Mac OS X Snow Leopard Discussion

[Simon Veteran]

They could simply do Mac OS XI, seeing as that is the logical roman numeral continuation. It keeps most of their branding, just adds an I onto it.

And did anyone notice the box art behind him? That's not what shipped a few months later... :p

[Rudy]

It will be OSX++

[.Neo]

And did anyone notice the box art behind him? That's not what shipped a few months later... :p

Nope, they shipped the betas onto those. :)

[Simon Veteran]

It does seem to confirm that the packaging displayed by Apple may not be what gets shipped, though. As much as I preferred the pinkish-purple space Snow Leopard packaging to the leaked one... seems like we're probably getting the leaked one anyway.

[Quillz]

"Mac OS X" is marketing, it's not an Roman numeral (Since then it's "Ten Ten Point Five")

It would just be Mac OS 10 if it was meant to be interpreted as a number (The X makes it seem like a larger change, the jump from OS8 to OS9 wasn't that great, while the change from OS9 to OS X was, but just increasing the version number doesn't signify that)

Wrong. The "X" is pronounced as "ten."

"Mac OS X" does imply a new platform (as it's completely different from the "classic" Mac OS and has a totally different development history.) But while it is a new platform, it retains the "10.0" versioning to represent it's still a logical evolution of the Mac OS.

Technically, "Mac OS X" probably could have been marketed as version 1.0, etc, but it wasn't.

[.Kompressor]

When is the release date for the Apple Stores? not pre-order. the actual day I can walk in and buy it or order it directly from Apple?

[PyX]

When is the release date for the Apple Stores? not pre-order. the actual day I can walk in and buy it or order it directly from Apple?

Some sites say August 28th, but I would hold my horses about this date.

More like beginning of September maybe. Maybe there's gonna be a "one more thing" at the iPod event and they'll just release it, BUT they have said everything they could about it I think. It wouldn't bring anything new to what we know about OS X Snow Leopard.

Also, if they want to add some space between the advertisements, then yes it would make sense that it gets release August 28th and then iPods will be released 2 weeks after. Apple always liked a rolling marketing, that's why we think they release a new iPod or something every month, but no it's for instance a new MacBook, then iMac, then Mac Pro, then OS X, as much as possible so that people keep talking about them.

[thefarewellnote]

Starting to hear some rumors that 10a432 but 10A435 is the real GM.

[thertrain]

Starting to hear some rumors that 10a432 but 10A435 is the real GM.

From?!?!?!

[thefarewellnote]

Starting to filter in from MacRumors and on Twitter. As soon as I get more info on it I will post it - as for now, take it with a grain of salt

[.Neo]

Wouldn't surprise me. :)

Wrong. The "X" is pronounced as "ten."

I think we've established that by now.

[Xero]

Starting to hear some rumors that 10a432 but 10A435 is the real GM.

Yay, I didn't think 432 was final build, this adds fuel to the fire. And Neo, regarding the Installer icon. It could be just for the hell of it. Could be for the last dev build, plenty of reasons. Doesn't mean it has to match the real disc. It'd be nice, but not required. I just doesn't look official :s

Also it'll likely switch to Mac OS XI once they've shipped the last major Mac OS X version. I doubt they'll go back to shipping major version numbers like they did prior to OS X. Mac OS 11.0, Mac OS 11.1, Mac OS 11.2, ect. 'Mac OS X' was more a marketing thing than anything else. The official name of the OS uses numbers. So I suspect we will see Mac OS XI Codenamehere one day. Can't believe how many responses were just about the name lol :laugh:

[.Neo]

Why would they suddenly change the Install icon in what's probably going to be one of the last beta builds just for the hell of it? Seems like something you would do during the earlier betas, not when you're trying to wrap things up. Next to that, in recent years all Installer icons are match with the box art.

I'm by no means saying this will be the final thing, but it seems more likely than unlikely.

[Quillz]

Yay, I didn't think 432 was final build, this adds fuel to the fire. And Neo, regarding the Installer icon. It could be just for the hell of it. Could be for the last dev build, plenty of reasons. Doesn't mean it has to match the real disc. It'd be nice, but not required. I just doesn't look official :s

Also it'll likely switch to Mac OS XI once they've shipped the last major Mac OS X version. I doubt they'll go back to shipping major version numbers like they did prior to OS X. Mac OS 11.0, Mac OS 11.1, Mac OS 11.2, ect. 'Mac OS X' was more a marketing thing than anything else. The official name of the OS uses numbers. So I suspect we will see Mac OS XI Codenamehere one day. Can't believe how many responses were just about the name lol :laugh:

I dunno... While I do think Apple would just revert back to "Mac OS 11," it's entirely possible that it will be "Mac OS X 11.0," etc. Since "Mac OS X" is not only a brand name, but an obviously new platform, too. (Much like QuickTime X, which starts at 10.0, skipping versions 8 and 9. In the future, there will probably be QuickTime X 11.0, etc.)

