Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows
Home > Type > News > Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week

Apple to ship Snow Leopard this week

Aug. 24, 2009 Paul Thurrott | Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

In a weird last-minute announcement, Apple announced this morning that it will ship its $29 Mac OS X service pack, called "Snow Leopard," on Friday.

Apple today announced that Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard will go on sale Friday, August 28 at Apple’s retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers, and that Apple’s online store is now accepting pre-orders. Snow Leopard builds on a decade of OS X innovation and success with hundreds of refinements, new core technologies and out of the box support for Microsoft Exchange. Snow Leopard will be available as an upgrade for Mac OS X Leopard users for $29.

To create Snow Leopard, Apple engineers refined 90 percent of the more than 1,000 projects that make up Mac OS X.

Curiously, there are no major new end user features worth noting, which explains the "service pack" claim above. (Yes, it supports Exchange, but that won't impact most Mac users.) I've been using this thing all year, including the final version for the past week or so, and I have to say ... there's just not much there. It makes my "Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard" series somewhat ponderous to write because I can't focus on what's new but must instead just compare the two OSes more generally. In case it's not obvious, users expect things to improve somewhat with each OS release, that's the minimum, but Snow Leopard doesn't go beyond that at all. This stands in sharp contrast to Windows 7, which does indeed change the overall Windows experience in useful ways. Snow Leopard is just simple refinements. Sorry, but it's just not that interesting.

And while Snow Leopard is indeed priced right for those up-to-date Mac users who paid $129 each year to upgrade to the latest OS release, or even more to just buy a new Mac, it's going to cost the hold-outs a lot more: $169 for a package that also includes iLife 09 (which is good) and iWork 09 (which is pointless). That's the only way that previous-generation ("Tiger") Mac OS X users can get Snow Leopard. And that's only for those on Intel-based Macs. You didn't upgrade yet? Sorry, Luddite, you can't get Snow Leopard.

I raise this issue because there's been a lot of talk lately about how Microsoft won't support direct upgrading of an 8-year-old operating system (XP) to Windows 7, though it does support a very useful migration process. Apple, meanwhile, isn't supporting upgrades from machines that were sold as recently as two and a half years ago. I think this distinction is important, and doesn't get enough attention.

Anyway. I'll put up a short Snow Leopard article this week and then get back to work on the Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard series.

