Apple Snow Leopard – What’s Coming?

Joe Average said:
No, it shouldn't, because if it was x64 only the entire industry for Netbooks would come to a screeching halt till Intel and VIA started cranking out CPUs capable of 64 bit support which of course is coming but not here just yet.

The benefits of 64 bit computing simply do not translate to Netbooks or even laptops for the most part. While there is an incredibly minuscule number of people out there that have legitimate uses for truly monster laptops and serious power requirements (like crunching some serious scientific applications, etc), the overwhelming majority of folk simply have no need for such beasts.

Windows Server 2008 R2 coming in x64 only makes perfect sense: you don't run a server OS on a Netbook or anything simplistic - you run it on heavy iron because that's what's necessary in this day and age, and that means accessing RAM in the double and sometimes triple digit amounts so, that's the primary hook for a 64 bit operating system.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I fully agree with this post. I think the stepping stone that we're seeing right now (with OEM machines being equipped with 64-bit processors and OS) is a good one. While people still have a choice in the matter, a transition is definitely being made that can only be good for the future. We'll begin to see more native x64 apps/drivers/etc, and in time, they will begin to be exclusively 64-bit.
 
I don't understand why everyone is comparing a company that makes most of it's money off software (MS) to that of a company that makes most of it's money off hardware (Apple).
I'm sure if Apple didn't sell Computers then there releases would cost as much as MS's. but seeing how Apple makes most of it's money of hardware then they can afford to sell each release real cheap.
 
Sounds really interesting but what a really lame name --------> Snow Leopard???
 
Just read 5 pages; don't understand the negativity.
One company charges ~ $n every ~year for an OS upgrade, while releasing free bug fixes in the interim.
The other charges ~ $3n every ~three years for an OS upgrade, while releasing free bug fixes in the interim (occasionally using the term 'service pack')

Windows users pay more less often, Mac users pay less, more often. It's not important which one costs more over X number of years, since with Mac you've already paid them for the hardware (which is required to run the product) so it's not even a comparable purchase.
 
Rampage said:
You know one thing that strikes me funny about the whole "apple is charging for a service pack" argument, is the fact that Windows "7" is actually Windows NT 6.1 with Vista being NT 6.0
Click to expand...
This was done for compatibility reasons, and nothing more.

Too many dumbass driver developers check to make sure Kernel Version = 6
This is one of the huge problems we had with Vista. Everyone said Kernel Version = 5, instead of saying Kernel Version > 5.

Thus, Microsoft didn't give 7.0 to Windows 7 for this very reason.

That's the only reason it was done that way. It has no bearing on what features, enhancements, or changes were done to the OS.


Rampage said:
Unless you normalize to the pc user base at each release, your statement of "most in-demand" is based on false logic (which I assume is raw number of beta/rc downloads)
Click to expand...

1.5 Million tested the Vista RC2.
10 Million tested the Windows 7 RC.

You tell me which one is more in demand :rolleyes:
 
MrGuvernment said:
Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are both OS that should of been what they are replacing, should of been originally released as, both sides saw mistakes made and their solution for fixing it is to jump ship and start from new!
Click to expand...
Pretty much agree. 7 is realistically what Vista pre-SP1 should have been, while Snow Leopard is what Leopard could have been if it were, well, better. Neither are grand strides.
 
I'll never understand the logic that says what you can do now you should have been done three years ago. 7 ISN'T VISTA SP1. New GUI, one click home networking, touch interface, more security tools in the box, and a complete performance and enhancement overhual. That's far more than an update for ANY OS.
 
Pyroja said:
You're right.

Darn it, OS X should still support 68k, and Win 7 better run on the 286. If they don't, I don't care what improvements they make, they're screwing the installed base, and that's not progress at all.
Click to expand...

Now that I look into it further, I see that only PowerPC-based Macs are left in the lurch and not 32-bit Intel systems.

Of course, I expect to be able to upgrade all XP- and Vista-capable machines in my house to Win 7. A couple are 4-5 years old but well within the specs.
 
lixuelai said:
Yay another PC vs Mac. I like Leopard, I am sure I will like Snow Leopard. I buy what I like. /thead
Click to expand...

I also buy what I like. Problem is I like something that nearly all major platforms have to offer. Oh well, IMO its better having lots of disposable income and an open mind rather being a fanboy that feels obligated to bash on everything he doesn't own. :cool:
 
TechieSooner said:
This was done for compatibility reasons, and nothing more.

Too many dumbass driver developers check to make sure Kernel Version = 6
This is one of the huge problems we had with Vista. Everyone said Kernel Version = 5, instead of saying Kernel Version > 5.