Version numbers, frankly, are extremely arbitrary, and every developer does them differently. Look at Google Chrome. They're already at version 4.x builds, and yet the 2.x builds continue to see occasional development.

[Xero]

Yea you're right Neo about it being something introduced early on. But I just get a weird feeling when I stare at it. It looks like something someone made in their basement to try and sell as the real thing on eBay. Just feels like a bootleg copy, definitely unprofessional. While I agree they don't need to make it the same as the others it seems out of place not to. I doubt this one will pass El Jobso ;)

And Quillz 'Mac OS X' was a major jump for Apple so its no surprise they stuck with the versions instead of jumping right to Mac OS 11. However with the amount of work they put into each version I don't see them jumping the gun and going from Mac OS 11 to Mac OS 12. It's different for Microsoft because their update cycles are significantly longer. Apple would be at Mac OS 20 in no time. I think they'll stick with the versions in the future, whether they go all the way to 11.9 is another question. Even QuickTime, I think it will stick in the 10.x for awhile. I don't think they are going to jump to Quicktime 11 very soon. I suspect iTunes will also halt once it reaches iTunes X phase. Then again, Apple likes going from iTunes 6 to iTunes 8 with practically no changes so who knows. :s

[.Neo]

If you look at previous box art it all looks pretty bland and uninteresting. Definitely something most people with average Photoshop and Illustrator skills could come up with. In fact Leopard has been the only version that features something different than a plain black or white background (with a slight gradient or just solid).

A white background with a partial stock photo on it does seem a bit cheesy. But then again, the 70s space theme of Leopard seemed off compared to previous versions as well. :/

About the whole Mac OS X 10.x updates thing: Every 10.x update is just as massive as any full version up upgrade was back in the classic days. I dare to say that the Mac OS 8 to 9 update was way less interesting than going from Leopard to Snow Leopard. In the end version numbers don't mean anything and every developer. They might stick to 10.x until the next big thing comes along.

PS We did have an iTunes 7 between 6 and 8 btw. ;)

Edited August 19, 2009 by .Neo

[osirisX]

I don't even see why everyone is questioning the box art. The installer icon confirms it :/ Also, Apple isn't going to pay a ******** of money for Lenticular Printing and Foils when most people will be buying this for $29.

[.Neo]

I don't even see why everyone is questioning the box art. The installer icon confirms it :/

That's basically what I'm thinking. I guess we'll know soon enough. :)

[Snakehn]

and any news about that other build? 10A435 i think?

[Quillz]

and any news about that other build? 10A435 i think?

Now "multiple sources" are confirming that 10A435 is, in fact, the RTM build. (You know, the same "multiple sources" that said it was 10A432.)

I guess no one will know anything for sure until Apple specifically signs off a build as RTM and gives us a release date.

[Vice]

I'm curious about the 64-bit implementation in Snow Leopard. Will applications that include both 32-bit/64-bit automatically open as 64-bit if it detects a 64-bit compatible processor or is Apple limiting it to Mac Pros for example ?

The reason I ask is we all know how Apple likes to impose artificial limits for the sake of getting some extra $$$ out of consumers. So will my MacBook Pro auto open 64-bit versions?

You guys may remember I asked this before a few pages back. Well it looks like now we have an aswer.

Apple only activates the 64-bit Kernel on XServes. If you have any other Mac your system boots the 32-bit Kernel.

Source

Does it mater? Probably not. But worth mentioning in this thread.

[thertrain]

Now "multiple sources" are confirming that 10A435 is, in fact, the RTM build. (You know, the same "multiple sources" that said it was 10A432.)

I guess no one will know anything for sure until Apple specifically signs off a build as RTM and gives us a release date.

I've yet to see any reference to 10A435, other than this forum. Where are people seeing this? :blink:

[PyX]

I've been looking at MacRumors, MacBidouille, MacPlus and AppleInsider and never heard of 10A435 in the official news. But I'd be glad to see a more complete, polished build, than the last one we've seen... with the good documentation, and with the icon of the DVD back to the Leopard-style :p

[.Neo]

Now "multiple sources" are confirming that 10A435 is, in fact, the RTM build. (You know, the same "multiple sources" that said it was 10A432.)

Which would those be then? I've seen a comment on Twitter and MacRumors forum but that's basically it.

Edit The Installer icon of Snow Leopard Server has changed as well:

Edited August 19, 2009 by .Neo

[dyn]

In a way, yes, you are. There is, at the moment, no way to buy a DVD of Snow Leopard that will let you do a full, clean install, as you could with Leopard and every previous release of Mac OS X.