Discuss this Article 123

hamiltonstallings
on Aug 24, 2009
And there it was! Chuckb84 had to make his daily rounds to a Windows website to defend his choice of OS! Lol. You were talking about someone feeling threatened...? Talk about being brain washed!
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"If I hit the red X button, sometimes it quits the application, and sometimes it does not. How do I know when it does what?" MDI-aware applications have 2 sets of buttons - one for the application that sits on the title bar, and one for the document, that either sits in the document window title bar, or underneath the application title bar buttons when the document window is maximized inside the application window. When you close the document, the application remains. When you close the application, it closes completely. It's not that complex to understand.... Who was it who said that Mackies don't understand things that easily? "You can force 64bit mode all the time, provided you have the correct EFI, I tested my Macbook late 2007 and iMac July 2008 both are EFI64." And Apple's reasoning for not doing this in the first place is what exactly?!?
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
That AppleInsider article is absolute fluff. They make it sound like Windows x64 is using some kind of emulation software to make 32-bit software, when all that WOW64 does is switch the CPU from native x64 mode to hybrid 32/64 mode for 32-bit threads. It is NOT emulation, nor is it some kind of extra compatibility system like a software shim. It is a mode switch component for x86-64 CPU's - that's all. In OS X, the 32-bit kernel requires that the CPU run entirely in hybrid mode, which causes 64-bit registers to run slower. In essence, even with the limited hardware options, Apple still can't wrangle enough support to get third-party hardware manufacturers to write 64-bit drivers to make it worthwhile as a default option.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
@Waethorn if you would have read the link..."Apple is most likely pushing people into 32-bit mode because drivers for printers, etc. haven't been updated." Again a much better approach really. The #1 deterrent to going Windows 64bit has always been drivers.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
@Chuck "Sad. You're all so threatened? Why? I've asked it before with no answer." Maybe this is the reason.... http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?artic... "Within hours of Apple's announcement that Snow Leopard, aka Mac OS X 10.6, hits stores and e-commerce sites Friday, the operating system became the stop seller in Amazon.com's software category, according to the Web retailer's Sales Rank page." Paul perhaps you should have written a Snow Leopard Secrets book?
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"The #1 deterrent to going Windows 64bit has always been drivers." And yet, 64-bit is just the norm on the majority of consumer systems shipping with 4GB of RAM (sometimes more). Microsoft has been able to do in the less than 3 years since Windows Vista's release, what Apple couldn't do with a much smaller hardware market (but that never stopped Apple from picking up the best-attempt/horses-ass trophy since they started advertising Tiger).
truffoo0
on Aug 24, 2009
@sunsfan : "Cmd-Q >>>>>>>>>> Alt-F4. Who actually uses the menu bar to quit apps in OS X?" Probably because using the menu bar is so painful. I recently purchased a MacBook Pro to test some of our applications and websites. While I really like the clickable touch pad (normally I avoid using touchpads and prefer the pointing stick or external mouse), there are other usability issues around OSX that are annoying. (I've also been running Win 7 on my main notebook since RC and will upgrade to RTM code once I get some time put aside.) Cmd-Q to quit an application is one of them, lack of ability to us arrow keys on message boxes is another, no simple right-click is a third. I there was a core app I needed that was only on OSX, these aren't enough to make me avoid it, but any benefits that others see are not ones that would make me move over. Whether Apple call Snow Leopard as an upgrade or service pack is really up to them and the response from their users. The same goes for Microsoft. The issue is when Apple claim that Win 7 is a service pack (or Vista V2) while claiming that SL is this amazing upgrade (or Microsoft doing the same). They are both improvements over the previous versions. If the improvements mean that users will be willing to pay for them, then it's an upgrade. It's simple business sense. Extreme fanboy-ism really isn't useful to give people a real view of the 2 products.
yoshipod
on Aug 24, 2009
"MDI-aware applications have 2 sets of buttons - one for the application that sits on the title bar, and one for the document, that either sits in the document window title bar, or underneath the application title bar buttons when the document window is maximized inside the application window. When you close the document, the application remains. When you close the application, it closes completely. It's not that complex to understand.... Who was it who said that Mackies don't understand things that easily?" So the same interface element when placed in a different part of the window does something different. You are right, its not that complex to understand, but remember this is in response to a post saying that Windows is better because its harder to quit an application on OS X. Yet you needed to write a paragraph to explain the difference between how a UI element functions. Which OS is more consistent in its approach, and easier to use.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