Thus, Microsoft didn't give 7.0 to Windows 7 for this very reason.

That's the only reason it was done that way. It has no bearing on what features, enhancements, or changes were done to the OS.
Click to expand...

No, it's because 7 is Vista. Heck, Ballmer said it himself - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332756,00.asp

TechieSooner said:
1.5 Million tested the Vista RC2.
10 Million tested the Windows 7 RC.

You tell me which one is more in demand :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you even read what I wrote?

Unlike the 7RC, Vista RC2 was only available to the public as a limited release (something like 200K non technet users could download it)
 
Rampage said:
No, it's because 7 is Vista. Heck, Ballmer said it himself - http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332756,00.asp
Click to expand...
Did you even read past the headline? Did you???

Ballmer responded that Windows 7 was more than just a minor release.
Click to expand...

Rampage said:
Unlike the 7RC, Vista RC2 was only available to the public as a limited release (something like 200K non technet users could download it)
Click to expand...
Really? Because not only do I not remember that, I can't find squat about that online.
 
TechieSooner said:
Did you even read past the headline? Did you???




Really? Because not only do I not remember that, I can't find squat about that online.
Click to expand...

Yes I read past the headline, that's why I linked it.

"I would characterize it as: windows Vista, a lot better," he said, "Windows Vista is good, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface, improvements in performance."

Gee, isn't that what people said SL is, yet bash Apple for charging for it? :rolleyes:





If you're having trouble figuring out a search engine, here are some links:

http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/93846/microsoft-pulls-vista-rc2-public-download.html

http://www.itjungle.com/two/two101106-story05.html

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-Vista-RC-2-Opens-In-House-37515.shtml
 
Actually, Apple said Snow Leopard was first and foremost "one big bug and performance fix for Leopard" although I can't find that exact quote anymore. I've been saying the same thing about Windows 7 since long before it came out.

But whereas Apple has been almost nothing but praised for coming out and saying it and actually doing it, Microsoft has been almost nothing but chastised and lambasted for "not making Vista good enough to begin with" or words to that effect.

Apple can do no wrong in most people's eyes, and Microsoft can do no right... so it's business as usual.

NEXT!!!
 
Rampage said:
Yes I read past the headline, that's why I linked it.

"I would characterize it as: windows Vista, a lot better," he said, "Windows Vista is good, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface, improvements in performance."

Gee, isn't that what people said SL is, yet bash Apple for charging for it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Keep going. How about giving everyone the rest of the context of that quote:

"But when MacDonald noted that Ballmer's answer seemed to imply that Windows 7 was simply "Vista R2," Ballmer cut in. "When you say R2, you're saying a few bugs got fixed. That's not what we're talking about. That's [Service Pack 1]," Ballmer said. "
 
Joe Average said:
Actually, Apple said Snow Leopard was first and foremost "one big bug and performance fix for Leopard" although I can't find that exact quote anymore.
Click to expand...

This one is similar:

“Rather than focusing primarily on new features, Snow Leopard will enhance the performance of OS X, set a new standard for quality and lay the foundation for future OS X innovation.”
Click to expand...
 
The main thing that kept most of the masses from using Vista is because one moron screamed "OH NOES, VISTA EATS 100 PURSENT OF MAH RAMZ!!!111one!" and the rest of the morons heard him.

Pretty much.
 
TechieSooner said:
I can think of one good reason why Microsoft shouldn't have even furthered work with Vista: The name Vista.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Vista was crap, Microsoft knows that. So what do they do? Re-release Vista, but this time make it work and charge $120 for it and call it something else. Profit.
 
bonsai said:
Bingo. Vista was crap, Microsoft knows that. So what do they do? Re-release Vista, but this time make it work and charge $120 for it and call it something else. Profit.
Click to expand...

You mean doing the same thing that Apple is doing with Leopard and Snow Leopard? With that ~40% profit margin still in check... gotcha.
 
bonsai said:
Bingo. Vista was crap, Microsoft knows that. So what do they do? Re-release Vista, but this time make it work and charge $120 for it and call it something else. Profit.
Click to expand...

Apple has done this time and time again with their OS's.
 
nicknations said:
Apple has done this time and time again with their OS's.
Click to expand...

The only time Apple re-released a current OS as a proper piece of software (10.1), it was a free upgrade for all current customers.