Nope, that is incorrect. At this moment there is only the up-to-date program, there is no way of buying any other Snow Leopard DVD ;)

Also, there hasn't been any talk about the install dvd being an upgrade only, the beta versions that are out there are able to do a clean install or an upgrade install. Also there is no logic behind selling complete OS X licenses since you need to have a Mac to install it on and those machines already come with OS X and a full license for it. In other words: if you buy retail it will always be an upgrade license, there won't be any other because that would simply defy all logic. Same goes for talking about it. Upgrading the system is simply more userfriendly than doing a clean install of the entire machine with every piece of software.

There are only two ways to get Snow Leopard: $29 for an upgrade DVD (meaning you have to have Leopard already installed, which costs $129), or $169 for the Mac Box Set, which, again, is the only way to get a full, clean install of Snow Leopard. (And then you also get iWork and iLife, even if you already have them and thus don't need them.)

Read the official press release for a change. You can upgrade from Leopard or from Tiger. That's the only thing that is mentioned. There is no such thing as forcing anyone into anything (as one person said earlier: the current software does not stop working and there is not someone with a gun pointed at you making you buy it) nor is there any special version nor does it mean you need to have Leopard/Tiger or whatever installed. I haven't seen any official press release from Apple stating the fact that it is a technical upgrade nor is it mentioned anywhere on their website. The only ones spreading this information are some users who simply do not read press releases, official websites or the installation experiences of the "beta testers". Where on earth did you get this false information from anyway?

The Mac Box Set was introduced for people with old systems to upgrade OS X, iLife and iWork to the newest versions. Once Snow Leopard is on the market it will replace Leopard in that box. Old systems are systems running Tiger thus making Tiger users the prime audience for the Mac Box Set. Since Snow Leopard itself is meant as an improvement version, logic tells us that it's prime audience will be Leopard users. That is why Apple says that Leopard users can use the 29$ to upgrade to Snow Leopard and Tiger users should get the Mac Box Set. Like all recommendations you can either follow it or disregard it aka you buy whatever you want. Just like you can buy a Mac Pro but if you take a close look at what you can do with it, it is targeted at a completely different kind of audience (unless you're part of that audience). If you sell skateboards than 50 year olds probably won't be amongst your customers and thus you won't target them as potential buyers. That's how nearly every business works, Apple is no exception.

BTW: if you got a Mac you already got a full license for OS X. The only Macs that are able to run Snow Leopard are also the once that have Tiger or Leopard on the system already. You can upgrade to Snow Leopard from those two systems. A Tiger users has no need to shell out 129$ to get Leopard and another 29$ for Snow Leopard (or 169$ if he/she wants to upgrade iLife and/or iWork as well). If you buy a Mac you don't pay extra for the OS, you pay one price and one price only for both hardware AND software (just like every other OEM).

I don't know why Apple simply won't offer a $129 version of Snow Leopard like they did with every other previous Mac OS X release, or why the $29 version simply isn't a full DVD. Upgrading your OS is always messier and more risky than doing a clean install.

Because there isn't a 129$ version, that version now costs 29$ instead of the 129$. Reading press releases and do some thinking also seems a lot messier and more risky than just shouting some false stuff on some website I guess.

You really need to redo your homework because you're completely mixing things up and that leads to some weird statements like needing to get Leopard for 129$.

"Mac OS X" is marketing, it's not an Roman numeral (Since then it's "Ten Ten Point Five")

It would just be Mac OS 10 if it was meant to be interpreted as a number (The X makes it seem like a larger change, the jump from OS8 to OS9 wasn't that great, while the change from OS9 to OS X was, but just increasing the version number doesn't signify that)

That's not true since you seem to be missing one letter :)

The official way would be: Mac OS X v10.5.8. Note the small letter 'v' which stands for 'version'. After that small 'v' you put the version. Take a look at "about this mac": it says Mac OS X in bold and underneath it: "Version 10.5.8" (or whatever version you have). So that would be pronounced as: Mac OS Ten version ten point five point eight. Don't believe me? Check out this official Apple article on their own site: What is an operating system (OS)?.

Yes, it is Mac OS ten but they didn't use '10', instead they used the Roman numeral for it. Why? Well, take a look at what it's based on, it's a UNIX (and since Leopard, OS X is officially a UNIX itself, it has the UNIXv3 certification). The last letter of the word UNIX and one of the letters of the UNIX-based OS they used as a basis (NeXTstep) is the same as the Roman numeral for 10. I think that was the official explanation for the use of the Roman numeral.

If you want to be really sure how to pronounce it than check out the several Apple movies and keynotes on the Apple site or YouTube. You can also check it on your own Mac using the Terminal. Open Terminal and type "say mac os x" (without the quotes) and listen very carefully (btw, the say command is really really fun :)).