Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

By giga
in Apple (macOS)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Simon Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I would buy it for $129 if the changes are as good as everyone is saying. But would regular users? Probably not. So I doubt Apple will charge the full price anyway. You can only put so much market spin on "we pretty much rewrote all the code, kept the same features and made everything faster". If it looks the same to a user, it is the same to the user. While a speed increase is huge for people like us, most people actually think Vista and Mac OS X are perfectly fast, when both companies have pretty much admitted they aren't.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
I would buy it for $129 if the changes are as good as everyone is saying. But would regular users? Probably not. So I doubt Apple will charge the full price anyway. You can only put so much market spin on "we pretty much rewrote all the code, kept the same features and made everything faster". If it looks the same to a user, it is the same to the user. While a speed increase is huge for people like us, most people actually think Vista and Mac OS X are perfectly fast, when both companies have pretty much admitted they aren't.

I would argue that not all "regular users" are like that. To many, speed increases, or the notion of getting more done more efficiently is as good a feature as anything else. Frankly, how many features in Leopard get used every single day? Sure, I use Time Machine and Quick Look, but the improvements to Dictionary? Never used them. The improvements made to the Finder? I use Path Finder.

Now, imagine being told that in Snow Leopard, your system will boot faster, shut down faster and use overall fewer system resources. And this is a feature that's always on and invisible. That is a far better "feature" than being able to browse Wikipedia through the Dictionary. I really do think that Snow Leopard will continue to be sold for $129. They sold Puma for that price, and that was really nothing more than a service pack to 10.0.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
Wasn't Puma a free upgrade, though?

Only if you already had Cheetah. Otherwise, it too cost $129. If Apple got away with charging for Puma, which literally added NO major end-user features, then they will be charging for Snow Leopard, too.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
Only if you already had Cheetah. Otherwise, it too cost $129. If Apple got away with charging for Puma, which literally added NO major end-user features, then they will be charging for Snow Leopard, too.

If you didn't have Cheetah, then you had OS 9. Paying $129 from 9 to 10.1 wasn't exactly a highway robbery.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
If you didn't have Cheetah, then you had OS 9. Paying $129 from 9 to 10.1 wasn't exactly a highway robbery.

A lot of critics didn't think so. And they felt justified considering Apple didn't make Mac OS X default on their computers until 10.1.2, which was released in late 2001, a full two months after Puma was first released.

Of course, that was then. Snow Leopard will be released under a totally different atmosphere.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
A lot of critics didn't think so. And they felt justified considering Apple didn't make Mac OS X default on their computers until 10.1.2, which was released in late 2001, a full two months after Puma was first released.

Of course, that was then. Snow Leopard will be released under a totally different atmosphere.

So you're saying that Apple shouldn't have charged for people going from OS9 to 10.1? Sure it was still buggy, but it was a totally different operating system from 9.

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't have charged for people going from OS9 to 10.1? Sure it was still buggy, but it was a totally different operating system from 9.

No, I didn't say that at all. My whole point was that if Apple charged $129 for Puma, they will certainly charge $129 for Snow Leopard as well, considering that Snow Leopard will actually contain a lot of end-user features, but in terms of system performance.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted
No, I didn't say that at all. My whole point was that if Apple charged $129 for Puma, they will certainly charge $129 for Snow Leopard as well, considering that Snow Leopard will actually contain a lot of end-user features, but in terms of system performance.

If we're making a comparing of Cheetah (10.0) to Leopard (10.5), then Snow Leopard (10.6) should be free like Puma (10.1)--which mainly had performance and stability improvements. Apple didn't charge OS X users for Puma--only OS 9 users. (which is irrelevant now)

Grand Master

LTD

Posted
Posted
So you're saying that Apple shouldn't have charged for people going from OS9 to 10.1? Sure it was still buggy, but it was a totally different operating system from 9.

Buggy or not, OS X 10.1 was a magnitude better (far better) then OS 9.

OS 8 and OS 9 only saw the light of day because Apple couldn't come up with anything better other than stopgap solutions, until someone had a better idea. Their whole OS paradigm was failing and the dev process was a joke, as it had been for a few years prior. Developers and previous partners were ready to dump Apple entirely until Steve finally returned and turned things around.

OS 8 and 9 weren't terrible, but they were disappointments considering what Apple could have done were it not for such colossal mismanagement. OS X, bugs and all, was a breath of fresh air.

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Finding myself in a bit of a dilemma. In short, Snow Leopard will have to be jaw droppingly good to make me buy it. If it's merely evolutionary I might be tempted to ditch my iMac and go back and give Windows 7 a try.

Enthusiast

wankey

Posted
Posted
Finding myself in a bit of a dilemma. In short, Snow Leopard will have to be jaw droppingly good to make me buy it. If it's merely evolutionary I might be tempted to ditch my iMac and go back and give Windows 7 a try.

I have the same inclination. If Windows 7 turns out to be as fast as XP, as small as XP but with all the frills of Vista then I'm ditching OS X and going to Win7. The games and the sheer number of customizable applications Windows has far out strips OS X and the Mac world. I"ll keep my MBP as a portable laptop but I'll do all my work on the PC (which is way fast btw)

Proficient

d4v1d05

Posted
Posted
Finding myself in a bit of a dilemma. In short, Snow Leopard will have to be jaw droppingly good to make me buy it. If it's merely evolutionary I might be tempted to ditch my iMac and go back and give Windows 7 a try.

