 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / July 2009Anybody Else Thinking About Just Skipping Leopard?
Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with software I already have. And the new permission structure sounds like an added headache, especially if you don't do a clean install. Plus I really can't find any compelling new features. It just looks like bloat. I felt the same way about Spotlight and Widgets prior to upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades.  SignatureNelson > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. Sounds like a reasonable plan. SignatureCivis Romanus Sum >Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading >not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just >wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. Frankly, at this point, unless there is some compelling applicaiton or feature, I'd wait as well. I upgraded ages ago, but having waited this long, it's most likely in your best interests to wait for the next release. -Stephen SignatureStephen Adams crathvagbcvn@tznvy.pbz (rot13) > Frankly, at this point, unless there is some compelling applicaiton > or feature, I'd wait as well. I upgraded ages ago, but having waited > this long, it's most likely in your best interests to wait for the > next release. > > -Stephen The next release, if it comes, will probably be an OS designed to run on netbooks, hand-held devices like the iPhone or something minimal to work with cloud computing - the future of computing with most software and storage online. If you want to play in those dark online clouds, you have to be willing to have everything that you do tracked, logged and time-stamped. > > Frankly, at this point, unless there is some compelling applicaiton > > or feature, I'd wait as well. I upgraded ages ago, but having waited [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with cloud computing - the future of computing with most software and > storage online. Oh, sorry. But we do have some lovely parting gifts for you. The next release is scheduled to go public in the next 3 months, with the beta cycle reportedly supporting that goal. Aside from that, the idea that the next release of Mac OS X is going to be "designed for" machines that have resource limits that make them unsuitable for current computing behaviors and tasks is frankly silly. > If you want to play in those dark online clouds, you > have to be willing to have everything that you do tracked, logged and > time-stamped. This is much less viable than the paranoiacs need to believe. SignatureI saw a truck today that had "AAA Batteries / Delivered and Installed" on the side. My first thought was: That's a really weird business model. How many inept people have urgent need of skinny little battery cells? > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. You've waited this long so yeah wait a little longer. But do do it. The virtual memory management alone made it worth it. SignatureTim lance_1012@hotmail.com > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. Everyone has different priorities and finds different features compelling, so without a better knowledge of for what you use your Mac and how you accomplish your tasks, I can't really answer the question for you; however, I can give a little personal perspective on my own situation and that of friends and family members. 1: Time Machine-I use it, but I already had a backup system in place via SuperDuper! and all Time Machine offers me is some redundancy (not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to backups), a much easier user experience when I want to retrieve something, better granularity, and a less intrusive process. For my septagenarian mother, though, Time Machine has been a godsend, providing a seamless and easy-to-use backup system. 2: QuickLook-When I first saw/heard of QuickLook, I considered it "cute", but didn't think that much about it. Now that I have it and use it, I hate going back to a Mac running Tiger (I have two running Leopard and two running Tiger) just because QuickLook isn't there. It is one of those features that, once you start using it, you quickly become attached. 3: Spaces-I expected Spaces to be a major part of my workflow, but found that it didn't afford me the convenience I anticipated in my work. I've gone back to having a laptop running the software about which I'm writing and doing my writing and editing on a separate desktop model. About the only time I use Spaces is when I'm traveling with the laptop. 4: Xcode-Xcode 3.1.1 in Leopard is much improved over Tiger's Xcode (which was, admittedly, excellent). If you do software development for your Mac, Xcode's new stuff might be reason enough to upgrade. If you don't do software development, then the benefits of the Xcode upgrade are somewhere between minimal and non-existent (there are some tools included with Xcode that are of benefit to non-programmers, but they didn't change substantively between the releases). 5: iChat-If you use iChat, the Leopard version is more solid and more capable. If you don't use iChat, it's a non-starter. 6: Mail-If you manage your email with Apple's Mail program, the Leopard version is much better. I don't happen to use Mail on my primary Mac (I like Mailsmith), but do use it on my laptops and the old desklamp iMac. The list goes on, but that should give you some anecdotal info with which to work. SignatureSpenser > > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 5: iChat > 6: Mail And those are just some of the *easily-noticeable* things you can see on the surface. There is a plethora of under-the-hood improvements to all parts of the operating system and key applications such as the Finder that make Leopard more stable, more robust, faster, and better. Finder networking (file sharing), for instance, is *vastly* improved in Leopard over 10.4 and earlier versions. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want a thorough run-down of what makes Leopard better than its successors, you should give Ars Technica's review a good read: <http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5.ars> To me, every single day I use Leopard is worth the price I paid to upgrade to it. It's much better than Tiger in so many ways. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR Jolly Roger a écrit: > And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Once, an Iceberg spoke to me ;-) > Jolly Roger a écrit: > > And that's just the tip of the iceberg. > > Once, an Iceberg spoke to me ;-) I guess that's why you should wash your lettuce. > Everyone has different priorities and finds different features > compelling, so without a better knowledge of for what you use your Mac [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The list goes on, but that should give you some anecdotal info with > which to work. Thank you for these comments. I think you've convinced this reader (not the OP) that I'll be one of those who will just never bother with Leopard. (And if it really kills Eudora, I may never bother with Snow Leopard either.) > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating > upgrading not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Maybe I'll just wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of > two upgrades. Spotlight is handy and was the single most useful thing that I found in "upgrading" to 10.4. I've not upgraded to 10.5 as there is nothing compelling there for me. I'll look at 10.6 but since I own an iBook G4 it is possible I won't be able to upgrade to it. That's OK, 10.4 works very well for me. Tim McNamara a écrit: >> Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating >> upgrading not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it is possible I won't be able to upgrade to it. That's OK, 10.4 works > very well for me. There's something new in Leopard that is useful to me. Have you ever connected to another Mac using the Finder, for file sharing, and shut down the server before the client? In that case, the client will start hanging, trying to find the server (unavailable, of course). In 10.4, it can hang forever, requiring a forced restart. In 10.5, I have never seen it hanging (the "Disconnected from server" window is shown immediately and all is fine). For me, it's a reason to upgrade. > There's something new in Leopard that is useful to me. Have you ever > connected to another Mac using the Finder, for file sharing, and shut [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > For me, it's a reason to upgrade. Or downgrade? :-) I'm running Panther on two machines, Linux on another, and FreeBSD on the fourth, with all of them having the others' disks mounted. If I shut one down without dismounting on the others, the Mac(s) pop up a "server has become unavailable." Click disconnect, and continue working, no problem. (On Panther, i.e., 10.3) SignatureWes Groleau Thinking it Through, Two http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=506 >> Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating >> upgrading not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > it is possible I won't be able to upgrade to it. That's OK, 10.4 works > very well for me. If you do own an iBook G4, you cannot upgrade to Snow Leopard at all, or any future release of Mac OS X, since Tiger was the last OS to support PowerPC. (Other than Leopard, which you don't want to upgrade to.) I find that Leopard was much better than Tiger, but then again, I didn't care much for Tiger, so your mileage may vary. > I find that Leopard was much better than Tiger, but then again, I > didn't care much for Tiger, It is so intriguing to me to hear such a thing! Its like I drive around the whole world over twenty years in a car that never breaks down, has served me well in every way and some one casually remarks that he had this model and it was just so so... I would guess he has experienced something else that has coloured his view *in hindsight*. Signaturedorayme >>> Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating >>> upgrading not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I find that Leopard was much better than Tiger, but then again, I > didn't care much for Tiger, so your mileage may vary. I dont think you gave to worry about version compatibilities with leopard anymore > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. If you are happy with things, it is hard to argue with leaving them alone. I did ugrades, not clean install, and found that experience completely painless. And I had not version incompatibilities with the third party software I use (but it is all open-source except for MS OFfice). I agree with you about widgets, but Spotlight has occasionally been useful to me. As far as Leopard's new features, there are three features at the user level that I find very good. - Time Machine is a good way to handle backups, especially if you don't already have a way that you like. It made my life easier when my hard drive on my MacBook died with no warning. - Spaces. I've been waiting for this since I first started using Os X (having come to it from X11 where a similar feature