@waethorn you contradict your self... "Microsoft has been able to do in the less than 3 years since Windows Vista's release" What about XP 64bit stuff you were talking about. How long has that been out? Longer than 3 years that is for sure. Yeah people raced to it. Vista 64bit started becoming successful when it was forced on consumers. Consumers buy a Windows machine on price alone as the laptop hunters show us. I am pretty sure they dont get to choose 32bit or 64bit when picking up that $279 Acer Laptop. I would bet that in the very few corporations that actually went to Vista, hardly any of them went to Vista 64bit, if any at all.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
"no simple right-click" ????? Turn it on in the System preferences.
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"Apple is most likely pushing people into 32-bit mode because drivers for printers, etc. haven't been updated." "Again a much better approach really." So where are the apologies for leaving behind a 3-year old Mac hardware platform then? Sure, you can use that old legacy printer or scanner, but what about that 3-year old computer to run it on???
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"What about XP 64bit stuff you were talking about. How long has that been out? Longer than 3 years that is for sure." It was XP Professional only, based on Windows Server 2003 x64 code, with little more driver support than what was supplied with Server 2003. When Windows Vista shipped, and hardware vendors had no choice but to write drivers for Vista x64 to certify their hardware, they easily backported drivers to XP x64. Now that RAM has become cheap, it's easy to get a system with 4GB or more of RAM standard (maybe not from Apple) and a 64-bit version of Windows Vista. "Vista 64bit started becoming successful when it was forced on consumers." Forced, as in the hardware manufacturer chooses which version comes with the hardware? Oh, you mean like what you get with Apple.... Actually, there are a number of PC vendors that allow you to choose. You wouldn't understand those kind of concepts though. "I am pretty sure they dont get to choose 32bit or 64bit when picking up that $279 Acer Laptop." I don't see too many Acer laptops on sale for $279 that have more than 3GB of RAM anyway. "I would bet that in the very few corporations that actually went to Vista, hardly any of them went to Vista 64bit, if any at all." I don't know of too many corporations that have office systems with more than 3GB of RAM, but there are at least 2 3D graphics companies near me that have bought 64-bit graphics workstations with at least 8GB of RAM (one has a system with 24GB of RAM) and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista.
kent909
on Aug 24, 2009
"In a weird last-minute announcement, Apple announced this morning that it will ship its $29 Mac OS X service pack, called "Snow Leopard," on Friday." Paul why is this weird? "Curiously, there are no major new end user features worth noting," Paul they have been saying since it was first announced that it would have no major new features and that it was about improving speed and security. Where have you been? That's why it only costs $29. "I've been using this thing all year, including the final version for the past week or so, and I have to say ... there's just not much there. It makes my "Windows 7 vs. Snow Leopard" series somewhat ponderous to write.." How about you don't write it. I don't need to hear your subtle snarky comments about SL. "Sorry, but it's just not that interesting." Then don't bother! "I raise this issue because there's been a lot of talk lately about how Microsoft won't support direct upgrading of an 8-year-old operating system (XP) to Windows 7, though it does support a very useful migration process. " Paul this has not been done by Apple users because we don't care what MS does in this regard. "Anyway". No, don't bother. We know where you stand already.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
rr0de Guess you were confused by the upgrade... Here are the computers I mentioned: a new laptop she got last week a 4 year old PowerMac running Tiger a G4 Mac server running Tiger an Intel Mac server running Tiger a 3 year old MacBook running Tiger an older MacBook running Panther an iMac running Tiger. That's 7 computers. You totally ignored what to do about several of them. (Most, actually) You also skipped the question about which would be able to upgrade their iLife and whether those where she didn't want to upgrade iLife could upgrade to Snow Leopard without that upgrade. You also skippe discussing whether she should pay the extra fee for upgrading her Leopard machine to iLife and how she did that. You also skipped answering whether she could install Snow Leopard and iLife but not iWork on the Leopard boxes. You also skipped discussing whether the upgrade on Mac OS X Server would count against any Family Packs she bought? So, again, how many family packs and individual upgrade licenses do she need to upgrade all her Macs the way she want? But, perhaps a realistic upgrade scenario is perhaps too confusing for you without a very complex chart...
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
@wae I get it now. To get Vista to run as good as XP you had to install 3+gig of ram in it. To use that much RAM, you needed a 64bit OS. The mystery of the 64bit push by vendors is revealed.
chuckb84
on Aug 24, 2009