Or, y'know, wait till OS 10.7, and install OS 7 (Uhh, I mean "Windows 7") using bootcamp?

I just wish they'd sort out the network "locations," something like the iphone's SSID-specific network settings would be lovely for laptops... :)

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Well my problem with Apple doesn't continue to be the software, but the hardware. And more specifically graphics cards. They have all these wonderful quick iMacs but they always have pants graphics cards in them. Even the 8800GS in the 24" iMac doesn't cut it frankly. And I just can't bring myself to pay Mac Pro money to own a machine capable of playing any recent games.

Snow Leopard + baby Mac Pro / headless iMac with upgradeable graphics = happy Chicane-UK. But Apple seem determined not to offer such a beast :(

Grand Master

LTD

Posted
Posted
Well my problem with Apple doesn't continue to be the software, but the hardware. And more specifically graphics cards. They have all these wonderful quick iMacs but they always have pants graphics cards in them. Even the 8800GS in the 24" iMac doesn't cut it frankly. And I just can't bring myself to pay Mac Pro money to own a machine capable of playing any recent games.

Snow Leopard + baby Mac Pro / headless iMac with upgradeable graphics = happy Chicane-UK. But Apple seem determined not to offer such a beast :(

Macs really aren't for gamers. A current mac will do it, and probably do it alright. But not spectacularly.

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Macs really aren't for gamers.

But there is no technical reason why they shouldn't be. Apple are quite capable of sticking GOOD video cards into their systems - they just continue to choose not to (I guess primarily for heat reasons as they continue to prefer form over function) but it's frustrating for Mac owning gamers like myself who can't get one competetively priced system that ticks all of the boxes.

As I say - if I really have to do it I will buy a Mac Pro, but I'll bitch and complain the entire way to getting it. Or, I'll just buy the mother of all PC's and Windows 7 and just wait till Steve Jobs acknowledges the segment of the market he's been ignoring for so long - then I'll be back!

Grand Master

Quillz

Posted
Posted
But there is no technical reason why they shouldn't be. Apple are quite capable of sticking GOOD video cards into their systems - they just continue to choose not to (I guess primarily for heat reasons as they continue to prefer form over function) but it's frustrating for Mac owning gamers like myself who can't get one competetively priced system that ticks all of the boxes.

As I say - if I really have to do it I will buy a Mac Pro, but I'll bitch and complain the entire way to getting it. Or, I'll just buy the mother of all PC's and Windows 7 and just wait till Steve Jobs acknowledges the segment of the market he's been ignoring for so long - then I'll be back!

I think Apple is well aware that they are ignoring gamers. And I think they are doing it intentionally, as there is more money to be made from "switchers" than from gamers.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Posts

    • Gen Atlas is the next game from Shadow of the Colossus creator, this time with giant robots

      By LoneWolfSL · Posted

      Gen Atlas is the next game from Shadow of the Colossus creator, this time with giant robots by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The mind behind widely well-received games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and The Last Guardian, Fumito Ueda, showed up at Summer Game Fest today, and that was to reveal his latest project. Being developed by genDESIGN, Gen Atlas is incoming with what looks to be plenty of mech and robot action. Watch the reveal trailer, which makes not much sense, above. The game will have players waking up on an abandoned planet where deserted facilities and grand designs from the original creators remain. Soon, they will stumble upon a colossal robot, from which players gain access to the power to change the world. "Across an endless expanse of time, the remnants of those forgotten constructs begin to move once more," adds the studio. The gameplay snippets seen in the trailer show the player character climbing giant robots (as expected from the creator), while also controlling these titans somehow as well. This is a fully single-player open-world adventure. “The team and I are grateful to all the fans who’ve been eager to learn more about our game,” says Fumito Ueda, CEO and creative director of genDESIGN. “Their passion and enthusiasm has always motivated and inspired us. We hope to share an experience that inspires moments of quiet wonder and discovery.” Before gaining the name Gen Atlas, Ueda first announced this project back in 2024 with the codename Project Robot. Interestingly, this will be a project being funded and published by Epic Games, which should mean that a Steam release is out of the question. Gen Atlas will be releasing on Epic Games Store, Xbox Series X|S, and PlayStation 5. A release date has not been announced just yet.
    • Nearly 70% of Steam users now run Windows 11

      By thartist · Posted

      How backwards can you have it? Yes, Linux was gaining because of Linux handhelds and the push for gaming compatibility, but that's not desktop users, it barely converts anyone who owns a SteamDeck, though it helps for those who wanted to do it, but anyways, the AI+RAM debacle helped Linux because people can't easily upgrade their PCs easily and many hate AI so they'd be incentivized to try Linux.
    • Nearly 70% of Steam users now run Windows 11

      By thartist · Posted

      🤦🏻‍♂️ No, expected because 10 EOL
    • Nearly 70% of Steam users now run Windows 11

      By Raa · Posted

      Ok.
    • Microsoft is making Windows 11's context menus faster, simpler, and configurable

      By thartist · Posted

      Dude, it's a .reg away from a permanent modification. If you're a power user, look it up and keep the .reg and stop being a crybaby expecting MS to include customization for everything on a generalist OS. The default is what's the best UX for the majority of the userbase, non techie people.

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mentor
      grik went up a rank
      Mentor
    • Dedicated
      JKR earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Year In
      CHUNWEI earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Week One Done
      I2D earned a badge
      Week One Done

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      474
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      270
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      78
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      68
    5. 5
      +Edouard
      61
    Show More

  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!