Snow Leopard shipping August 28th for $29, order now
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Aug 24th 2009 8:28AM
posted Aug 24th 2009 8:28AM
While you wait for that order to ship, Apple wants you to know that Snow Leopard's Finder is more responsive, Mail loads messages twice as fast, Time Machine will complete initial backups 80 percent faster, and a 64-bit version of Safari 4 is 50 percent faster than its predecessors. There's even QuickTime X with a redesigned player that lets users view, record, trim and share video. Of course, this release also includes Grand Central Dispatch, a new way for devs to take advantage of multi-core processors as well as OpenCL support to accelerate apps with the help of that idling graphics processor. Oh, and out of the box support for Microsoft Exchange too. All in all, a worthy update, especially for the price.
P.S. Requires Intel-based Mac.
YAY!! Go the leopards!
they charge for a service pack?
Are there really people who thing a major rewrite of tons of code is a service pack? Seriously?
I don't even own Mac but COME ON!
You actually spent the energy to make that comment?
Sad, misinformed troll...
This is the Apple equivalent of the "death panel" discussion.
If Apple did healthcare... imagine the costs.... although there'd be no viruses....
And how much Vista Pro cost??? Win fanboys must be weeping looking at this upgrade price. LOL
"they charge for a service pack"
Oh, not this nonsense again. Here's your challenge:
1. Define a "Service Pack".
2. Explain why Snow Leopard is a "Service Pack" using the criteria you provided for Answer #1.
"they charge for a service pack?"
Micro$oft is charge much more for their upcoming service pack, Vista 7.
@ WindowsFTW
You are right, I've noticed Mac users are generally way more fit than Windows users. Obesity kills.
Rewriting code does not exempt an installation from being a "service pack." If a service pack is merely defined as a single installable package that does not change the Major version then both Windows 7 and OS 10.6 are service packs.
For the most part, every update contains lots of "rewrites" to the code. The larger the update, the greater the number of rewrites. Service Packs for Windows tend to be large rewrites of core code and add functionality. Mac OS 10.x packages tend to be similar in scope but are not offered for free.
I would say that unless there is a major revision to the way that the kernel and filesystem operate, then we cannot call a new OS anything other than a service pack. This is what the jump from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was and Mac OS 9 to Mac OSX was. Since Windows 7 merely tweeks the kernel and maintains the NT filesystem, then it is just an iterative update. Mac OS 10.6 tunes the kernel and maintains the filesystem, so it too is an interative release.
To gauge the value of either Windows 7 or Mac OS 10.6 by price alone is stupid. You must judge it based on the improvements and fixes that the respective operating system brings to the table. Max OS 10.6 is bringing a tuned OS but no significant UI changes, so its value is relatively small. Windows 7 brings substantial UI improvements and fixes many of the Vista/XP issues. For a Windows user, Windows 7 represents a significant change while for a Mac user 10.6 represents a minimal change. Thus, both seem priced accordingly.
As an aside, Mac OS 10.6 does have one change that is larger than Windows 7 when you consider that 10.6 completely drops support for non-intel based chips. This, to me, represents the largest change and causes me to lose a great deal of respect for Apple. But that's just because backwards compatibility is very important to me. Windows, for better or for worse, has always attempted to maintain backwards compatibility, and XP Mode is no exception.
I hope this presents a clear argument why the service pack argument is kinda moot. Thanks for reading!
Apple does not charge for service packs, and they dont even call them service packs to convince users they are not major updates that should be scheduled. Typically they are 10.x.x updates. Major expansions and rewrites are 10.x versions. By now its pretty obvious they dont count the OS version by the 10 at all.
That's not a service pack dude, it's the new OS!
@Kevin
OK, that's pretty fair. My issue with this whole inane discussion is that we only seem to talk about operating systems yet we pay for new versions of existing applications all the time and no one seems to get their knickers in a twist over that. Do we think that Adobe Photoshop CS4 is not worth the "Service Pack" description, for example?
Ultimately this is a ridiculous pissing match to see who can justify the platform that they currently use. It's like being back at school again and discussing whose dad could beat up someone else's...
Wait, A 64-bit version of Safari 4? So does that mean that Adobe has finally released 64-bit Flash? Can I finally switched my browser?
I don't see this as a "small value upgrade", as another poster stated. I was surprised how many refinements and additions they've made in this release. Far more than I had heard about or expected. Also, as an iMac and Macbook Pro owner, the extra disk space I'll free is a welcome addition.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html
Successful troll is successful.