You only have to pay $50 to upgrade your Vista to a functional product! ;)
 
Joe Average said:
You mean doing the same thing that Apple is doing with Leopard and Snow Leopard? With that ~40% profit margin still in check... gotcha.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked it's still called OSX. :rolleyes: The biggest difference being that Apple has openly said Snow Leopard is only a small upgrade. Microsoft would prefer to pull the wool over the eyes and charge you full price. And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather pay $30 for a service pack than $120.
 
bonsai said:
Last time I checked it's still called OSX. :rolleyes: The biggest difference being that Apple has openly said Snow Leopard is only a small upgrade. Microsoft would prefer to pull the wool over the eyes and charge you full price. And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather pay $30 for a service pack than $120.
Click to expand...

And we've been through this. You can get things like IE 8 and DirectX 11 in Vista so some of the enhancements that come with 7 you get FOR FREE. Others you don't. And the price of Windows is so dependent on how it was obtained that the $120 is meaningless. See all the thread about how students are getting Windows 7 for free or next to nothing? I got mine through work, SL would cost me $30 more than my bazillion MSDN copies of Windows 7.
 
heatlesssun said:
And the price of Windows is so dependent on how it was obtained that the $120 is meaningless.
Click to expand...


Tell that to the millions of consumers that don't have access to MSDNAA or MSDN and uninstalled Vista because it sucked so bad.
 
bonsai said:
Tell that to the millions of consumers that don't have access to MSDNAA or MSDN and uninstalled Vista because it sucked so bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, the VAST majority of whom get it with their PC PREINSTALLED at a cost once again FAR less than $120, about $50 or so.

And please not another "Vista sucks" deal. Fine. We're talking about 7. And I am sure you think that sucks too.
 
bonsai said:
Last time I checked it's still called OSX. :rolleyes: The biggest difference being that Apple has openly said Snow Leopard is only a small upgrade. Microsoft would prefer to pull the wool over the eyes and charge you full price. And I don't know about you, but I'd much rather pay $30 for a service pack than $120.
Click to expand...

That's because you're cheap, simple. :)
 
bonsai said:
Bingo. Vista was crap, Microsoft knows that.
Click to expand...

I guess you'll have to tell Steve Ballmer what you know he knows that he doesn't actually know... :rolleyes:

Windows Mojave showed that not only Vista is a great OS, the NAME was tarnished. Microsoft could've literally renamed Vista, released it the next day, and all the Vista-bashing clueless drones like you would've ran out and bought it.

I'll ask this again (nobody has yet to produce a valid answer): What did Windows 7 magically fix that Vista got wrong?
 
Joe Average said:
Microsoft can do no wrong in most people's eyes, and Apple can do no right... so it's business as usual.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you ;)

Based on the nature of many of the posts here, from many, many members, you might guess that Windows 7 were the Second Coming. On the flip-side, I've seen very few people expressing that they're excited for Snow Leopard (check out the Snow Leopard first impressions thread for an array of mixed reactions ranging from mostly positive to meh to generally negative). I'm almost entirely "meh" about Snow Leopard myself, and I probably won't be upgrading to it, yet strangely I'm the guy who gets called a Mac zealot/fanboy practically every day. Weird!
 
TechieSooner said:
I guess you'll have to tell Steve Ballmer what you know he knows that he doesn't actually know...
Click to expand...

You mean how Vista for the past years has failed to meet their sales expectations. How they had to make numerous adjustments to their sales figures. How they had to report less than stellar Vista sales to Wall Street and their investors. I'm sure he knows nothing about that. :rolleyes:

Windows Mojave showed that not only Vista is a great OS
Click to expand...

Yeah because demos on picture cropping and parental controls showed off how great an OS Vista really is. :rolleyes: Try actually watching the Mojave videos and the real results, then come back.

I'll ask this again (nobody has yet to produce a valid answer): What did Windows 7 magically fix that Vista got wrong?
Click to expand...

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Start reading.
 
bonsai said:
You mean how Vista for the past years has failed to meet their sales expectations.
Click to expand...
It sold double the rate of XP. Next?

bonsai said:
Yeah because demos on picture cropping and parental controls showed off how great an OS Vista really is. :rolleyes: Try actually watching the Mojave videos and the real results, then come back.
Click to expand...
Obviously YOU are the one that needs to watch them.
They went over security, new features, the OS itself, and most importantly what their impressions of Vista were.

bonsai said:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Start reading.
Click to expand...

How am I not surprised that I wouldn't get any valid answer...
 
TechieSooner said:
It sold double the rate of XP. Next?
Click to expand...

Only within the first few months. After that it sold below expectations, but thanks for playing.


Obviously YOU are the one that needs to watch them.
They went over security, new features, the OS itself, and most importantly what their impressions of Vista were.
Click to expand...