It's not the stupidity that gets me, it's the hypocrisy, "You can only talk to Mac people in simple terms..... When you say 'operating system', they think 'I have to buy a new computer?'" Paul's review of Windows 7, "The simplest way to acquire Windows 7 is with a new PC starting on October 22, 2009, the day that Windows 7 becomes generally available. This will provide you with the absolute best experience, with one caveat: Many PC makers overload their machines with unwanted crapware, and this is absolutely still going to be an issue with Windows 7." I'll just keep my existing Macs without the crapware. "My sense is that the largest potential group of these customers--Windows XP users--has been left in the lurch." Yep. "It's funny to me that those who damned Vista over the past two years are now praising the very similar Windows 7. Yes, Windows 7 has a tweaked UI. And yes, Windows 7 does offer better performance than its predecessor. But in reality, there's not much of a fundamental difference between the two. " "Asking customers to pay for something that is essentially a Windows Vista mulligan sounds ridiculous on the surface." But, yah, yall rush out and buy it.
truffoo0
on Aug 24, 2009
@rr0de74@live.com : " "no simple right-click" ????? Turn it on in the System preferences." Admittedly I hadn't looked at options for enabling this, although I thought there was a Cmd+click type option. I'll have a look at what you suggested. The point still stands though, in that for a Windows user who first uses OSX, there is no simple right-click as you (at least, I) expect from an OS.
lotsamystuff
on Aug 24, 2009
"The point still stands though, in that for a Windows user who first uses OSX, there is no simple right-click as you (at least, I) expect from an OS." Right-click is enabled by default for the multi-button mouse that ships with Apple computers. You may have a point when it comes to laptops, although they use a two-finger tap gesture. I will agree that a right-click button under the trackpad would be a much-welcome improvement.
Delmont
on Aug 24, 2009
Chuck: It is obvious you're a Mac troll. Yes, this is a site dedicated to Windows. So you hate Windows. Solution: STOP coming to this site and trolling. Chuck, time to grow up and stop being a troll. Just stay on your Appleinsider site and keep drinking the kool aid. It's just that easy. Why would you continue to spend energy defending your o/s on this site? Answer: you're a troll just the same as others are on this site.
lotsamystuff
on Aug 24, 2009
"Paul why is this weird?" Because he's used up his "bizarre" quota for the month.
chuckb84
on Aug 24, 2009
"Asking customers to pay for something that is essentially a Windows Vista mulligan sounds ridiculous on the surface." Mike, give it up. There is no contrived example you can concoct that will make the extremely simple Snow Leopard upgrade in any way comparable to the byzantine train wreck that is the Windows 7 upgrade "path". The example you built up is so tortured that you're not even making your point effectively. Millions of XP users are going to have a tough time moving to Win7. No multiple computers, no manufactured scenarios, no made up "GOTCHA" complications. Even PAUL has noted this as a problem.
rr0de74@live.com
on Aug 24, 2009
@truffoo0 you are correct. My CIO went 4 or 5 months on his new unibody Macbook, as a switcher without a right click. He brought the Macbook to me to configure multiple network profiles with wireless/proxy information, and when we were talking he said "I wish Mac had a right click" :)
FalKirk
on Aug 24, 2009
"In a weird last-minute announcement, Apple announced this morning that it will ship its $29 Mac OS X service pack, called "Snow Leopard," on Friday." - Paul Why is this weird? Apple announced that they would be delivering Snow Leopard in September and they were able to get it done a bit earlier. If Microsoft were to do such a thing Paul would be doing handstands and trumpeting the abilities of the Microsoft team to exceed expectations.
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
@Mike you are if anything, consistent. This blog post is about Apple's latest client OS. The upgrade charts this site and other have put out are about Microsoft's latest client OS. This is not about a server OS or applications. Amazon's top selling software right now is a client OS, not an application. You are off topic. You are going off topic to change the subject your favor. It is not working mac daddy!! The question I have for you is what is the upgrade path for your cousins 4 servers running NT 3.51 on a NEC Mipps server wanting to go to Windows 2008? She also wants an upgrade path to Office 2010 from Wordstar and she wants to transfer her custom dictionary. If you fail her she will turn into another switcher. She gets the Apple ads, but she is still wondering about those Bill and Jerry ads. Help her Mike.
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"To get Vista to run as good as XP you had to install 3+gig of ram in it." No, you just had to yank out the Protected Mode options, turn off UAC, nuke most of the multimedia features, get rid of ASLR, go back to a lame deployment methodology, and then on top of that, recontract Shigeru Miyamoto to design the UI - then it would run as "good" as XP. "To use that much RAM, you needed a 64bit OS." To use more than 3+GB of RAM, and actually, truthfully be able to call it a "64-bit OS", yes, it would have to be a 64-bit version of Windows.
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
I am sure if MS had delivered 7 in April or then in June as Paul said it was going to be it would be simply amazing. Instead we got Windows XP mode as the big surprise.
truffoo0
on Aug 24, 2009
@rr0de74 : nice to be right for once (must show the wife ;-) ) - also just applied the right-click setting, works fine once you know how :-) Back on topic (ish), people compare Microsoft and Apple forgetting that one is a primarily a software company and the other is primarily a hardware company. The expectations of a Microsoft piece of software are likely higher than an Apple one. As long as the Apple one supports the new-funky-hardware, users will likely be happy enough. As far as prices go, if you spend more on the initial hardware (as you do with Mac's for similarly spec'd machines), I wouldn't expect to pay a lot more to get updates to the software on those machines. The hardware premium discounts down the software to mostly just cost covering values. Obviously Microsoft can't do this since they don't do the hardware. You also get the scenario where Microsoft builds in lots of functionality without any guarantee that a piece of hardware needed for that functionality will be available or not. Apple doesn't have that problem because they control it all. Which way is 'better'? Neither and both. It is all good for the industry because things improve. The problems are the excessive fans who promote their choice as the only valid one that all others must follow. Most people just want to get on with using the technology to meet their needs.