@Kevin
Gauging the "value" of an update based on how bad the previous iteration sounds a bit silly.
The big improvement in Windows 7 is speed. The big improvement in OS 10.6 is speed. The UI changes in Windows 7 are hardly "valuable". Though to a consumer, the new eye candy may reel them in, it'll do little to actually affect their day-to-day use of their computer.
@OneLove: Apple provides a plugin shim that allows 32 bit plugins to load within 64 bit browsers.
No 64-bit flash. 32-bit flash runs in 64-bit Safari.
I agree. This is a 'service pack'. And here is why.
Its the same OS. OSX (OS 10) - its a "dot" upgrade (10.6).
Unless its a new os (OS XI) - its not a new OS.
Just like a previous post said - most 'service packs' do offer new or additional functionality to the OS itself. But its not a total re-write to the OS.
That being said - I'll probably get the upgrade. I have a few months old 24" Imac and it'd be nice to boost performance of the machine (if the service pack does as promised).
I have no problem with calling it a service pack - because that's what it is. Again, its a "dot" upgrade. Not a whole new program.
"Win fanboys must be weeping looking at this upgrade price. LOL"
Not really. You forgot about the double hardware price you have to pay to be able to get this.
So I won't to move from 32-bit to 64-bit and not expect to pay?
"The UI changes in Windows 7 are hardly "valuable"...it'll do little to actually affect their day-to-day use of their computer."
I'd have to disagree with you. The changes to the task bar actually do affect how you use your OS. It adds lots of convenience and organization. Not valueless.
It's actually an attempt to get rid of "notify icons" running in the tray. They have been used for other than their intended purpose for a long time. Originally, it's a place for applications to give you some kind of notification. Now, it's used for background apps or in place of a minimize.
W7 is pushing devs to use Jump Lists and the new taskbar features rather than the tray. It is the first step in a major direction shift.
Josh - Really? That's what you think? Your arbitrary definition of what an OS upgrade is clearly conflicts with what Apple considers to be an OS upgrade. Do you honestly believe Apple hasn't released a new OS since 2001? Because that would be stupid. Apple doesn't use the 10.x designation as a service pack numbering scheme. That's what the 10.x.x versions are for. Have you not picked up on that yet? It's only been 8 years.
You're basically saying the OS hasn't changed because it still starts with 10. That is literally as stupid as saying Windows hasn't changed because it still starts with Windows. Windows 7 is the same thing as Windows 95. Right? OS X is the NAME of the operating system. They're not going to change it to OS XI or OS XII with every new version for the same reason Microsoft is not going to change Windows to Doors or Placemats or Faux Wood Paneling.
Just like Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista and 7 are different versions of the Windows OS, OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 are different versions of OS X. It's not that hard to understand, you just have to not be stupid about it.
@ Josh,
...and your beloved Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
and wow, it's branded as a whole new OS!!!
so looks like your argument of "its a dot upgrade" and "Unless its a new os (OS XI) - its not a new OS" to be completely flawed.
sorry Josh, please try again.
.
chill out guys, it's an obvious troll, especially given that Engadget went out of their way to point out all of the new features in the blurb.
Interesting, I went on Apple's site and in the store they advertise "upgrade to Snow Leopard from Leopard for $29" but there is no way to buy a "full" version or even an upgrade from pre-Leopard.
Now, Apple has *never* enforced any kind of copyright control/license key/upgrade policy on OS X, but I find it interesting how wink,wink nudge,nudge this whole thing is. It's an "upgrade from Leopard" price but they don't even bother giving you the alternative of paying more to upgrade from Tiger or other older versions. It's like they're not even trying to hide the fact that you can install it on any Intel Mac even without Leopard already.
Technically speaking, 10.6 could be considered a SP as Snow Leopard is running under the same kernel as 10.5 is...
According to Wikipedia "A service pack (in short SP) is a collection of updates, fixes and/or enhancements to a software program delivered in the form of a single installable package."
But because this is Apple product, doesn't make sense to call it a SP, they just call it a "refine, more reliable, etc...." OSX.
@wat up!!!
"Technically speaking, 10.6 could be considered a SP as Snow Leopard is running under the same kernel as 10.5 is..."
So u r also implying that Windows 7 is actually an SP for Vista, because it's actually version 6.1?
Please don't confuse me more, I want to call Windows 7 a brand new OS, as much as i'd love to call Snow Leopard is. They both are new OSes.
Thanks.
.
Can I bring something to everyone's attention?
