7 can actually run on a 1Gb RAM Atom machine where as no one would dare to run Vista on it. Windows 7 does bring lot of UI refinements along with TRIM support for SSDs. Windows 7 continues its 64-bit mainstream push while Apple still scrambles to get a true 64-bit OS out after advertising the 64-bit part. Then there is no ZFS support in SL - it was there Read-only in Leopard. Then it does not have Core UI. Then it breaks more than a handful of apps. And if that wasn't enough the timing of Windows 7 release and its uniformly positive perception does not make things better for SL.

Fanbois - read the below paragraph and fully comprehend it before flaming
I am not saying SL should have had this feature or that - I am saying there was a unreasonable perception problem which Apple brought on themselves by wrong marketing. I am not saying Snow Leopard in itself is a failure, especially for the price. It is a OK upgrade for $29. What I am saying is that Apple should have marketed it more sanely and then distributed it for free. Then it would have been appreciated much more than it is currently.

 

[mgamber]

No it doesn't. It might on your particular install, but on my particular install I've had about six crashes in three years, and five of them were due to the EyeTV USB driver. I don't know if there was 6th, I'm just being generous.

My XP box crashes about once every eight hours of use. It doesn't make a difference what you're doing during that time, playing games, surfing, whatever. It just goes non-responsive and a reboot is the only way back.

The measured averages and straw polls all clearly suggest that OS X is far, far more stable than XP.

Maury

Funny, my XP hasn't crashed in a year and half. Not once. It's only on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week except when I manually reboot it, go figure. Must be your substandard hardware. OS X hasn't crashed on me in almost the same amount of time. I'd say they're about equal if your hardware isn't antique or flaky.

Per SL itself, I agree there was unreasonable expectations and hype on this site. Aside from that, I don't know of anyone who really cared one way or the other.

 

[parapup]

The measured averages and straw polls all clearly suggest that OS X is far, far more stable than XP.

Maury

You have a way of making generalized statements based on information pulled out of thin air, I must say.

Clearly the loads of people asking for XP downgrades, asking for extended XP support and all the netbooks still running XP are a proof that you are the few people who don't either know what they are talking about or don't know how to run a computer? No?

 

[david803sc]

Snow Leopard is more about what is under the hood, Leopard could not use all the advantages of the Intel hardware Apple has been using ie: 64 bit, Dual Core Processors, Snow Leopard is about leveraging the hardware to it's fullest, this is what Microsoft did when the started offering a 64 bit Operating System, which was a slow and painful process just like Snow Leopard due to the fact that all the third party vendors have to bring their drivers and applications to the same level as SL.

The one thing Apple has over Microsoft is support for booting in full 64 bit mode or 32 bit mode, with Microsoft that was not an option for the OS.

Apple did that to help cushion the transition process for the developers.

Years ago computer hardware was out dated very quickly, software was way ahead of hardware development. about 4 or 5 years ago this shifted hardware suddenly outpaced the software, SL is Apples attempt to catch the software up to the current gen hardware.

Look at game consoles, they use to come up with new models every 2 years but since the 360 and PS3 came out the hardware cycle has slowed tremendously because the software/games are not using the hardwares full capacity.

David

 

[Eric S.]

from vista --> windows 7 is a much better upgrade, than the leopard --> snow leopard.

Well, consider the respective starting points.

And what's the cost for Windows 7 again?

 

[parapup]

The one thing Apple has over Microsoft is support for booting in full 64 bit mode or 32 bit mode, with Microsoft that was not an option for the OS.

Apple did that to help cushion the transition process for the developers.

Well look at it this way - Windows does NOT require 32-bit Kernel when running a 64-bit OS. Nearly all 32-bit programs run perfectly fine on 64-bit Windows, nearly all hardware has 64-bit drivers available and automagically downloaded/installed, and the few very old programs that won't run on 64-bit - there are updates available or Microsoft gives away XP in a VM, right as part of the OS (Win 7) so people could run those programs - just like they would on regular XP.

I don't think anyone could argue that Microsoft made the 64-bit push long time ago and today there is no real need to run 32-bit Windows. That Apple needs to default to 32-bit is a sign of immaturity of their 64-bit support more than it is a feature.

 

[scaredpoet]

Just curious, what exactly about his post constitutes it being a troll?

The following words from the post that started this thread make it trolling: "I'm saying it because SL is the final straw for me - I've had enough!"

"Final straw" of what? "Had enough" of what? The OP is making a confrontational, empty threat that Apple is in his opinion, falling down and something better improve soon mister, or else!