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
"There is no contrived example you can concoct that will make the extremely simple Snow Leopard upgrade in any way comparable to the byzantine train wreck that is the Windows 7 upgrade "path". The example you built up is so tortured that you're not even making your point effectively." I see the problem is simple when Apple explains it. They would just say "buy a new computer with Snow Leopard. Simple." Chuck, you can't even argue against that because, for the most part of Mike's argument, that's true. And Mackie's wonder why Apple is considered the #1 scheister of the computer industry.
Waethorn
on Aug 24, 2009
Lindy: you must suck at IT.
chuckb84
on Aug 24, 2009
"It is obvious you're a Mac troll. Yes, this is a site dedicated to Windows" If only it was a site dedicated to Windows. When it functions that way, it's actually pretty good. When Paul starts these Apple threads, though, it becomes something else. You could legitimately say I'm a troll if I started the threads to provoke needless controversy. I don't. Paul does that, reinforced by the usual group of dittoheads. It's probably good advice to waste less time on it, but responses to nonsense aren't "trolling". Silly waste of my time, perhaps, but not trolling.
kent909
on Aug 24, 2009
This is the Windows Supersite. Paul is, in practice (several books), a Windows expert. This is all good. Paul is not an expert when it comes to Apple OSX (no books). When he talks about Apple he is snarky and incites the trolls. Paul intends to do this. We can't avoid looking at the car wreck on the side of the road, just like we can't avoid looking here to see if Paul is instigating something. I do think we all, really are having fun doing this. I know I am no matter how snarky Paul gets.
kent909
on Aug 24, 2009
I'm going to jump in here and make a prediction about Paul's next post. Apple Insider today reported that Apple expects to sell 5M copies of SL in it's launch window of September. I fully expect Paul to brag how, that many copies of Win7 will be pirated at launch, let alone how many will be sold. Therefore showing how insignificant Apple and SL is.
scoobyclub
on Aug 24, 2009
Re The Galos Licensing Upgrade Conundrum At least two of the computers are G4 and can't upgrade anyway. That leaves 5 that can be upgraded to the latest and greatest OS X, iLife and iWork on a family license for $229 all in. What is so difficult or expensive about that? If you had upgraded from Tiger to Leopard to Snow Leopard it would have been approx $160 about the same as a single license of the Snow Leopard box set. Me thinks someone is trying to create a problem where there isn't one. Bottom line is in terms of software licensing it's one of the simplest there is.
lotsamystuff
on Aug 24, 2009
"And Mackie's [sic] wonder why Apple is considered the #1 scheister [sic] of the computer industry." No, Waethorn, that would be you and your Bargain Basement PC Hut.
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
@waethorn thanks much my brother from another mother. Yes at times I do suck at IT, but I get paid pretty well to suck at it:) My current life in IT is Storage/virtualization and I don't do Windows server engineering anymore, Hail Marry Full of Grace the........... So I come here for pure entertainment now and of course to annoy Mike. Paul good luck with your book!!! Seriously million if not billions will run 7 or at least MS is hoping so:)
scoobyclub
on Aug 24, 2009
Oh, and since I don't know what "she wants" in terms of licensing it is really a personal decision as the way to go. If the Server has to be a Snow Leopard OS Server then you have to budget for a $499 license which is for unlimited clients. Whatever it's fairly straightforward five types of license that I can see.
gavers
on Aug 24, 2009
Apple is marketing it correctly, it's a refinement of Leopard. Why it's a $30 packaged product instead of a $10 DVD or downloadable service pack is beyond me. Anyway, I normally don't nitpick too much about Paul's seemingly anti-Apple posts, but this one is factually incorrect in a major way, that I feel is beyond Paul's better judgment. "And while Snow Leopard is indeed priced right for those up-to-date Mac users who paid $129 each year to upgrade to the latest OS release" 10.0 : Mar '01 10.1 : Sep '01 (free update) 10.2 : Aug '02 10.3 : Oct '03 10.4 : Apr '05 10.5 : Oct '07 10.6 : Aug '09 (cheap update) Assuming I paid for 10.0 in March 2001, and bought every subsequent release I'd spend an average of $85 a year on Mac OS X.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
gavers Actually, you'd never be able to do the series of upgrades you talk about since Mac OS X 10.0-10.3 were ONLY available for PowerPC based Macintoshes and ANY computer you owned that could have run these versions CANNOT run 10.6 since it is ONLY availble for Intel based Macintoshes. Every Macintosh sold by Apple before January 2006 and some sold as recently as August 2006 are now orphan computers and cannot run 10.6.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
