backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by sinful.. on Oct 18 at 9:32 PM
Up-To-Date program launched for Leopard -- New Macs purchased in Q4 2007 can be upgraded to Leopard for $10

With the announcement of Apple's long-awaited OS X 10.5 Leopard coming on October 16th, and a ship date set for the 26th, new Mac owners were understandably a little miffed that they would be asked to lay out $129 or more for the latest and greatest features.

Veteran Mac owners, on the other hand, weren't quite as worried, as Apple reopened their previous Up-To-Date program to offer discounted copies of Leopard for $9.95 to buyers that purchase a Mac between October 1st and December 27th.

Users with multiple Apples purchased in the specified range will have to purchase a separate copy per machine.

Almost every Mac available for "new" purchase is shown on Apple's "Qualifying Computers" list. In addition to being on the list, and meeting the date requirements above, the computer must have been purchased through either the Apple Store online or an authorized Apple reseller; and the requestor must be a resident of the United States or Canada.

Xserve owners aren't being left out of the freebies either -- if similar qualifications are met, Apple offers an OS X 10.5 Server disc for free.

Qualifying Mac owners can order their Leopard DVDs online, or through a printable form.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
sucks for those who bought earlier
By howtochooseausername on 10/17/2007 1:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that means those who bought a new iMac in August are left out. It would be nice if Apple offered those customers some discount also.




RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Chris Peredun on 10/17/2007 1:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
October being the cutoff point does seem a little early, but as unfortunate as that is, Apple does have to draw the line somewhere.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 1:21:11 PM , Rating: 1
I'm wondering how anyone could possibly expect Apple to roll this program any further back than Oct. 1... I mean, we've KNOWN OS X 10.5 was going to be released in October sometime for many months. Why would you have bought a mac in August if you knew 10.5 was going to be out in October unless you also would figure it would actually cost you something to get the upgrade on the new OS? Guess everyone wants something for nothing.

Enough with the QQ'in... Chris Peredun, you're right, they have to draw the line somewhere. To the OP, fair's fair, and you know it.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By stubeck on 10/17/2007 2:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you can really say we knew it would be released in October. Apple was very quiet about the release date, and if you remember when they delayed it from June they only did that a few weeks before the supposed release date. They even went as far to say that a website was incorrect for posting it was going to be delayed.

The other thing is that most aren't as knowledgeable about this as we are. A few probably didn't even know they were releasing a new OS. I think they could have been a bit nicer and let those who bought the new iMac's get it for cheap, but there isn't anything requiring them to either.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Quiksel on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By FNG on 10/17/2007 5:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Boo! Apple had to run those printer/iPod scams to keep up with the likes of Dell and HP. Apple enticed people knowing full well that they would stiff them on the OS. People got free media players and printers with PCs in December and still got their Vista coupon...


By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 8:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Boo on you! Apple's done this promotion every year in time for school for the last three years!

Vista coupon or not, Apple's had a history of this promo for ages, and the fact that 10.5 wasn't due for 3 more months doesn't have anything to do with the sale of the machines during the school rush. What's with all the conspiracy theories?


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Polynikes on 10/17/2007 2:33:54 PM , Rating: 3
From Wikipedia:
quote:
According to Apple, Leopard contains 315 changes and enhancements[5], covering core operating system components as well as included applications and developer tools.

It sounds to me like it's nothing more than a service pack, and you don't have to pay for those if you're running Windows. Going from OSX 10.4 to 10.5 isn't like going from XP to Vista.

So why are they charging for it? Do you get another license? The average user probably doesn't even understand the idea of having another license. Thy think "10.4 is old," and throw it in a drawer somewhere, never to be used again. Why on EARTH would anyone have 10.4 and 10.5 installed on the same machine? Or on different machines, for that matter. Isn't the idea to have the latest and greatest version of the OS? What's the license agreement like for OSX? Can you install it on multiple machines? If you can, this is just a way for Apple to rip off their customers.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody can really answer the questions you bring up, althrough an Apple employee was unofficially quoted as saying, "the new OS version is really just a different animal." :o)


By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 2:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's a brand-new Finder, for one. I'm hoping the transition goes well.