Instead of being a level-headed criticism (which with some edits and careful omissions, as you've made in your attempt to defend the troll, it could turn into something more civil), the try at an explosive intro made it a clear effort to put other forum users on the defensive, rather than engage in constructive dialog. Not that there's anything we as forum users can do to directly alter the course of Apple's product strategy (and thus prevent the ominously-threatened "or else!" from happening), but the onus is put on us by the OP to defend Apple anyway.

That is trolling.

I read it, and from what I could gather, his main points, all expressed in an intelligent, non confrontational manner were:

You must be reading some other thread.

- his boot time went up after installing SL. Wow, totally troll. How DARE he say that.

Actually, he could've said "Hey, I'm getting longer boot times with Snow Leopard. Anyone else notice this? Gee, I wonder what's causing it." Not, "THAT'S IT THIS IS THE LAST STRAW!!!"

- It took a long time for some apps to close and some more are crashing. Again, MAJOR troll. The nerve of some people, saying programs crash under SL. Trolling, plain and simple.

See above. There are ways to make the point. He chose a more adversarial method.

- He couldn't get a Macbook without a glossy screen. WTF!?! Everyone, simply EVERYONE loves the glossy screen, and no one has ever wished they could get a matte option.

Actually, you leave out that he says he was "forced" to by a Macbook. Really? The point has already been made: no one put a gun to his head.

There are more effective ways to tell Apple what you think of a product and how they can improve upon it, or even tell them that you feel they're doing a lousy job. We've all known this, and perhaps if the OP really wants a better product he should've made use of those channels. Instead, he wanted purely to rile people up, and that's what he got.

Maybe we should have thicker skins and be above all that and not feed the troll.. Unfortunately, the mind of a troll is such that a lack of an adversarial retort equals agreement. And so you can never really win.

 

[glossywhite]

This cracks me up.

I run a small business that 16 months ago was a PC only shop. As a non it guy, I was spending approximately $1,000 on consultants every month. Vista Sucks, XP sucks, Windows 2000 doesn't suck. so lets see, we can go back oh to 2000 since MS put out a decent OS. 9 Years for the biggest software company in the world.

Last night I did a secondary Time Machine backup of my MBP, did an erase/install, reloaded my software from via Time Machine, got all my software running, installed iWorks, Went through iWorks all in 6.5 hours. 100% success, only VM Ware caused some small problems. (We bought iWorks to kill MS Office.) 4.5 of of these hours were just waiting on my old slow USB hard drive. Actual installation time was maybe 30 minutes. With 30 minutes to get all my apps running and 30 minutes playing with iWorks.

Today I do my own server admin. I do have a consultant and haven't called him in 8 months.

Right now I have about 10 PC's in my warehouse including 2 big Dell Servers. You could not accomplish what I did on my MBP in a weekend on any of these machines and get the compatibility I have right now. Let me tell you a story, as an old school PC guy in 2005 the hard drive in my 6 month old Dell laptop craps out. We work on the one machine for about 20 hours (yep should have just tossed the machine in the garbage and bought a new one) and NEVER were able to get the machine back to the original state. I carried the laptop until last spring when we went Mac. I don't know why Microsoft products have turned to complete crap but current offerings of Office, Visio, Project ALL are not as god as the versions from 2000 - 2004.

It has taken me until about now for my Mac based computer network to hit break even. But my frustration level is at zero. No weekly problems, email just works. servers just work, etc.

SO, Head on over to Windows, I am sure you will enjoy your stay.

Oh, and for the record, I am not a fanboy of anything. A computer is just a tool to me. If MS had not walked away from their customers 8 years ago, I would still be a Windows guy. Now I got to get going I have 8 other machines to upgrade.

Uhmm, it looks like the Microsoft de-briefing has failed, and, sub-consciously you ARE still a Windows guy at heart; it is "iWork", not "iWorks" - how RUDE!

Oh and these things ---->

Stick them all over your mirror, so you don't forget where you are in your life!.

 

[calderone]

The level of fanboyism in this thread is ridiculous.

So listen up fanboys, these are my opinions....

Snow Leopard is very disappointing. Even for £25. It's nothing short of a service pack. MS would have been crucified if they released that.
My iPhone 3G is awsome, but the battery really really sucks.
My Mac Mini Rocks but has limited memory expansion and a crap GPU
My Dell Mini 9 running Leopard is fantastic, but the keys are fiddly.
My iMac 24" @ 2.8Ghz was very very overpriced.
OSX crashes more than XP.
Windows 7 does rock, but is still just windows.

Conclusion. No Apple or Microsoft product is perfect.

No amount of criticising people who criticise apple is going to make Steve Jobs want to bum you, kiss you, or give you a job.