Lindy Actually, Apple's press release linked in Paul's article includes both client and server versions of Mac OS X. Perhaps you should have read it. Again, it's interesting that nobody seems to have been able to answer the question I posted. But, apparently, there are many self proclaimed Mac experts who can tell you why nobody should answer it or that somebody with 7 Macs is not a realistic scenario.
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
Mike I think the difference here is that Apple is in your face up front....."Snow Leopard is Intel only, no PPC". Compared to MS "Oh hell yeah buddy Vista will run like a champ on that 3 year old PC (in 2007) with 512megs of RAM that runs XP just fine, go for it, Vista FTW!!!!!! Oooooh Rawwww!!!!!" In the end the result is the same. PPC users cant run SL, and older PC users could not run Vista. Its all in the approach....in your face vs bend over.
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
Mike its been answered by scoobyclub. www.rif.org.
robertsjoe
on Aug 24, 2009
And Microtards are paying through the nose for a point update of Windows 7! Talk about a hefty Microsoft tax!
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
Oh and I am sure that Paul will cover both SL server and Windows 2008 R2 in his SL vs 7 series of articles. Tons of information I am sure. Try again mac daddy.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
Lindy No, actually scoobyclub ducked out on a fair amount of the requirements and got other parts wrong. I guess that's yet another Mac fan who was confused by the upgrade choices and requirements. So, no. Nobody has even come close.
robertsjoe
on Aug 24, 2009
The beauty of OS X, compared to Windows, is that it's a far superior OS. You'd either have to be dumb, have no taste or blind not to realise that.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
Lindy "Mike I think the difference here is that Apple is in your face up front.....'Snow Leopard is Intel only, no PPC'." Actually, if you go to the Apple press release you'll find that PowerPC (or PPC or any variant) does not show up at all. Ever. Period. I don't know what you think you're quoting but Apple's PR department is about as far from "in your face" as you can get about how Apple abandoned everyone who bought their expensive products just over 3 years ago.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Aug 24, 2009
rr0de "Paul perhaps you should have written a Snow Leopard Secrets book?" Even better, if he had written "Leopard Secrets" then he could have done a search and replace on the code name and version numbers and had "Snow Leopard Secrets" completed in a matter of minutes. (And probably sold copies of the "new" book to the same people)
Lindy
on Aug 24, 2009
Mike Its $229 for the five Mac clients that can be upgraded. That covers SL, iWork and iLife for FIVE Mac's. Read it three times slow, so you get it. Only 1 server can be upgraded, so that would cost $499 for unlimited users. So your total is $728 A software pricing war would end badly for Microsoft to be honest. Upgrading 5 PC's to 7 Pro from XP (assume pro to connect to the server in domain mode) would cost $199 x 5 or $1000. Assuming 1 Windows 2008 Server upgrade that would cost, $734 on Amazon, and that would cover 5 users. Office 2007 Professional upgrade pricing on Amazon is $240 per copy so lets call it $1250. So we are looking at $3000 before we buy five copies of something that compares to iLife.
TEAMSWITCHER
on Aug 24, 2009
What Apple did to the Power PC folks is really mean, but that is the path that Apple has always followed. After a few years abandoned hardware platforms become boat anchors slowing down the progress of everyone else. Imagine what would happen if Microsoft announced that Windows 7 would only work of Intel Core processors or better. There are no Celeron or Turion processors that even need apply, and no Apple engineer is wasting time optimizing the process scheduler for the Atom processor (a senseless waste in my opinion.) This is what Apple has accomplished. Now, I'm not sure there is a huge run-time performance gain to be had, but removing the legacy PowerPC code from the development process is an obvious win, and it will make the next version (10.7) an easier development effort as well. Was it mean? Sure was! Was it the right thing to do? We'll know in two years when Apple ships 10.7. They may have something amazing planned, and beat Microsoft to market by at least a year. Even more, if Microsoft suffers a Window 8 restart akin to the Vista debacle. Time will tell.
gavers
on Aug 24, 2009
@mikegalos: I realize that. but I may have for whatever reason purchased all those releases. No matter what, I wouldn't spend $129 per year on Mac OS because it's not released yearly. Paul wasn't suggesting that someone could do all these upgrades, he was saying that Apple sells a new version of OS X each year, and that the "up-to-date" user spends $129 a year. They don't, they couldn't. It's incorrect to suggest that Apple sells a new OS each year, or that someone who wants to stay up-to-date would spend $129 per year.

Please or Register to post comments.

Related Articles

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use
Apr. 18, 2013
Article

What I Use: On the Road 21

Every so often, I publish an updated version of my “What I Use” document, which details the technology products and services I actually use day-to-day. Since I’m currently on my third business trip in five weeks, this is perhaps an ideal time to discuss the technology products I rely on when I travel and a few related points....More
Mar. 6, 2013
Article

What I Use: March 2013 33

Lots of changes since November, including a new PC-based home server running Windows 8, several new smart phones, new PCs and tablets, new cloud backup, Office 365 Home Premium and a nice doubling of my Internet speeds courtesy of Verizon FIOS....More
WinSuperSite.com
Related Penton Sites
Copyright © 2013 Penton Media, Inc