Pretty much everything now is 64-bit. Last version was 64-bit on a number of the command-line utilities and some other applications, but now pretty much everything is. Good for those Mac Pro's with 16GB RAM.

There's two off the top of my head that are a big step away from the older versions of the OS. I could just post a big link to Apple's website, but I'll refrain.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By hiscross on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
By Polynikes on 10/17/2007 6:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Windows people are plenty informed... About the OS they use. Why the hell should a Windows user be expected to know anything about an OS they don't use?


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 2:54:23 PM , Rating: 5
OS X versions over the years are much more than a service pack. Every one I've ever used (going back to 10.1, my first forray into Mac support) has always been a combination of under-the-hood changes as well as UI updates, not to mention application updates. Pretty much everything about an OS that you can update makes it's way into a new version of the OS. I've always thought Apple does a good job with their releases. Non-Apple users don't understand how far this OS has progressed since the days of 10.1, so they just can't figure out why Apple charges for the new version every time it comes out.

To address licensing, each copy of OS X is a "retail" license, i.e., no upgrades. You can sell your old license (if you have the cd's that is) anytime. Even the license included on the machine is transferable. A far cry from Microsoft licensing to be sure.

There is also no CD-Key on OS X (Server has one, but that's because it's $500/$1000 depending on the number of clients you wish to serve up at a time), so technically it's a walk in the park to install on a bunch of machines with no trace of licensing fraud, etc... Again, have the CD's and you have the license.

I don't typically sell my old versions away, simply because it's generally just a pain to try and sell it. But you can, it's legal.

To finish, the under-the-hood changes are pretty much THE reason I upgrade. They improve so many things in this department that I find myself saying "I cannot afford to do without it"... it's not a fanboy thing here, it's operational. Since I support these boxes on a daily basis, any improvement to Directory Services or SSO or general network connectivity/happiness with other boxes, both on a technical and a usability POV, has always made it a no-brainer.

Hope this helps.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Polynikes on 10/17/2007 6:31:39 PM , Rating: 3
I just don't understand how they can justify charging for it. I mean, paying for Mac OSX to replace OS 9 is understandable, but not different iterations of OSX. That would literally be like MS charging its customers for service packs, updates to IE or Media Player, or other updates. It's ridiculous.

Considering a fresh copy (not an upgrade) of OSX is $130, that's equivalent to buying a copy of Vista Home Basic, but Vista users will never pay for an upgrade to Vista, ever. They'll have to pay for the next major iteration of Windows, whenever that comes about, but not everything in-between.

When you drop a significant chunk of change on an OS like that, you should expect some free upgrades.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 8:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think that is becoming rather evident that until any of you guys actually TRY the mac, it is pointless to debate the subject of why in the world Apple would ever even charge for anything. Why aren't the 10.x releases free, you ask? Well, they aren't these little updates rolled into a new 10.x release... It's always been worth it, IMO.

This OS has always had a better situation for an OS dev team to work on, solely because they control the hardware. Drivers and compatibility have always been practically non-issues, which has allowed this company to progress the OS's improvement much faster than what the Microsoft camp has had to deal with. This is why you hear Mac-heads talk about how advanced the OS is... they are getting quicker iterations of a dev cycle that MS WISHES it could have. This isn't service packs, this is honest DEVELOPMENT being done.

The short answer to all of this ranting is that the culture is different, the product not directly comparable to Windows from a pure OS POV, and the fact that the OS has changed so dramatically over the five years it's been around because of a tight hardware base to support.

Pretty simple to me, but again, until you actually TRY it, I fear all my rambling will do nothing but continue to polarize the Windows guys. Sorry if I offend; I come from a MS background but have in the past few years been completely migrated to OS X. I still work on PC's for a living, but it's more hybrid Windows/Mac OS X than most workplaces.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By sinful on 10/18/2007 12:37:15 AM , Rating: 3
Apple's apparent progress is largely the result of the fact that OS9 "stood still" in "Under the hood" technology forever, and Apple has only recently moved into the "modern era" thanks to OSX.