SL the Service Pack
To claim SL is a service pack is to ignore all the under the hood improvements. Any OS release could be considered a "service pack." If you want to claim this is the case for SL, you need to clearly define what a service pack is and how SL qualifies as one. This is how things work. Simply stating something does not make it true.

To be blunt, you are wrong based on traditional definitions of a service pack. A service pack is simply a large package of updates released when the number of individual updates has become too large to maintain. It may also include additional features and fixes in addition to previous fixes. A service pack is more like a Combo update for Mac OS X.

A service pack could also not be installed on its own as on OS. In other words I couldn't take Windows XP SP3 update and use it to install Windows XP on a computer. This is obviously not the case for Snow Leopard as it can be installed on it's own.

This makes SL fundamentally different from a service pack. If you wish to redefine service pack, please do so, your definition will be considered and accepted or rejected.

iPhone 3G battery
My battery sucks too, that isn't going to make go around whining about how much Apple sucks.

Mac Mini the Mini
The Mac Mini is a mini computer. Why would it not have limited memory expansion and a less than stellar (although adequate GPU)? Furthermore, why would you buy it knowing the limitations and then complain about the limitations?

Irrelevant
I don't care about your Mini 9.

I buy things I think are overpriced then complain
iMac 24" overpriced? Why did you buy it?

OS X: Crash Edition
OS X rarely (dare I say if ever) crashes due to its own shortcomings. Typically it is due to a hardware fault or 3rd party software. For example, my 8800GT on my 08 Mac Pro had some problems and caused crashes, replaced it worked perfect. Cisco VPN causes my Mac Pro to crash on connection. Verified in the logs. So no, OS X does not crash more than XP, unless you are running something that causes a crash or have some bad hardware.

Irrelevant
I don't care about Windows 7.

Closing arguments
I mostly wanted to respond to your "OS X crashes more than XP," claim. I support 100+ Macs and the only crashes I have ever encountered were due to faulty software or bad hardware. I have never found something that points to OS X itself being the problem.

 

[NT1440]

Snow Leopard is very disappointing. Even for £25. It's nothing short of a service pack. MS would have been crucified if they released that.

Funny, 7 has been getting rave reviews

As for the rest insulting everyone here, the mods will see if reporting you is appropriate i guess.

 

[Andy-V]

I mostly wanted to respond to your "OS X crashes more than XP," claim. I support 100+ Macs and the only crashes I have ever encountered were due to faulty software or bad hardware.

Because Windows just spontaneously crashes by itself? Crashes are practically always caused by 3rd party software or drivers and hardware issues. On their own both Windows and OS X are perfectly stable (in fact BOTH are VERY STABLE).

 

[glossywhite]

The level of fanboyism in this thread is ridiculous.

So listen up fanboys, these are my opinions....

Snow Leopard is very disappointing. Even for £25. It's nothing short of a service pack. MS would have been crucified if they released that.
My iPhone 3G is awsome, but the battery really really sucks.
My Mac Mini Rocks but has limited memory expansion and a crap GPU
My Dell Mini 9 running Leopard is fantastic, but the keys are fiddly.
My iMac 24" @ 2.8Ghz was very very overpriced.
OSX crashes more than XP.
Windows 7 does rock, but is still just windows.

Conclusion. No Apple or Microsoft product is perfect.

No amount of criticising people who criticise apple is going to make Steve Jobs want to bum you, kiss you, or give you a job.

Why on EARTH would you need more than 4Gb on the Mac mini, for day to day usage (and editing!). I have a Mac mini 2009 with just 3Gb ram, and to be honest, it blows ANY PC I have ever owned (and I have owned a LOT) right out of the water, with no exceptions.


Dell Mini 9... it looks like a TOY!:

There is only one thing worse & more annoying than a fanboy, and that is an ANTI-fanboy. I have no further time for you - Mac & OSX sales speak volumes - pun intended - so why don't YOU do what suits YOU best, and quit trying to preach to the converted; you're wasting energy.

Take care.

 

[2002cbr600f4i]

Frankly, so far, I'm happy with Snow Leopard.. I knew going in that it was mainly an "under the hood" type update, not a major UI overhaul. The changes are not immediately apparent to a user, but WILL be to a developer, which will allow them to write better new software.

The thing is, people keep saying how "windows 7 is a huge update" but, really, it's not. It's just Vista with a bunch of stuff changed to fix the issues with Vista. Some of that is visual, but much of it is, again, under the covers. Windows 7 is what MS SHOULD have released 2 years ago when Vista came out. Yet somehow people are happy about dropping $100+ for Windows 7 and complaining that Snow Leopard is a waste of money for $29???