Once again, Apple is making it seem like their "new" features are so REVOLUTIONARY and thought up by no other than themselves. I had to laugh when I went to http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/enhancements-refinements.html.
"PUT BACK" feature? WHAT?! I've been able to restore my files to their original location since WINDOWS 95!!!! Are they kidding?
"Larger icon sizes" has been available in Windows Vista ("Extra Large Icons").
"Enhanced icon view" has been available since Windows ME.
"Adjust view options" .... can someone say copied from Vista?
"Activate Expose from dock" --> Vista had this as the "Switch between windows" icon in the Quick Launch bar.
Here's another funny one: "View wireless signal strengths for all available wireless networks." Are they serious? Windows XP did this natively. Late to the game once again, Apple.
I could go on, but I think you guys get the point.
...but remember everybody, Microsoft never innovates and always copies Apple.
@Kevin
I don't think it is fair to blame Apple for not supporting legacy hardware to bring down cost and reduce bugs. Windows doesn't even support any non-x86 CPU other than a version for IA64 if I remember correctly.
@Shadow08
1. The Put Back feature was in the original Mac OS X 10.0 they just decided to remove it after Panther.
2. The Larger Icons in Snow Leopard can go to 512 pixels by 512 pixels. Vista and Leopard have the same resolution on the icons. 128x128
3. Uhh...Panther, Tiger, and Leopard had this before but now they are applying it to Spotlight searches.
4. Expose has been in every Mac OS X version. So really Vista copied OS X on that front.
5. I'll give this one to you.
How about the fact that it's only $29 to upgrade!? VS window's upgrade cost of $200
I'd easily pay $29 a year to mac for upgrades (they aren't yearly, they are more like 1.5 to 2 year updates). I like these frequent updates. They are easily worth that cost.
Whereas, if I upgrade windows, I have to wait 3 to 6 years between updates, they cost more money, and it's often not clear whether it's worth the update.
Well Windows 7 is just Vista with a facelift. I call that a service pack that people will be paying 120 dollars for. Snow leopard is actually useful. Faster, more hard drive space and many other features that just make it worth it. Plus it is only 30 dollars
Or another perspective:
On a shelf, in a store, there is a box for $29.
It has goodies inside.
Do you want to pay the $29, and get the goodies? Yes/No.
Who cares what it should be "categorized" as.
Today... is a good day...
That intro video is going to be so good.
Its exactly the same as 10.5.
It looked the same as the Leopard one to me.
Why was Karl downvoted? The intro video is the same video they used in Leopard.
How much will it cost me if I'm running Tiger? Or what about for my PPC-based Macbook?
You do not have a PPC based Macbook...
Such a thing does not exist.
You will need leopard + an intel mac btw
Sorry, that was a typo but my point still stands. Thomas Ricker is so busy being sarcastic that he's ignored the fact that Snow Leopard pricing is much more complicated than he's implying. Certainly more complicated than the average Mac owner can handle.
It is not complicated. I just explained it in 8 words and a + symbol... try doing that with all the windows versions...
Your point still stands? What point? That you're a Dbag? Point proven.
So having to buy a whole new computer just to upgrade the OS is simple to you?
Besides you seem to be confused as you don't need Leopard to upgrade from Tiger. You can buy the Mac Box Set but they you're forced to pay for iLife and it all costs a hell of a lot more than $29.
"So having to buy a whole new computer just to upgrade the OS is simple to you?"
Would you prefer that PPC Macs have a 'Snow Leopard Capable" sticker?
That's a silly argument Richy. I've just finished installing Windows 7 on hardware that's as old as PPC-based Macs and it works flawlessly. If Apple had maintained PPC support then I'm sure Snow Leopard would have worked well on those older computers two.
After all, according to Apple fanboys PowerPC is infinitely better than x86 and each new version of OS X runs better on older hardware. Apparently neither of these claims are now true. How do you guys expect to be taken seriously with all this crap?
The whole thing is really one big lie. This upgrade won't be available for everyone at $29 (that's the equivalent of saying that Windows 7 is available to everyone for $50) and it won't run on older hardware, some of which is still being supported by Apple.
Mac box set includes leopard and snow leopard in one package along with the ilife and iwork suites.
If that is too complicated I dont know what is.
As for upgrading from PPC, nobody said you had to upgrade. You just wont be able to run snow leopard. I am sure that you will probably lose a little sleep, but I am sure you will get over it.
As for me: I am excited. If only for the exchange support.