'Mac heads' think the OS is advanced (which it is) - but the amazement is largely because they might as well have been living in a cave for the past 20 years in terms of "under the hood" features - while the rest of the world passed them by. Things like Pre-emptive multi-tasking, decent virtual memory, memory management that's handled by the OS, etc. were all sorely lacking in OS9.

Now, don't get me wrong, OS9 had a great UI, but *under the hood* it made Windows 3.1 look like something from the future.

For Mac users, (from the "under the hood perspective), moving from OS9 to OSX is like moving from DOS to Windows 98, and each 10.x "dot release" is like going from Windows 98 to 2000 to XP to Vista.

They're willing to pay for these releases because those upgrades are rightfully significant, but it's hard for PC users to grasp because all these upgrades are mostly "catch up" technologies that MS has had "under the hood" for a long time. (This isn't in regards to UI and ease-of-use aspects).

In other words, think of it as if MS came out with Windows 98a, 98b, 2000, XP, and Vista all within a span of 1-2 years. You'd be in line to pay for those upgrades, and you'd be amazed at the rapid progress ...
of course, people that haven't been held back technologically are going to be less understanding.


RE: sucks for those who bought earlier
By howtochooseausername on 10/18/2007 1:52:45 PM , Rating: 2
Going from different versions of OSX is like going from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Except that each version of OSX has gotten faster, unlike each version of Windows.

quote:
In other words, think of it as if MS came out with Windows 98a, 98b, 2000, XP, and Vista all within a span of 1-2 years. You'd be in line to pay for those upgrades, and you'd be amazed at the rapid progress ...

The reason there is such a huge difference between XP's release and Vista's release is because Microsoft had trouble with the OS. MS has always wanted to produce a new OS every 2 years. That's the general expectation in the industry. The delay between XP and Vista speaks more about Microsoft's inability to write a proper OS than their concern for their customers.

Secondly, a compelling reason for OSX 10.5 is its support for 64bit programs. Unlike Windows there is only 1 version of OSX, and it supports 32bit and 64bit apps.

quote:
MS has had "under the hood" for a long time.


OSX came out in 2001. XP also came out in 2001.
quote:
Things like Pre-emptive multi-tasking, decent virtual memory, memory management that's handled by the OS, etc. were all sorely lacking in OS9.

Windows 2000 was for business customers (came out in 2000). I would say Windows 9x is comparable to OS 9.

quote:
MS has had "under the hood" for a long time.

Exactly which technologies are you talking about? Windows Search function? Nope Apple beat that with Spotlight. Web browsers? What exactly?

And lastly, with each version of OSX there has been support for the same applications. The same can't be said for Windows. In fact it is much more remarkable since the Mac has changed platforms with such ease, whereas even on the same hardware Windows hasn't been able to provide the same level of compatibility.


By sinful on 10/18/2007 9:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote:
MS has had "under the hood" for a long time.

Exactly which technologies are you talking about? Windows Search function? Nope Apple beat that with Spotlight. Web browsers? What exactly?


Maybe you should try reading my message before going Apple-fanboy on me. Memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, decent virtual memory, real memory management, etc. didn't come along for Mac OS until OSX.

quote:
The delay between XP and Vista speaks more about Microsoft's inability to write a proper OS than their concern for their customers.

Compared with Apple, who had to buy a completely new OS because they were unable to write a proper OS?

quote:
I would say Windows 9x is comparable to OS 9.

WINDOWS 95 had pre-emptive multitasking. In 1995 . Apple caught on this feature with OSX... in 2001 In other words, OS9 used the same multi-tasking scheme that Windows 3.1 (and earlier) used.

Windows NT 3.5, released in 1993 , had this feature as well.

Look, it's obvious you're an Apple fanboy, and that's great, but please don't even pretend that Apple was even in the same ballpark as any other OS in "under the hood" technology until OSX came along. You just embarass yourself and make Apple look worse.

quote:
And lastly, with each version of OSX there has been support for the same applications. The same can't be said for Windows.


Ok, you can't even be serious.


By Polynikes on 10/18/2007 11:56:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, they aren't these little updates rolled into a new 10.x release...

Service packs are hardly little updates rolled into one. XP's SP3 is making some serious changes.