is commonplace). - Screen Sharing. These are the things that make Leopard worthwhile for me. (I'm also very curious about iPhoto 9's face recognition, but I haven't made that purchase.) What I've heard about the next thing (Snow Leopard) is that it is mostly streamlining for intel based machines. If that turns out to be true, and you are still happy with Tiger, you may want to wait for the iteration _after_ Snow Leopard! > Maybe I'll just wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of > two upgrades. Considering that Snow Leopard is supposedly due out within the next four or five months or so, that's a good idea. I wonder whether Apple will (for the first time) have two versions (at two price points) of Snow Leopard, one as an upgrade for Leopard (lower price point) and one as a full install for those who have earlier versions of Mac OS X installed. SignatureIt's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the GOP did to America. > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. If you need/want iLife'09 and iWork'09 you get Leopard almost for free with the Mac Box set. Leopard works better than Tiger (without bloat!). I even have a family pack of Leopard I could sell. YMMV Marc Signatureremove bye and from mercial to get valid e-mail <http://www.heusser.com> > I even have a family pack of Leopard I could sell. Please name a price, here or by e-mail. Thanks SignatureWes Groleau "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?" -- Charles Wallace (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_) In article <marc.heusser-989DE1.19325031012009@news.uzh.ch>, Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> wrote: > Leopard works better than Tiger (without bloat!). What "bloat" is that? > In article <marc.heusser-989DE1.19325031012009@news.uzh.ch>, > Marc Heusser <marc.heusser@byeheusser.commercialspammers.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What "bloat" is that? Well, considering he said "*without* bloat", I'd say in his opinion there is no bloat. SignatureSend responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR > Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. I'm surprised no one has brought this up before, but you didn't specify which Mac you have, and unless it has an Intel processor, don't assume you can run Snow Leopard on it. Signature<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts > > Maybe I'll just > > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. > > I'm surprised no one has brought this up before, but you didn't specify > which Mac you have, and unless it has an Intel processor, don't assume > you can run Snow Leopard on it. I bought a G4 Mini before we knew there were going to be Intel based systems, as a way to find out if a Mac was worth having. Liked it enough as a secondary system that, when I decided to upgrade from my primary Windows system, I just went to the Mac Pro. Unfortunately I won't just be able to upgrade both systems to the Snow Leopard when it comes out, so I will either have to buy an upgrade to Leopard for the old one, or just leave it at Tiger. I'll probably upgrade my Pro. What burns with me is that, with the form factor of the Mini, that Netflix's support for the Mac uses Silverlight, which isn't supported on the PPC. I would have liked to be able to watch instant watch on my television. >>> Maybe I'll just >>> wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. >> >> I'm surprised no one has brought this up before, but you didn't specify >> which Mac you have, and unless it has an Intel processor, don't assume >> you can run Snow Leopard on it. Interesting point. Has Apple said it won't support the G4 or just not said that it would? SignatureNelson > Interesting point. Has Apple said it won't support the G4 or just not > said that it would? They haven't specifically stated what the hardware requirements will be, but developer versions have been Intel-only. I don't think there was ever a chance that Snow Leopard would run on G4 machines, though. All the speculation has been about possible support for G5 Macs. Signature<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts + mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg): >> Interesting point. Has Apple said it won't support the G4 or just not >> said that it would? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ever a chance that Snow Leopard would run on G4 machines, though. All > the speculation has been about possible support for G5 Macs. I can't cite references, but it has been my definite impression that snow leopard is more about making the OS more efficient (in space and time) than about adding new features, though there will of course be new featues as well. And in pursuing this goal of making the OS meaner and leaner, it turned out to be too difficult to work with two different hardware architectures. Signature* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. -- Bertrand Russell > + mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg): > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > snow leopard is more about making the OS more efficient (in space and > time) than about adding new features, References abound.... Straight from the horse's (leopard's?) mouth: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/> <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html> Many more: <http://is.gd/i07M> > though there will of course be new > featues as well. And in pursuing this goal of making the OS meaner and > leaner, it turned out to be too difficult to work with two different > hardware architectures. SignatureiMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) OS X (10.5.4) + Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>: >> I can't cite references, but it has been my definite impression that >> snow leopard is more about making the OS more efficient (in space and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > <http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/> > <http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/06/09snowleopard.html> Thanks. I am sure the second one is the one I was thinking of. Signature* Harald Hanche-Olsen <URL:http://www.math.ntnu.no/~hanche/> - It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true. -- Bertrand Russell > Interesting point. Has Apple said it won't support the G4 or just not > said that it would? The install instructions for Snow Leopard say "requires an Intel Mac". I know, I know, it's beta, but Apple is/are unlikely to suddenly roll back all that 64 bit doohickery (which is a lot of what SL is about) to support PPC processors. SignatureW. Oates > Maybe I'll just wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of > two upgrades. Leopard is a fantastic upgrade. But at this point, if your system will run Snow Leopard you might as well wait. > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. Tiger has many fine features that I'm still learning how to use, so, I didn't upgrade to Leopard either. From what I've read, for some, the new features are not necessarily all that more system enhancing or useful and the OS is still buggy. But, I read that about Tiger and I upgraded and it worked fine for me. Snow Leopard is just going to be a small upgrade. Maybe waiting until the next version then catch Leopard at a discount - or pass it up. > Snow Leopard is just going to be a > small upgrade. Maybe waiting until the next version then catch Leopard > at a discount - or pass it up. You need to look at opportunity costs and upgrade paths to the successor of Snow Leopard. They may also be pricing issues that make it far easier to upgrade from current Snow Leopard to its successor. If you have hardware that can accept the upgrades, then it is easier in the long term to go with incremental upfgrades than to stick to one version until it is no longer supported, at which point, you may be forced to do a clean re-install and reconfigure everything. > Snow Leopard is just going to be a > small upgrade. My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow Leopard by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have to purchase Leopard separately, and then upgrade it with Snow Leopard. Fred > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow > Leopard by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have > to purchase Leopard separately, and then upgrade it with Snow > Leopard. Your Apple dealer was blowing smoke. You will be able to buy Snow Leopard along with iWork and iLife, on one disc, for $169. Apple hasn't said whether Snow Leopard will be sold alone without the two iSuites, though. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow > > Leopard by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > said whether Snow Leopard will be sold alone without the two iSuites, > though. It seems pretty clear that the Mac Box Set (Mac OS X + iLife + iWork) will be the only option for 10.4 users to get 10.6 after September. http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html I highly doubt they will sell $29 and $129 versions of Snow Leopard alongside each other. - Retailers would have to stock twice as many products. - The $129 version probably wouldn't sell very well since the Mac Box Set is only $40 more and most people who are likely to buy Snow Leopard will already be running Leopard. - It would open up scope for confusing Leopard users who might buy the expensive version by mistake and then complain about it. (Tiger users will have that problem with the $29 version not working.) The only unanswered question in my mind is whether Apple will continue selling Leopard after September (for PowerPC users as a final upgrade option), or whether the September edition of the Mac Box Set will include Leopard and Snow Leopard. Given past Apple policy, I expect not, so I'm advising anyone who wants Leopard to get it before September in case it is hard to find later. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > It seems pretty clear that the Mac Box Set (Mac OS X + iLife + iWork) > will be the only option for 10.4 users to get 10.6 after September. > > http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html That is all they've announced thus far. > I highly doubt they will sell $29 and $129 versions of Snow Leopard > alongside each other. There may be people who want to move from Tiger to Snow Leopard who do not want the iSuites. -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign >> It seems pretty clear that the Mac Box Set (Mac OS X + iLife + iWork) >> will be the only option for 10.4 users to get 10.6 after September. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -- Michelle Then I suspect that they'll be screwed. However, we'll all see come September. Signatureemail to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > > There may be people who want to move from Tiger to Snow Leopard who do > > not want the iSuites. > > Then I suspect that they'll be screwed. > > However, we'll all see come September. That we will. The people who will really be screwed are those who will want to move from Panther to Snow Leopard; they'll have to buy a new computer to do that. -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > The people who will really be screwed are those who will want to move > from Panther to Snow Leopard; they'll have to buy a new computer to do > that. Yes, but anyone with a PowerPC Mac will have to buy a new one to run Snow Leopard, whether they're running Panther, Tiger or Leopard. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > Yes, but anyone with a PowerPC Mac will have to buy a new one to run > Snow Leopard, whether they're running Panther, Tiger or Leopard. Will the next release after Snow Leopard run on PowerPC machines, or are they stuck on Leopard forever? Paul > > Yes, but anyone with a PowerPC Mac will have to buy a new one to run > > Snow Leopard, whether they're running Panther, Tiger or Leopard. > > Will the next release after Snow Leopard run on PowerPC machines, or > are they stuck on Leopard forever? I can't think of any example where any company has released software that runs on hardware that's already been excluded from the previous version. I think it's safe to say that this will not be an exception. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > > Yes, but anyone with a PowerPC Mac will have to buy a new one to run > > > Snow Leopard, whether they're running Panther, Tiger or Leopard. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that runs on hardware that's already been excluded from the previous > version. I think it's safe to say that this will not be an exception. I thought I read, when Snow Leopard was first mentioned, that the sole reason for its existence was performance improvements for Intel machines and that PowerPC releases would continue afterward. Maybe I read it wrong. Or maybe I was just hopeful. There is no money for new hardware in my budget for a long time. Paul > I thought I read, when Snow Leopard was first mentioned, that the sole > reason for its existence was performance improvements for Intel machines > and that PowerPC releases would continue afterward. > > Maybe I read it wrong. Until Apple officially announced the Snow Leopard release for September, there had been no official word from them that it would be Intel-only. Whatever you might have read, it didn't come from Apple. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > I can't think of any example where any company has released software > that runs on hardware that's already been excluded from the previous > version. I think it's safe to say that this will not be an exception. But this is a special upgrade targeted to multicore users, which were relatively rare among PowerPC machines. Not a lot of user stuff, but a lot of developer stuff and it's not a new cat just a variant of same. > > I can't think of any example where any company has released software > > that runs on hardware that's already been excluded from the previous [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > relatively rare among PowerPC machines. Not a lot of user stuff, but a > lot of developer stuff and it's not a new cat just a variant of same. Um, it's not for PowerPC Macs at all, whether or not they have multicore processors, and it's for all Intel Macs, including the early ones with 1.5 GHz Core Solo processors. I stand by my previous post. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> In article <paulranderson-CEDEFF.13022130062009@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, > Will the next release after Snow Leopard run on PowerPC machines, or > are they stuck on Leopard forever? I doubt that any Mac OS after Leopard will run on PowerPC machines. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign In article <paulranderson-CEDEFF.13022130062009@newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com>, > Will the next release after Snow Leopard run on PowerPC machines, or > are they stuck on Leopard forever? why would the end support for powerpc and then add it back a couple of years later when even fewer powerpc macs will in use? right *now* over 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. > right *now* over > 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. Where does that statistic come from? How does anyone know how many people out there are running older Macs? 50% of the Macs in this household are PPC. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > > right *now* over > > 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 50% of the Macs in this household are PPC. 100% of my Macs are PowerPC models as well. >> right *now* over >> 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. At WWDC, they showed a slide of the growth of OS-X. The phenomenal growth was not due to Intel, but rather Arm based machines (Iphone and iPod Touch). > >> right *now* over > >> 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. > > At WWDC, they showed a slide of the growth of OS-X. The phenomenal > growth was not due to Intel, but rather Arm based machines (Iphone and > iPod Touch). they said 75 million os x users, with 25 million macs and 40 million iphones/ipod touches. i'm not sure where the other 10 million come from. > > right *now* over > > 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. > > Where does that statistic come from? How does anyone know how many > people out there are running older Macs? Apple's published sales figures from the last few years are a pretty good guide. I suspect nospam's 80% figure is a little high, but it is certainly heading that way. Apple claim to have had about 20 million active users of Mac OS X as at the start of 2006 (PowerPC only) - see the graph from the WWDC keynote. Since then, they've sold more than 30 million Intel Macs (going from my memory of reported sales). Some of the PowerPC Macs will have been retired or died, so the PowerPC absolute figure will be slowly declining. That suggests the proportion of Intel Macs out of all Macs in use is well over 60%. Another possible point of evidence would be OS share figures for accessing web sites: http://marketshare.hitslink.com. I think they break out "Mac" and "Mac Intel" as two separate figures, and may even break it down by OS version. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > I suspect nospam's 80% figure is a little high, but it is certainly > heading that way. i'd say it's low, plus powerpc users are probably considering a new mac anyway. > Apple claim to have had about 20 million active users of Mac OS X as at > the start of 2006 (PowerPC only) - see the graph from the WWDC keynote. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > retired or died, so the PowerPC absolute figure will be slowly > declining. they also said 25 million mac os x users at wwdc 2009. 80% intel means 20 million intel, 5 million powerpc. the numbers sound realistic. > That suggests the proportion of Intel Macs out of all Macs in use is > well over 60%. much higher. > > I suspect nospam's 80% figure is a little high, but it is certainly > > heading that way. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > they also said 25 million mac os x users at wwdc 2009. I didn't notice anything specifically mentioning the number of Mac OS X users in the keynote. Do you have a reference? The graph was "active users", but it is hard to know exactly what that means or how it was measured. The 2006 figure was about 20 million (which would be PowerPC Mac only), and the 2009 figure was about 70 million (including remaining PowerPC Mac, Intel Mac, and iPhone/iPod touch users). Scott Forstall said that Apple had sold 40 million iPhone/iPod Touch devices. In princple, there should be a smaller number of "active users" of iPods/iPhones, because some people will have more than one, and some won't be counted as "active". 70 million minus 40 million = 30 million. Assuming the iPhone "active users" figure is lower, that means there must be more than 30 million "active users" of Mac OS X. That's more than 30 million Macs in active use, and the total will be higher because some people own more than one. If people who use both iPhone and Mac OS X are only counted as one "active user", then the Mac OS X users figure (and total number of Macs) is even higher. > 80% intel means 20 million intel, 5 million powerpc. the numbers sound > realistic. Those computer numbers are too low, by at least 5 million computers. Adding up the numbers from Apple's financial reports, I count a grand total of 25.539 million Macs sold between Jan 2006 and Mar 2009 (Apple's Q2 is Jan to Mar). Several thousand of those will be PowerPC Macs from the first weeks of 2006, and PowerMac G5s and Xserve G5s through to August, but the total number of Intel Macs sold is clearly over 25 million. We know there were at least 20 million PowerPC Macs in active use as of early 2006, and I don't think it is reasonable to assume that 75% of them are no longer being used. If Apple's "active users" figure doesn't count multiple computers for the same user, then there could have been a lot more. From my own observations of typical Mac users, the vast majority will keep using computers as long as possible, and I'm still seeing a lot of PowerPC Macs in my travels. Assuming 25 million Intel Macs in active use, that gives the following percentages of Intel Macs depending on the number of PowerPC Macs still in active use: PowerPC Macs Percentage Intel 25 million 50% 20 million 55% 15 million 62.5% 10 million 71% 5 million 83% I reckon the 10 to 15 million range for PowerPC Macs is more likely than 5 million. That means the proportion of Intel Macs is almost certainly over 60% and could be over 70% by now, but I doubt it will have reached 80%. It won't be long before we get to that point, due to ongoing sales of new computers and slow decline of PowerPC Macs in use. Unfortuantely marketshare.hitslink.com doesn't break down by Mac hardware platform, but it does have stats on OS versions: Leopard has about 2.5 times as many hits as Tiger, which has about 2.5 times as many as all other Mac OS X versions combined (including unknown versions). If those numbers are reasonable samples, that puts Leopard on about 64% of Macs in active use, Tiger on about 26%, and "other/unknown" on about 10%. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > Apple claim to have had about 20 million active users of Mac OS X as at > > > the start of 2006 (PowerPC only) - see the graph from the WWDC keynote. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I didn't notice anything specifically mentioning the number of Mac OS X > users in the keynote. Do you have a reference? wwdc 2009 keynote starting at 2:40. 25 million 'actual active users', not shipments, through 2007. the next graph at 3:15 shows active os x users through 2009 and it's 75 million. since there are 40 million iphones and ipod touches, that leaves 35 million active mac os x users, not 25 million as i initially said. you said there were 20 million powerpc macs in 2006, so assuming all of those are still in use (which they aren't), there are 64% intel macs (35/(35+20). many of those powerpc macs have been replaced with intel macs, so 80% is not an unreasonable number. unfortunately, i don't recall where i saw the 80% figure. >>>> Apple claim to have had about 20 million active users of Mac OS X as at >>>> the start of 2006 (PowerPC only) - see the graph from the WWDC keynote. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > macs, so 80% is not an unreasonable number. unfortunately, i don't > recall where i saw the 80% figure. Good info, both of youse guys. Now, what about guys like me, who have an 8500, a G3, 4, and 5 sitting around, but these get booted once a year or so....And what does my Apple TV run? SignatureJohn McWilliams > Now, what about guys like me, who have an 8500, a G3, 4, and 5 sitting > around, but these get booted once a year or so... those would not be classified as 'active' and if you only boot them once a year, would you actually have considered paying to upgrade them to snow leopard if it were possible? > .And what does my Apple > TV run? os x, but i doubt they sell that many to make much of a difference in the numbers. >> Now, what about guys like me, who have an 8500, a G3, 4, and 5 sitting >> around, but these get booted once a year or so... My guess is that Apple uses the "software update" functionality of OS-X to track active users since that utility "phones home" at regular intervals. If you are on Classic, the OS doesn't do that and Apple wouldn't know about you. The information on active users is important to Apple in terms of knowing whether to continue to issue patches for verstion combinations of OS/hardware. For instance, if it sees a LOT of people still on Tiger on a G3, it will make sure that Itunes updates will be avaialble for that combination and not be compiled with switches that make Itunes no longer compatible with a G3. It did that for Iwork and Ilife which now require more modern processor and I suspect the next Iwork/Ilife might be Intel only because they will require features in Leopard or perhaps even Snow leopard. > >> Now, what about guys like me, who have an 8500, a G3, 4, and 5 sitting > >> around, but these get booted once a year or so... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you are on Classic, the OS doesn't do that and Apple wouldn't know > about you. classic also had an auto-update mechanism so it too 'phones home', and that's nothing more than reporting what version is on the computer so apple knows what updates to offer. > >> Now, what about guys like me, who have an 8500, a G3, 4, and 5 sitting > >> around, but these get booted once a year or so... > > My guess is that Apple uses the "software update" functionality of OS-X > to track active users since that utility "phones home" at regular intervals. I know lots of people who have disabled automatic Software Update checks and rely on manual installation to update their system. The computers are actively used, e.g. for web browsing, so there may be other ways to detect them. > If you are on Classic, the OS doesn't do that and Apple wouldn't know > about you. Mac OS 9 introduced Software Update. There hasn't been anything new on it for many years, so many people will have turned off the automatic checking, so they wouldn't be counted as "active" using that methodology even if they are still using that Mac. I don't recall offhand whether Mac OS 9's Software Update works in Classic, but it should. People running Mac OS X 10.0 through 10.3.9 may have also turned off automatic Software Update checks as there won't have been anything new in recent years. Software Update should at least provide a pretty good sample of a high proprotion of recent Macs. That can be supplemented with evidence from elsewhere to estimate the total number of "active" Macs. > The information on active users is important to Apple in terms of > knowing whether to continue to issue patches for verstion combinations > of OS/hardware. Indeed, and it doesn't matter if people running 10.3 and earlier have turned off automatic checks, because Apple is already not supporting those systems. > For instance, if it sees a LOT of people still on Tiger on a G3, it will > make sure that Itunes updates will be avaialble for that combination and > not be compiled with switches that make Itunes no longer compatible with > a G3. It did that for Iwork and Ilife which now require more modern > processor and I suspect the next Iwork/Ilife might be Intel only because > they will require features in Leopard or perhaps even Snow leopard. Requiring Leopard doesn't mean it has to be Intel only. It would cut out G3s, so they could build it to require a G4 processor and always be able to use the vector unit. I can't see any justification for a general purpose productivity application like iWork to require Snow Leopard or an Intel processor, both of which are mainly speed improvements. I think Leopard on a G4 is a reasonable minimum requirement for the next version of iWork. There may be a fair number of Tiger users who would upgrade to a new version of iWork, but Apple is likely to take the position that someone who hasn't upgraded their operating system in more than two years is unlikely to be buying new software, or use it as a small incentive to encourage an OS upgrade. iLife has more performance dependent features, but it would be premature to require Snow Leopard if the next iLife version is released while Leopard still has a significant market share. For comparison: iLife '04 (Jan 2004) requires 10.2 (superseded Oct 2003) iLife '05 (Jan 2005) requires 10.3 (released Oct 2003) iLife '06 (Jan 2006) requires 10.3 (superseded Apr 2005) iLife '08 (Aug 2007) requires 10.4 (released Apr 2005) iLife '09 (Jan 2009) requires 10.5 (released Sep 2007) iWork '05 (Jan 2005?) requires 10.3 (released Oct 2003) iWork '08 (Aug 2007) requires 10.4 (released Apr 2005) iWork '09 (Jan 2009) requires 10.4 (superseded Sep 2007) I don't have a copy of iWork '06 but I expect it requires 10.3. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > I know lots of people who have disabled automatic Software Update checks > and rely on manual installation to update their system. Thos would still get "seen" by Apple and counted as active. Apple may set some interval to define "active" such as someone who does an update check every 2 months for instance. > Mac OS 9 introduced Software Update. I think Apple has now forgotten about Classic. There would have been a time early in the life of OS-X where Apple might have monitored migration rate of Classic to OS-X, but they may have done so by measuring sales of OS-X media, which, in the Apple environment, would have applied only to customers running Power based machines with Classic already installed. Sales of new computers would come with OS-X pre-installed and not require separate purchase of OS-X. This transition is pretty much over from Apple's point of view. People still on Classic are likely to be buying a totally new machine when they decide to migrate to OS-X and be considered "new" customers by Apple. One needs to consider that when OS-X was unveiled, Apple's market share in both installed base and available applications started basically at 0. The "managed by accountants" era at Apple had decimated the company. Jobs managed to build a totally new ecosystem with OS-X, with new applications, and more importantly, started to attract new converts to the church of Apple. Because the original remaining installed based had dwindled, it didn't take that long for the new members of the Apple religion to outnumber the old ones. The conversion from Classic to OS-X, and support of Classic apps on OS-X was very important in the early days of OS-X since there was little software available on OS-X. But now, this was fixed quickly enough and support for Classic was no longer felt necessary when Apple went to Intel. So at this point in time, all that Apple would be interested in are OS-X users at various versions and platforms and what software they have. Remember that every time my Mac "phones home" it tells daddy what Apple software I have on it. It knows I have iWork and Ilife on a Mac Pro running 10.5.7 and probably knows even more about me, perhaps even what underwear I am wearing. (must remember to disconnect the camera when doing software updates :-) :-) At one point, I was interested in buying Ilife and a DVD writer to upgrade my G3, but ilife was already restricted to G4 and above only. This is perhaps a self fulfulling prophecy. Whever I was doing software upgrade, I was telling Apple I was on A G3 and didn't have iLife, so Apple would have statistics showing that very few G3 users had Ilife, so it was OK to stop supporting it. The current upgrade path that will include Ilife and Iwork when one goes from Tiger to Snow Leopard will be a great marketing coup since it will allow Apple to make great claims about sales of Iwork quadrupling (or whatever) and its market share against Office greatly improving. Apple will also be able to brag about upgrades to Snow Leopard being far cheaper than upgrades to WIndows 7 *and* buying Office. > Indeed, and it doesn't matter if people running 10.3 and earlier have > turned off automatic checks, because Apple is already not supporting > those systems. Lets be blunt here. From the user's perspective. membership to the Apple religion is pretty much permanent. People tend to remain loyal to Apple once they've tasted the forbidden fruit. But from Apple's perspective, membership to the religion requires that you have a relatively recent machine or at least "sign in" regularly with Software Update to signal you still are loyal to the Church of the Apple and read Jobs 314 regularly :-) Apple knows that deep down, the guy who is still on a 604 with Classic 8.6 will eventually upgrade to OS-X and buy a new Intel mac when they have the money. But as long as they don't have the money, they represent 0 oportunity for sales at Apple. And lets face it: Both OS-X and Windows have reached a fairly stable level of functionality as far as the OS is concerned and what is being added are bells and whistles. In such a mode, it becomes increasingly difficult to convince someone to part with money to upgrade (Windows-XP to Vista is a perfect example). The software ecosystem is what really drives things. When you look at most of the software, it requires 10.3 or more often 10.4. If hardware requirements have not changed between 10.1 and 10.4 (as I recall G3 was minimum requirement all along), someone still below 10.4 woudl likely not be interested in buying software upgrades or install new applications, or are abandonning their machine. OR, they may have bought a new Intel Mac and keeping their old one only to run some Classic applications. > I can't see any justification for a general purpose productivity > application like iWork to require Snow Leopard or an Intel processor, > both of which are mainly speed improvements. As I recall during the recent Keynote, Apple outlined some new features for some applications that would be enabled only on Snow Leopard (I think stuff like the cover flow and quicklook). That would mean that at this point in time, the applications would have conditional code enabled only on modern version of OS-X. How long this would last, I don't know. > I think