Hardly, the people were shown brief demos and eye candy of Vista, by Microsoft reps. They weren't given any real time alone to actually use the OS, and the those that actually knew anything about software still thought it was crap by the end of the demo.



How am I not surprised that I wouldn't get any valid answer...
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that nothing was fixed or changed in Win7 at all. It's exactly the same as Vista, yet it magically runs faster on less harder, uses less resources, has a better, more cohesive UI, faster start up and shutdown, faster install, the list goes on and on.
 
karoc said:
Care to point out which Windows service pack reduced OS footprint by 6GB and rewrote the entire Windows Explorer? Just curious, I think I missed that one and would love to download it. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

SnowLeopard does NOT reduce the OS's footprint
It is a numbers trick by Apple deciding to allign themselves with HDD manufactures w.r.t. reporting the amount of space on a HDD

http://lifehacker.com/5349204/snow-leopard-reports-hard-drive-capacity-correctly-in-base-10
snow_leopard_base_10.jpg


Snow Leopard has changed the way it calculates disk capacity from earlier versions of OS X: now it matches the advertised size of the drive you purchased.

When it's running Snow Leopard, your Mac shows you the same gigabyte count on your drives as appear on the manufacturer's box, calculated in base 10, and not in base 2, which is what Leopard, all earlier versions of OS X and all current and earlier versions of Windows uses.

A 200 GB drive shows 200 GB capacity (for example, if you select the hard drive's icon and choose Get Info from the Finder's File menu, then look at the Capacity line). This means that, for example, if you upgrade from an earlier version of Mac OS X, your drive may show more capacity than in the earlier Mac OS X version.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Score one more for the incompetence market.

Apple is now including HD manufacturer's advertising right in their OS!
 
You've got to be kidding me... THAT is how they "gained" 6GB? Wow.

Chalk up another reason I don't like Apple :D

If they'd just produce their products and SHUT UP ABOUT IT then I'd actually be more likely to buy one. It's this type of pure crap and marketing nonsense why I just despise them as a company.
 
TechieSooner said:
You've got to be kidding me... THAT is how they "gained" 6GB? Wow.

Chalk up another reason I don't like Apple :D

If they'd just produce their products and SHUT UP ABOUT IT then I'd actually be more likely to buy one. It's this type of pure crap and marketing nonsense why I just despise them as a company.
Click to expand...

Not sure Apple actually did claim that the SL had a smaller footprint but a lot of folks were talking about how they got back a lot of space. But at the same time file sizes are now larger so I'm not sure how anyone got back any space. I'm missing something here.
 
heatlesssun said:
Not sure Apple actually did claim that the SL had a smaller footprint but a lot of folks were talking about how they got back a lot of space. But at the same time file sizes are now larger so I'm not sure how anyone got back any space. I'm missing something here.
Click to expand...

Right on their main Snow Leopard page: "Snow Leopard dramatically reduces the footprint of Mac OS X, making it even more efficient for users and giving them back valuable hard drive space for their music and photos."

http://www.apple.com/au/macosx/snowleopard/


Apple. AKA, scumbag of all corporations.
 
I'm sitting here laughing right now because I knew this was coming. I saw it a week ago when people started noticing that SL reports byte-sizes more accurately now (it is more accurate, technically), but because of this new level of "accuracy" it means the old ways tend to fall to the wayside and... well, you can see it yourself just because of the issues now being spotted with respect to "Oh, wow, I got <insert random amount of gigabytes here> back after upgrading to Snow Leopard..." when in actuality it's not a gain of much of anything but more accurately just a recalculation of filesizes.

Sure, SL is a bit smaller overall because they've dumped all the PowerPC code - this is a given and not a big consideration. Look at it this way:

If you had Snow Leopard in a distribution exactly like Leopard is, meaning it has PowerPC and Intel code in the Universal format, and you installed it, Snow Leopard would be larger on the drive.

If you then ran a popular tool on the OSX platform TrimTheFat or one of several others that does the same thing - they strip out everything related to the PowerPC codebase and leave only the Intel code - guess what: you'd end up with what Snow Leopard basically does.

It's not "saving space" at all, it's just not installing all the PowerPC codebase anymore... install Leopard and hit the OS with TrimTheFat after it's installed, get rid of ALL the PowerPC codebase... and you end up with a slightly smaller installation of OSX than Snow Leopard on a clean install takes.

And that's with accurate filesize reporting, too. Go figure. :p
 
I won't ding Apple on this one but 6GB of space even on an SSD is is about $20-$30 dollars of space. Big damn deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top