By Accord99 on 10/17/2007 10:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To address licensing, each copy of OS X is a "retail" license, i.e., no upgrades. You can sell your old license (if you have the cd's that is) anytime. Even the license included on the machine is transferable. A far cry from Microsoft licensing to be sure.

A far cry definitely since OS X only works with a hardware dongle.


By wallijonn on 10/18/2007 12:58:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Going from OSX 10.4 to 10.5 isn't like going from XP to Vista.


Going from 10.4 to 10.5 is EXACTLY like going to Vista if you have to buy a new machine. In the case of Vista you'll need 2G RAM minimum and a DX10 capable board (for the gamers amongst us, even though few game on Macs.) The min OSX 10.5 specs call for a greater than 867 MHz machine. Throw in all the Linux Beryle type video affects and one needs a better video card, too. But if you had bought a Mac mini within the last 18 days (!!!) you can get Leopard for $10. What a bargain. Not. I wanted to get a Mac mini 8 months ago. Why didn't I? Leopard. It seems that I have waited for 10.5 forever.


By otispunkmeyer on 10/18/2007 4:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
i agree, i got my SR Macbook pro orderd on release day and thankfully 3 weeks later an immaculate santa rosa based macbook pro with LED backlit display turned up at my door....its faultless and has the better of the two LED backlit screens that were available at the time.

very lucky indeed.

bbut the point is, i knew, even then, that 10.5 was coming in around october time. its been common knowldege for ages, if you bought one with this knowledge in mind then thats just tough.

ill wait for some reviews before dropping 60 quid on 10.5 (HE discount for the win)


By cscpianoman on 10/17/2007 9:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
Can I be honest... why is everyone now expecting payouts from Apple? iPhone and now Leopard! Come on, folks. This is part of the business game, get over it. At the time you purchased whatever you bought you thought the cost justified the product. Apple or any other company should not have to give out to previous owners, it doesn't make financial sense what Apple is doing! Now that I think about Apple probably set a pretty bad precedence because now with any product launch, it will be expected that Apple will "pay you back." Video card companies don't do this, car companies don't do this, why all of a sudden do we expect Apple to do this?


Compare to Microsoft
By MrDiSante on 10/17/2007 1:33:44 PM , Rating: 5
Now, much as we all love to hate Microsoft, I believe a comparison is much needed. Didn't Microsoft offer free upgrades to Vista to those unfortunates who bought a PC starting in middle of October, despite Vista not being launch more than 3 months later? I think it did. Is Apple only allowing a month's leeway? I think it is. Is it still charging money for the upgrades? I think it is.
What's going to follow is that there are going to be a bunch of Apple fanatics who will defend Apple and Steve via any means possible. I've a feeling that when Ali G said that "the worse you treat 'em, the more they want you", he wasn't talking about women, he was talking about Apple fans.




RE: Compare to Microsoft
By Quiksel on 10/17/2007 1:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'll just say that despite the fact that Microsoft's way of offering those upgrades is BETTER than Apple's, I don't believe for a second that Apple's program is crap. Taking it for what it is, it's a decent enough offer.

Realize that they don't always have to one-up each other in order to do business and still treat their customers right. This is a good move on their part, and they don't have to play MS ball in order for their program to be fair.

Fanboy or not, there's no real reason to make it a huge deal. Sometimes, consumers have too much a sense of entitlement than just plain old common sense.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By Oregonian2 on 10/17/2007 2:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I'll just say that despite the fact that Microsoft's way of offering those upgrades is BETTER than Apple's, I don't believe for a second that Apple's program is crap.


That's true without even saying it. It's only crap should Microsoft do it.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By killerroach on 10/17/2007 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
And to make matters worse, Leopard will set you back more than an OEM copy of Vista Home Premium (and about the same as an OEM copy of Business)... granted, Apple's volume licenses are much, much better, but still...


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By Anonymous Freak on 10/17/2007 7:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but Apple provides tech support for EVERY copy of OS X. If you buy an OEM copy of Windows, then the OEM you bought it from is the obligated company for providing tech support. Good luck getting random online seller to provide ANY installation assistance should you run into problems.