Leopard on a G4 is a reasonable minimum requirement for the next > version of iWork. There may be a fair number of Tiger users who would > upgrade to a new version of iWork, but Apple is likely to take the > position that someone who hasn't upgraded their operating system in more > than two years is unlikely to be buying new software, or use it as a > small incentive to encourage an OS upgrade. The problem here is that Tiger is the last version for G3 users who cannot upgrade even if they want. Apple would have a good idea of how many such people there are and would have decided it isn't a market big enough to cater to, and that a good enough percentage of them could be coaxed into buying a new mac to get the software they need. > iLife has more performance dependent features, but it would be premature > to require Snow Leopard if the next iLife version is released while > Leopard still has a significant market share. Consider that it will be cheaper to upgrade to Snow Leopard from Tiger than just buying Ilife and Iwork. So it looks to me like Apple will be providing strong incentive for Tiger users to upgrade. However, since it is the end of the line for PowerPC, Apple will have to make an interesting decision on whether to continue to produce iLife and Iwork for PowerPc Leopard/Tiger or just issue patches to make slight upgrades to make the output files compatible with the newer versions. > iLife '08 (Aug 2007) requires 10.4 (released Apr 2005) Also required G4. I was not able to buy Ilife 08 nor Iwork for my G3 running Tiger. > > I know lots of people who have disabled automatic Software Update checks > > and rely on manual installation to update their system. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > time early in the life of OS-X where Apple might have monitored > migration rate of Classic to OS-X, "Classic" isn't separate from OS X, it's a feature that let's one continue to run pre-OS X Mac software under OS X. I'm pretty sure that you meant Mac OS 9, but that's not Classic, although Classic depends on a slightly tweaked version of Mac OS 9 to be useful. > but they may have done so by > measuring sales of OS-X media, which, in the Apple environment, would > have applied only to customers running Power based machines with Classic > already installed. As well as, for several years now, upgrades of systems that shipped with OS X. > Sales of new computers would come with OS-X > pre-installed and not require separate purchase of OS-X. Until the next major version of OS X shipped, and they wanted to upgrade. The which has been pretty common, and probably accounts for the majority of actively used Macs these days. > Mac OS 9 introduced Software Update. There hasn't been anything new on > it for many years, so many people will have turned off the automatic > checking, so they wouldn't be counted as "active" using that methodology > even if they are still using that Mac. I rarely boot OS 9, but I did get some sort of update the last time I did (not counting this month when I went back to OS 9 after my Panther partition got trashed). > People running Mac OS X 10.0 through 10.3.9 may have also turned off > automatic Software Update checks as there won't have been anything new > in recent years. Actually, I got a Panther security update not too long ago. SignatureWes Groleau "There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over." -- Larry Wall > > Mac OS 9 introduced Software Update. There hasn't been anything new on > > it for many years, so many people will have turned off the automatic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Actually, I got a Panther security update not too long ago. Which security update was it? If you installed it via Software Update, it should be listed in the log which is visible in System Preferences > Software Update > Installed Updates, along with date of installation. The last general Panther security update I know of was 2007-008, which was released in December 2007 (shortly after the introduction of Leopard). The last new Panther update of any kind that I know of was iTunes 7.7.1, around July 2008. You might have had a security update offered if you installed something else which was a prerequisite for an older security update. Prior to Apple doing combined security updates they did a huge bunch of smaller targetted ones. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz >> Actually, I got a Panther security update not too long ago. > > Which security update was it? If you installed it via Software Update, > it should be listed in the log which is visible in System Preferences > > Software Update > Installed Updates, along with date of installation. Well, as you may remember, I don't have a bootable Panther right now. :-) But I _think_ I got one recently. I do see that I put in Security Update 2009-002 on Tiger recently. Maybe my aged memory is sitting in front of the wrong machine. > The last general Panther security update I know of was 2007-008, which > was released in December 2007 (shortly after the introduction of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Apple doing combined security updates they did a huge bunch of smaller > targetted ones. SignatureWes Groleau New “Telenovelas” Web Page http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1032 > > > > Apple claim to have had about 20 million active users of Mac OS X as at > > > > the start of 2006 (PowerPC only) - see the graph from the WWDC keynote. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > wwdc 2009 keynote starting at 2:40. 25 million 'actual active users', > not shipments, through 2007. So that was a historic figure, not a current one. > the next graph at 3:15 shows active os x users through 2009 and it's 75 > million. since there are 40 million iphones and ipod touches, that leaves [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > those are still in use (which they aren't), there are 64% intel macs > (35/(35+20). There aren't 35 million Intel Macs. Apple has only sold 25 million (up to March 2009 - we don't know figures for the current quarter yet, but it is probably in the order of 2 million). This means that Apple's count of "active" Mac OS X users must be including PowerPC Macs which are still in active use. If we take your 35 million figure total as accurate, then that means there must be at least 10 million active PowerPC Macs to make up the 35 million total, and (25/(25+10)) = 71%. This ignores two issues: - Some of the 40 million iPod Touches and iPhones will no longer be "active". If so, the number of "active" Macs will be higher, and as the number of Intel Macs is well known, the additional Macs must be PowerPC. - Some of the 25 million Intel Macs will no longer be "active". That means even more PowerPC Macs in active use. Therefore the percentage of active Intel Macs is likely to be somewhat lower than 71%. It is also reasonably certain that the number of Intel Macs is greater than the number of PowerPC Macs (we've crossed the 50% point). Old timers with big collections of computers see a greater proportion of PowerPC. (I'm at 67% Intel, not counting my occasionally used PowerMac 8600 running Mac OS 9.) But really, we're arguing over minor points here. The important ones: 1. Isn't it great how rapidly the Mac OS X market is growing. 2. PowerPC Mac users should be increasingly concerned about their dwindling share of the Mac market, but I don't think it is necessary to panic yet. If you want to run new software you will need to get an Intel Mac at some point. 3. From the figures in my previous post, Mac OS X 10.4 is a similarly small percentage of the Mac market, and 10.5 and later will keep growing due to new sales. Mac OS X 10.4 users are therefore increasingly in a position of needing to upgrade either their computer or operating system in order to run new software. It wouldn't surprise me if all 10.4 support from Apple (e.g. iTunes, QuickTime and iWork) is gone within a year of Snow Leopard's release, and third party support will also be drying up. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > But really, we're arguing over minor points here. The important ones: true. > 1. Isn't it great how rapidly the Mac OS X market is growing. yes > 2. PowerPC Mac users should be increasingly concerned about their > dwindling share of the Mac market, but I don't think it is necessary to > panic yet. If you want to run new software you will need to get an Intel > Mac at some point. it's not really any different than when os x itself came out and support for anything before the g3 was dropped. although it was possible to run os x on a powerpc 604, it was incredibly slow and more of a curiosity than anything usable. support for g3 was dropped a few years later. think of the power pc chips as just another old processor. > 3. From the figures in my previous post, Mac OS X 10.4 is a similarly > small percentage of the Mac market, and 10.5 and later will keep growing > due to new sales. Mac OS X 10.4 users are therefore increasingly in a > position of needing to upgrade either their computer or operating system > in order to run new software. right, and as i said they're likely to be wanting a faster computer anyway. > It wouldn't surprise me if all 10.4 support from Apple (e.g. iTunes, > QuickTime and iWork) is gone within a year of Snow Leopard's release, > and third party support will also be drying up. usually apple supports one version back, so 10.4 support will probably be gone except for maybe a major security update while 10.5 will get security updates for a while. > > It wouldn't surprise me if all 10.4 support from Apple (e.g. iTunes, > > QuickTime and iWork) is gone within a year of Snow Leopard's release, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be gone except for maybe a major security update while 10.5 will get > security updates for a while. The pattern around the release of 10.5 went like this: Sep 2007 - 10.5 released Nov 2007 - Final numbered update for 10.4 (10.4.11) - Final security update for 10.3 (2007-008) Jun 2008 - Final iTunes update which supported 10.3 (7.7.1) - Final QuickTime update which supported 10.3 (7.5) There was a similar pattern around the release of 10.3 and 10.4, at least for numbered updates of the previous system (10.2.8 was almost coincident with 10.3, as was 10.3.9 with 10.4). My recollection is that security updates for the second preceding version stopped at the same time. I don't recall the exact timing of iTunes and QuickTime updates ceasing support for 10.2 and earlier. Given the significant number of Tiger users out there, Apple may decide to continue Tiger security updates for a while after Snow Leopard is released, and I would expect iTunes support to continue for several months. Leopard's final numbered update will probably be 10.5.8 (barring any serious bugs), but it will keep getting security updates, iTunes, QuickTime and minor or targetted bug fix updates until the release of 10.7. I'm still wondering whether Apple will continue selling Leopard after September (for PowerPC G4/G5 users who want to upgrade). It doesn't seem likely - Apple would prefer they buy a new computer. Safer to assume it won't be available, so buy Leopard before September if you anticipate upgrading a PowerPC Mac, and don't want to hunt down a second-hand copy later. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > I suspect nospam's 80% figure is a little high, but it is certainly > > heading that way. > > i'd say it's low, plus powerpc users are probably considering a new mac > anyway. Well, yeah, we're more or less being forced to, now that the OS has reached the end of the line for them. SignatureD.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com "When the fate of so many rests in the hands of so few, can the failure to be accountable ever be forgiven?" - Stephen Hawking > > > I suspect nospam's 80% figure is a little high, but it is certainly > > > heading that way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, yeah, we're more or less being forced to, now that the OS has > reached the end of the line for them. even if snow leopard supported powerpc, people would be considering upgrading. > even if snow leopard supported powerpc, people would be considering > upgrading. Not everyone has money to toss out that easily. I got 10.1 because I bought a G3 Mac on eBay for parts that turned out to work when received. I bought 10.3 (for the same Mac) when I came into some unexpected money. And I got 10.4 when the second G3 started getting flaky and I spent less than a hundred for a G4 eMac. SignatureWes Groleau Film Review: El violin http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1428 > > even if snow leopard supported powerpc, people would be considering > > upgrading. > > Not everyone has money to toss out that easily. true but then those people would not likely be spending money on snow leopard either. > > right *now* over > > 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. > > Where does that statistic come from? apple, although i can't find a link. > How does anyone know how many > people out there are running older Macs? one way is by looking at the stats of machines that auto-update os x. i can think of others. > 50% of the Macs in this household are PPC. invalid sample size. > > right *now* over > > 80% of macs are intel and that number is only going up. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 50% of the Macs in this household are PPC. 67% of the Macs in this household are PPC. If Apple had matte displays available on anything except 17 inch laptops, that would change to 100% Intel Macs. If matte is not available, then 67% of the OS X machines in this household will be running on something other than Apple hardware. But, skip Leopard? No way. It works just fine on my 15 inch 1.25 GHz G4 Powerbook . Signaturehttp://www.ericlindsay.com In article <NOwebmasterSPAM-4C6573.21224402072009@freenews.iinet.net.au>, > > 50% of the Macs in this household are PPC. > > 67% of the Macs in this household are PPC. If Apple had matte displays > available on anything except 17 inch laptops, that would change to 100% > Intel Macs. If matte is not available, then 67% of the OS X machines in > this household will be running on something other than Apple hardware. 25% of the Macs here are PPC. We're looking forward to Snow Leopard, and matte screens are not an issue; we like them very well. > > > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow > > > Leopard by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It seems pretty clear that the Mac Box Set (Mac OS X + iLife + iWork) > will be the only option for 10.4 users to get 10.6 after September. There shouldn't be all that many affected users. Leopard was introduced October 26, 2007, and the first intel Macs shipped just after MWSF '06, and the various models were dribbled out through the year. At this point, most of them have either already upgraded to Leopard, or may never choose to do it. Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. > Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of > the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. It just occurred to me that Apple may introduce iLife 10 with Snow Leopard; if they introduce it in Jan 2010, and if it requires Snow Leopard or even has features that run only under Snow Leopard, people who bought the $169 Box Set in September would be a bit POed. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign >> Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of >> the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Leopard or even has features that run only under Snow Leopard, people > who bought the $169 Box Set in September would be a bit POed. And this would be the first time that this kind of thing happened, he says looking at the eMac 700 he bought two months before Tiger shipped... Signatureemail to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > > Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of > > the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Leopard or even has features that run only under Snow Leopard, people > who bought the $169 Box Set in September would be a bit POed. I doubt they would do iLife/iWork '10 only eight months after the '09 versions. That would annoy everyone who paid for the '09 versions. Apple aren't doing WWDC keynotes any more, so there is no need for them to release iLife and iWork updates in January. They will release them when they are ready, probably together rather than independently. iLife and iWork were updated annually from '04 through '06, then they slowed down to about 18 months apart for '08 and '09. Mid 2010 seems more likely for the next iLife/iWork updates, and there would be an updated Mac Box Set to go with them. I'd expect the next iWork to support 10.5, and there is a small chance it will still support 10.4. The next iLife is more likely to require 10.6, but might still work on 10.5. Both are likely to take advantage of 10.6. SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > I doubt they would do iLife/iWork '10 only eight months after the '09 > versions. That would annoy everyone who paid for the '09 versions. If they required Snow Leopard, or even if their new features required Snow Leopard, I don't think that would be a legitimate gripe. > iLife and iWork were updated annually from '04 through '06, then they > slowed down to about 18 months apart for '08 and '09. Mid 2010 seems > more likely for the next iLife/iWork updates, and there would be an > updated Mac Box Set to go with them. Could be. We'll find out in due course, of course. ;) -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign >>> Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of >>> the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 10.6, but might still work on 10.5. Both are likely to take advantage of > 10.6. Nonetheless, it seems advisable to wait for the next iLife/iWork before buying the Snow Leopard Combo. I can wait another year. But I resent sneaky marketing to make me eventually buy iLife/iWork, which I never have paid for separately or pay-updated before. Signature++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ > >>> Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of > >>> the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sneaky marketing to make me eventually buy iLife/iWork, which I never > have paid for separately or pay-updated before. ?? - iLife has been a part of buying a new consumer Mac, but iWork never was to my knowledge. How did you not buy iWork as a seperate product? >>>>> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > never was to my knowledge. How did you not buy iWork as a seperate > product? I meant to distinguish between paying for iLife and pay-updating iWork. Actually, I don't use any of their programs, so I don't keep up with what either requires, and I especially resent having to pay even a modest price increase over Snow Leopard by itself. I'll certainly wait as long as necessary for Snow Leopard, in order to minimize the sneaky extra cost. Yes, I am a miser. Signature++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ > I meant to distinguish between paying for iLife and pay-updating > iWork. Actually, I don't use any of their programs, so I don't keep > up with what either requires, and I especially resent having to pay > even a modest price increase over Snow Leopard by itself. I'll > certainly wait as long as necessary for Snow Leopard, in order to > minimize the sneaky extra cost. Yes, I am a miser. The only way that waiting will save you money is if Apple lowers the pricing or if you wait until the OS after Snow Leopard. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign >> I meant to distinguish between paying for iLife and pay-updating >> iWork. Actually, I don't use any of their programs, so I don't keep [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The only way that waiting will save you money is if Apple lowers the > pricing or if you wait until the OS after Snow Leopard. If I have to buy a Snow Leopard Combo instead of Snow Leopard only, I will wait until after the updates of iWork/iLife. Hopefully I will save most of the cost of updating them from the original Snow Leopard Combo, even if I have to wait a year for Snow Leopard, which doesn't seem vital to my modest needs. By that time, I might be ready for a new PowerBook with all already installed. Okay, I'm not a fanatical miser, but I hate making a forced purchase of iLife, which has no programs I use or want. Signature++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ > If I have to buy a Snow Leopard Combo instead of Snow Leopard only, I > will wait until after the updates of iWork/iLife. Hopefully I will > save most of the cost of updating them from the original Snow Leopard > Combo, even if I have to wait a year for Snow Leopard, which doesn't > seem vital to my modest needs. That won't save you any money; it will get you later versions of the iSuite, though, but you'll be without Snow Leopard for the interim. > By that time, I might be ready for a new PowerBook with all already > installed. You'll get iLife installed, but only a 30-day demo of iWork. Unless Apple changes its policy, that is. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > By that time, I might be ready for a new PowerBook with all already > > installed. > > You'll get iLife installed, but only a 30-day demo of iWork. Unless > Apple changes its policy, that is. I've noticed that the new Macs my clients have bought recently have come without even a demo version of iWork. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > You'll get iLife installed, but only a 30-day demo of iWork. > > Unless Apple changes its policy, that is. > > I've noticed that the new Macs my clients have bought recently have > come without even a demo version of iWork. Interesting. Well, the demo is still available via download. -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > I've noticed that the new Macs my clients have bought recently have > > come without even a demo version of iWork. > > Interesting. Well, the demo is still available via download. Based on the reactions I've gotten, I'd say more people are bothered by getting a demo version of a word processor with their new Mac than by not getting one at all. (And it seems that most of my clients don't care much about Numbers or Keynote at all.) SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> >>> I've noticed that the new Macs my clients have bought recently have >>> come without even a demo version of iWork. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not getting one at all. (And it seems that most of my clients don't care > much about Numbers or Keynote at all.) Frankly, the only people around here who care about the demo version of iWork are would-be Pages and Keynote users, most of whom want me to tell them how to work the 'trick' that will unlock the demo version. They get all upset when I say that this trick involves either a Federal offence, which I'm not doing, or paying $80 to Apple, which I already did. I'm reminded of the laddie who, many years ago, boasted to me that the reason he used Windows instead of Macs was the variety of software available, and how silly I was for paying for the paltry variety available on Macs. He didn't like it when I asked him how many word processors he could use at one time. He liked it even less when, early one Sunday morning, he called and asked for my help in getting rid of a virus which he'd liberated from one of those 'free' applications, and I said that sure, I'd be over there, and my usual Sunday rates would apply. No, I don't fix that kind of thing for free. He hung up and we haven't spoken since. Such a pity. In any case, that mentality is invading Macdom. And that is a pity. Signatureemail to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > Frankly, the only people around here who care about the demo version of iWork > are would-be Pages and Keynote users, most of whom want me to tell them how > to work the 'trick' that will unlock the demo version. One of the recent Apple ads on TV mentioned that when you buy a MAC, you don't have to spend hours cleaning up tonnes of demo versions of various software. When I bought my recent macpro, there was a rebate on buying iwork when you buy a new computer. But there was no demo on it. When I bought my laptop, I was offered the same rebate, but declined since I already have iwork. Remember that those demo versions are really just paid advertising. And you can go to the Apple web site to find plenty of demo versions of games etc if you want. > > > By that time, I might be ready for a new PowerBook with all already > > > installed. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've noticed that the new Macs my clients have bought recently have come > without even a demo version of iWork. It looks as though they're offering it, and other mid- or high-end applications configured with BTO systems, rather than an installed demo. > > >>> Come to that, getting iLife and iWork for what, about $20 on top of > > >>> the usual price for retail OS X sounds like a fairly decent deal. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > never was to my knowledge. How did you not buy iWork as a seperate > product? Went for the demo? > But I resent sneaky marketing to make me eventually buy iLife/iWork, > which I never have paid for separately or pay-updated before. What's a "pay-update"? SignatureThank you and have a nice day. >> But I resent sneaky marketing to make me eventually buy iLife/iWork, >> which I never have paid for separately or pay-updated before. > > What's a "pay-update"? Having to pay for an update. Signature++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <arvimideQ@Wearthlink.net> || ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ || || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poŝta adreso por ĝusta adreso || ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++ > Apple aren't doing WWDC keynotes any more, so there is no need for them > to release iLife and iWork updates in January. MWSF? > > Apple aren't doing WWDC keynotes any more, so there is no need for > > them to release iLife and iWork updates in January. > > MWSF? Yes, MWSF, not WWDC. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > Apple aren't doing WWDC keynotes any more, so there is no need for them > > to release iLife and iWork updates in January. > > MWSF? Oops. Wrong four letter acronym. Yes, I meant MWSF, not WWDC. :-) SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > > Apple aren't doing WWDC keynotes any more, so there is no need for them > > > to release iLife and iWork updates in January. > > > > MWSF? > > Oops. Wrong four letter acronym. Yes, I meant MWSF, not WWDC. :-) After a while, it gets hard to keep the players sorted out without a program. > > Oops. Wrong four letter acronym. Yes, I meant MWSF, not WWDC. :-) > > After a while, it gets hard to keep the players sorted out without a > program. Yep. YMMV. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow Leopard > by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have to purchase > Leopard separately, and then upgrade it with Snow Leopard. It's interesting that Apple itself is unaware of this. SignatureTribute to Humphrey Bogart <http://bogart-tribute.net> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow Leopard > > by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have to purchase > > Leopard separately, and then upgrade it with Snow Leopard. > > It's interesting that Apple itself is unaware of this. Yes. That would be incredibly strange. My guess, assuming that the dealer wasn't just making the whole thing up (I have known dealers who would do things like that, particularly if that was perhaps a way to push someone into buying 10.5), is that the dealer misunderstood or miscommunicated. I have heard about a quite inexpensive upgrade from 10.5. It seems plausible that the price in question might only apply if you already had 10.5. But that's not at all the same thing as 10.6 not being available at all unless you first get 10.5; that doesn't seem plausible. It would be a real PITA. SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > > > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow Leopard > > > by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have to purchase [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > unless you first get 10.5; that doesn't seem plausible. It would be a > real PITA. New systems sold after SL escapes officially would have SL installed. Normal practice for Apple; you sell machines with the current OS version. Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL anyway. I can't remember if any intel-Macs came with Tiger installed, so it's likely not an issue at all. > Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and > older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL > anyway. I can't remember if any intel-Macs came with Tiger installed, so > it's likely not an issue at all. Ah, but it the original Intel Macs _did_ come with Tiger installed, so it's definitely an issue. SignatureTribute to Humphrey Bogart <http://bogart-tribute.net> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and > > older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, but it the original Intel Macs _did_ come with Tiger installed, so > it's definitely an issue. My iMac, purchased after Leopard was released, came with Tiger installed and a Leopard drop-in DVD. SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and > > older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah, but it the original Intel Macs _did_ come with Tiger installed, so > it's definitely an issue. Yeah I caught that later. > Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and > older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL > anyway. I can't remember if any intel-Macs came with Tiger installed, so > it's likely not an issue at all. The first Intel Macs shipped in January, 2006. Leopard shipped in October, 2007. That's 21 months when all Intel Macs were shipping with Tiger. SignatureDave Seaman Third Circuit ignores precedent in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. <http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/03/29/18489281.php> > The first Intel Macs shipped in January, 2006. Leopard shipped in > October, 2007. That's 21 months when all Intel Macs were shipping with > Tiger. Yep, and the first ones came with 10.4.4 installed, as I recall. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > Older systems, intel only, mostly already have Leopard installed, and > > older machines that would have come with Tiger installed can't run SL [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > October, 2007. That's 21 months when all Intel Macs were shipping with > Tiger. Yep. I was a bit surprised to find it was that long. Wonder how many are still running Tiger, and of those, how many won't upgrade to SL. > I can't remember if any intel-Macs came with Tiger installed, so it's > likely not an issue at all. Yes, some did. Tiger was released April 29, 2005. The first Intel Mac was released Jan 10, 2006. Leopard was released Oct 26, 2007. -- Michelle SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > > > My Apple dealer told me that you won't be able to purchase Snow Leopard > > > > by itself. If you don't already have Leopard, you will have to purchase [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > anyway. I can't remember if any intel-Macs came with Tiger installed, so > it's likely not an issue at all. Before 8,372 posters jump in, I checked. Intel Macs began to ship just after MWSF '06. Until October 26, 2007, they came with Tiger. > Yes. That would be incredibly strange. My guess, assuming that the > dealer wasn't just making the whole thing up (I have known dealers who > would do things like that, particularly if that was perhaps a way to > push someone into buying 10.5), is that the dealer misunderstood or Best Buy. I heard the salesman in the MP3 players area telling people lies about iPod, then walked over to the Mac area where they were severely stretching the truth about Windows. SignatureWes Groleau "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing; it also depends on what kind of person you are." -- C.S.Lewis >> Yes. That would be incredibly strange. My guess, assuming that the >> dealer wasn't just making the whole thing up (I have known dealers who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lies about iPod, then walked over to the Mac area where they were > severely stretching the truth about Windows. It's Best Buy. Don't listen to word one they say. Do your own homework, walk in, buy what you want if the price is in your range, and walk out. Best Buy floor personnel are clueless at best and arrant liars at worst. Signatureemail to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com. > > Yes. That would be incredibly strange. My guess, assuming that the > > dealer wasn't just making the whole thing up (I have known dealers who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lies about iPod, then walked over to the Mac area where they were > severely stretching the truth about Windows. Well, yeah. That's typical of Worst Buy. And it is a toss-up whether the salesman