And honestly, I commend Apple for having to guts to break some of the backwards compatibility, and NOT support the old hardware. Part of the reason Windows has the sorts of issues and virus issues it has is because MS is afraid to break anyone's old software. Therefor they carry around ANCIENT technologies like OLE and COM and DCOM that end up exposing the whole system to attack, and complicate the OS greatly.

 

[glossywhite]

Frankly, so far, I'm happy with Snow Leopard.. I knew going in that it was mainly an "under the hood" type update, not a major UI overhaul. The changes are not immediately apparent to a user, but WILL be to a developer, which will allow them to write better new software.

The thing is, people keep saying how "windows 7 is a huge update" but, really, it's not. It's just Vista with a bunch of stuff changed to fix the issues with Vista. Some of that is visual, but much of it is, again, under the covers. Windows 7 is what MS SHOULD have released 2 years ago when Vista came out. Yet somehow people are happy about dropping $100+ for Windows 7 and complaining that Snow Leopard is a waste of money for $29???

And honestly, I commend Apple for having to guts to break some of the backwards compatibility, and NOT support the old hardware. Part of the reason Windows has the sorts of issues and virus issues it has is because MS is afraid to break anyone's old software. Therefor they carry around ANCIENT technologies like OLE and COM and DCOM that end up exposing the whole system to attack, and complicate the OS greatly.

Here, have a DLL:

 

[ntrigue]

I see his point...

from vista --> windows 7 is a much better upgrade, than the leopard --> snow leopard.

At this point leopard is probably more stable due to all of the software updates. SL will have to wait till around 10.6.3 to be considered stable.

Folks?! It cost $29! It wasn't asking for a revolution. My 2.26C2D and 2007 Mac Pro have distinguishable boot times. My user experience has been enjoyable although 32-bit applications appear to close slowly. Expose is beautiful alongside updated menus.

Your other points are valid. Why doesn't the god phone have an AMOLED yet?!

 

[jmpage2]

The level of fanboyism in this thread is ridiculous.

So listen up fanboys, these are my opinions....

Snow Leopard is very disappointing. Even for £25. It's nothing short of a service pack. MS would have been crucified if they released that.
My iPhone 3G is awsome, but the battery really really sucks.
My Mac Mini Rocks but has limited memory expansion and a crap GPU
My Dell Mini 9 running Leopard is fantastic, but the keys are fiddly.
My iMac 24" @ 2.8Ghz was very very overpriced.
OSX crashes more than XP.
Windows 7 does rock, but is still just windows.

Conclusion. No Apple or Microsoft product is perfect.

No amount of criticising people who criticise apple is going to make Steve Jobs want to bum you, kiss you, or give you a job.

I'm an MCSE. I run a large number of XP systems for my wife's dental practice.

The XP systems are fairlyt stable but they are no where near as stable as our two Macs.

My wife has fewer (almost zero) problems on her 17" MBP (even though she is running XP under Fusion for some of the dental stuff) than she ever had under her previous XP laptop.

I don't know where the hate is coming from, but all I can say is that I've been working in the IT business for 13 years and have used practically every OS flavor made;

Sun Solaris
System V UNIX
BSD
OREX PECOS
SCO UNIXWARE
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Fedora
Various other Linux
NEXT
Windows (95,98,2000,XP,Vista,7)
OS X

And I can safely say that for a non corporate environment OS X wins hands down.

Out of the five Apple systems I have purchased and configured over the past year I have had exactly one crash.

One.

I don't know where you found the high horse you are perched on, but you should get off of it before you fall and break your head.

 

[calderone]

Because Windows just spontaneously crashes by itself? Crashes are practically always caused by 3rd party software or drivers and hardware issues. On their own both Windows and OS X are perfectly stable (in fact BOTH are VERY STABLE).

Did I say it did? It does not follow that my lack of a positive comment about Windows suggests that I hold a negative opinion of Windows. You committed a very basic fallacy.

While you may not have intended it, its appears that you interpreted my post as a positive for OS X and a negative for Windows. I was responding only to the claim about OS X crashing more than Windows, hence it is not relevant for me to mention the crashiness of Windows.

 

[steve knight]

I've felt this for as long as I've read these forums, but just what in the world is this almost obsessive compulsive fixation on boot time?

Someone -- please tell me. I'd understand if it was booting a minute slower, but a few seconds slower?

Does waiting an extra 5 seconds to boot seriously cut down your productivity?

If everything else is improved, snappier, faster, more stable -- does the extra 5 seconds of boot time render the OS a failure?

hell I am used to 5 minite to boox xp and open my apps. people get carried away.

 

[McGiord]

What exactly you guys were expecting to have in Snow Leopard?
What are the new features that you expect to have in a major OS revision?

Speculation: probably there are some hidden features that the current hardware line up is not capable to take advantage of, like for the so rumored Tablet.