was knowingly lying or just ignorant; plenty of cases of both exist there. I went there a while back looking for a Logitech trackball and found them selling the one I like, which has a list price of $29.95, for $41. That's a "best buy" all right. I hate to admit that I broke down and bought a Mac for them for my mother. (I got "tasked" by my brother with taking care of getting a new computer for her when I was in town for my father's funeral. I pretty much needed to get it that day and Best Buy was the only place in her town that sold Macs.) It was a returned unit, with a full Apple warranty (though I had a little fuss when I went to verify that with Apple - finally straightened out with Apple after I pushed a bit, but I suspect Best Buy hadn't done their end of the paperwork correctly). I was a bit amused to find that they had not even bothered to delete the account of the original buyer; it booted up asking for her password. Rather than booting the install CD in maintenance mode to change the password and get all the prior owners banking data or whatever (:-)), I did what Best Buy should have done and did an erase-and-install. Seems to be working well for her anyway. Good thing as none of the rest of the family on that side of the country do Macs, so I'm her main tech support 2500 miles away. Fortunately it hasn't needed much support, and she is pleased with her shiny new computer compared to the klunky cheapo EMachine Windows box she used to have. She thinks I'm a quite extravagant son for buying her such a fancy one (just a recent 20" iMac); I think I've got quite a bit more payback still owed her. :-) SignatureRichard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain > > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > small upgrade. Maybe waiting until the next version then catch Leopard > at a discount - or pass it up. I skipped System 7 almost completely (I had to use it for a few months briefly to run a printer on an SE 30 while overseas, 6 not being up to the task). And do I look the worse for it? Of course not! Signaturedorayme > > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > small upgrade. Maybe waiting until the next version then catch Leopard > at a discount - or pass it up. I am not going to upgrade. The risk is too great. I am sticking to the system that came with the computer from now on. There was serious trouble with the latest version of iWeb for months and I'm still angry about that. > I am not going to upgrade. The risk is too great. I am sticking to the > system that came with the computer from now on. There was serious > trouble with the latest version of iWeb for months and I'm still angry > about that. iWeb isn't part of a retail Mac OS installation. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > I am not going to upgrade. The risk is too great. I am sticking to the > > system that came with the computer from now on. There was serious > > trouble with the latest version of iWeb for months and I'm still angry > > about that. > > iWeb isn't part of a retail Mac OS installation. That still won't stop him from blaming Apple for his problems. Some people need something or someone to kvetch about or their lives have no meaning. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored] > > > I am not going to upgrade. The risk is too great. I am sticking to the > > > system that came with the computer from now on. There was serious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > people need something or someone to kvetch about or their lives have no > meaning. True. I'm just making sure that others know that iWeb, along with the rest of iLife, is separate from OS X and are upgraded independently. SignatureMy latest dance routine <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4twDW3OUYg> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> > > I am not going to upgrade. The risk is too great. I am sticking to the > > system that came with the computer from now on. There was serious > > trouble with the latest version of iWeb for months and I'm still angry > > about that. > > iWeb isn't part of a retail Mac OS installation. I know. But it is typical of the sloppy behaviour of Apple who sells stuff that isn't ready for shipping. You can be sure of that, there will be trouble for some buyers of Snow Leopard. The way they released blingbling Safari 4 is typical as well. I don't want Safari 4 either. But who cares? The Apple nerd will buy. We owe them some. > > iWeb isn't part of a retail Mac OS installation. > > I know. But it is typical of the sloppy behaviour of Apple who sells > stuff that isn't ready for shipping. Nobody has ever released commercial software that is bug free. > You can be sure of that, there will be trouble for some buyers of > Snow Leopard. You can be sure of that, there will be trouble for some buyers of any commercial software. > The way they released blingbling Safari 4 is typical as well. The way they released it? Please explain. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign > > iWeb isn't part of a retail Mac OS installation. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > want Safari 4 either. > But who cares? The Apple nerd will buy. We owe them some. Apple is even naughtier than that. A wise webmaster will test his site on as many browsers as possible. So it was with great annoyance that I noticed my copy of Safari 3 mysteriously morphed into Safari 4 without asking permission. Why not just deliver me a new copy of 4, leaving 3 untouched? Grrr On the other hand, if i have to say something nice, OSX 10.5.7 is very cool. If you're still with 10.4.x and don't plan to go immediately to 10.6, at least do yourselves a favor and go to 10.5.7. You won't be sorry. > Apple is even naughtier than that. A wise webmaster will test his > site on as many browsers as possible. So it was with great annoyance > that I noticed my copy of Safari 3 mysteriously morphed into Safari 4 > without asking permission. Why not just deliver me a new copy of 4, > leaving 3 untouched? Um, Safari 4 can't be installed unless you install it yourself, either through Software Update or manually. Every upgrade of Safari has replaced the preceding version; they can't co-exist on the same system because the underlying architecture is too different. SignatureMember National Rifle Association Member American Civil Liberties Union Member Human Rights Campaign I really like Leopard, but as a completely new user to OS X (and therefore Macs) I can't compare Leopard to Tiger. I'm currently running Leopard on a Mac Mini G4 1.5GHz CPU with 1gB of RAM (Mac. for a G4 Mini) and it's a bit sluggish, but the OS (X) is fantastic. I think if I downgraded to Tiger today, I'd miss a lot of features (and probably miss out on loads I've yet to find, too). > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. I moved to 10.5 on my PPC iBook and I'm less than thrilled. It ends up building larger and larger swap space, and getting less and less responsive. I find myself rebooting every few days to speed things up. I didn't have that impression with 10.4... If only I had 4X the RAM and/or a 10,000 RPM laptop disk.... I don't suppose there's a way to flush the swap space short of rebooting? SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > I moved to 10.5 on my PPC iBook and I'm less than thrilled. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't suppose there's a way to flush the swap space short > of rebooting? I have this problem with 10.4.11 and 1.5GB of RAM (max for my system), so what have you gained really? And as to "how do you clear it short of a reboot?" Simple. You don't. Really. Once the swap files are created, you can only remove them when you reboot. So, when my system gets to 2GB of swap files, I reboot. Usually it's from editing a large audio file with Amadeus Pro (Amadeus II was worse) or a large file with Photoshop. It seems to be the nature of how VM is written on MacOS X or there's a key component that slowly leaks like Safari. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored] > > I don't suppose there's a way to flush the swap space short > > of rebooting? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Usually it's from editing a large audio file with Amadeus Pro (Amadeus > II was worse) or a large file with Photoshop. For us non-computer types, could you clarify the relationship (if any) between "swap files" and the four kinds of "Memory" shown in the pie chart in the System Memory button of Activity Monitor? Outside of this indicator, how do I monitor or check the amount of swap files I've accumulated? Thanks . . . > > > I don't suppose there's a way to flush the swap space short > > > of rebooting? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > between "swap files" and the four kinds of "Memory" shown in the pie > chart in the System Memory button of Activity Monitor? There isn't one. the four modes pertain to the current use of RAM only and the meaning is mostly self explanatory, with the possible exception of "wired" which is RAM that may not be swapped out. > Outside of this indicator, how do I monitor or check the amount of swap > files I've accumulated? I like the little utility "iPulse" which I've configured to be click-through circular window that illustrates graphically: CPU ‹ (both cores) Network ‹ read and write Disk I/O ‹ read and write Top 10 memory hogs ‹ real and virtual Memory ‹ in use and free Page faults, page-ins and page outs Number and size of swapfile(s) SignatureTom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF > > > > I don't suppose there's a way to flush the swap space short > > > > of rebooting? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Page faults, page-ins and page outs > Number and size of swapfile(s) For the non-computer type, your only hope is to start reading up on how computers do what they do. You've essentially asked why your car needs oil, gas, and water without knowing the basics of the internal combustion engine. SignatureDeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee... [I filter all Goggle Groups posts, so any reply may be automatically by ignored] > Tiger works just fine for me and I have been procrastinating upgrading > not wanting to deal with all the version incompatibilities with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upgrading to Leopard and my opinion has not changed. Maybe I'll just > wait for "Snow Leopard" and save myself the hassle of two upgrades. "anybody else", sure. Personally, I sticked to 7.6.1 for ages and jumped in at 10.2 again. I'm still on 10.4. But that's more related to hardware (and some software) I use. I won't refuse a newer OS when I do need new hardware. 7.6 was good enough for the full ADB/SCSI mainstream. FW/USB required a change of the tool chain. Currently I still do stick to an old notebook since I do not want a glossy new one. I could not even upgrade to 10.5, while 10.6 is even further away. But a new notebook probably will have 10.6, assuming that even Apple might offer some matte screen (max. 15") some time again. - Martin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.