A better comparison are the various Windows upgrade editions. The cheapest I can find (non-Academic or Educational,) upgrade of Vista Home Premium is about $150.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By rcc on 10/17/2007 2:13:30 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I haven't owned a Mac in years, just for the record. However, the main difference between a Mac OS release and a Windows release is that on a Windows release, the bulk of existing users don't want it and need to be bribed to start. In a Mac OS release, the bulk of users look forward to it.

And, again for the record, I use both XP and Vista. I don't need Vista, but I needed to buy a new license and wanted to get the current release. I have no problems with it, it works fine. But I have no need to update my other systems


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 2:40:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
the main difference between a Mac OS release and a Windows release is that on a Windows release, the bulk of existing users don't want it and need to be bribed to start. In a Mac OS release, the bulk of users look forward to it.

Sounds like the Jobs Reality Distortion Field in action. :o)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_fi...

The reality is that lots of Windows users look forward to the next release. As evidence of this, I would point to the millions of Windows users who participate in the Windows Beta program. These people go through a whole lot of trouble to download and install the newest version of Windows and use it.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By rcc on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Compare to Microsoft
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 4:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't see how you came to that conclusion. Mac users and Windows users I know pretty much are the same - they have only a little fear/concern about small OS upgrades, but they tend to be a lot more concerned about major OS upgrades.

And for the record, I would point out that you are the one who started drawing comparisons between OSX and Windows, so don't get all high-and-mighty on me. :o)


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By rcc on 10/17/2007 4:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't do high and mightly well. Mostly.

However, I really said little about the OSs and a more about the users.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By rklaver on 10/17/07, Rating: 0
RE: Compare to Microsoft
By Screwballl on 10/17/2007 3:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
The main difference is that a majority of windows users do not want to upgrade because it works for them with few to no bugs. New versions of windows ALWAYS introduce new bugs.
Mac users always see the problems so look forward to an upgrade. New versions of OSX always fix existing major bugs and still introduce more.
Some problems are easier to live with than others.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By pauldovi on 10/17/2007 5:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes but a new version of Mac comes out more often and is more or less a "Service Pack".

When Microsoft launches a new OS every couple of years it is quite different, making adaption more painful for those of us that are a little slow.


RE: Compare to Microsoft
By psychobriggsy on 10/17/2007 6:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's 30 months since the launch of Tiger, yet you say "when Microsoft launches a new OS every couple of years it is quite different".

Microsoft have said that the gap between XP and Vista was abnormal and due to major messups at their end. They plan to update every 2 to 3 years in the future.

But still Vista is a major upgrade, with all those features like WinFS, oh wait. UAC!!! Yay!

Leopard provides a whole new iteration of the Mac OS X APIs, whole new features, and making it a new release is clearly quite obvious. Is it worth $130 for a single license? To many people it will be, it's rather cheap and it's not gimped (e.g., no new interface for you basic users!). The $199 5-user license is a bargain for Mac households.

Back in the day when Mac OS X updates came yearly, it wasn't so good, although major strides were being taken. Then you could safely skip a generation if you wanted, it wasn't that long a wait.

Certainly the new features in Leopard should be considered to be far more than a service pack, that much is blatantly obvious. A full OS? Well it doesn't cost >$300 either.


A-Minus-Minus
By noirsoft on 10/17/2007 1:15:58 PM , Rating: 6
Instead of Leopard, package contained Bobcat.

Would not buy again.




RE: A-Minus-Minus
By jacarte8 on 10/17/2007 1:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Theres a goddamn cougar in the car!"

- Ricky Bobby


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By Zandros on 10/17/2007 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 2
Aww, I wanted to mod you up too.


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By TomZ on 10/17/2007 1:35:09 PM , Rating: 5
Helpful link to those who don't get the inside joke: http://xkcd.com/325/


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By ksherman on 10/17/2007 2:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you very much sir... Otherwise, I would continue to be confuzzled


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By tdawg on 10/17/2007 3:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By T4RTER S4UCE on 10/17/2007 2:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
My face just exploded with laughter.


RE: A-Minus-Minus
By Jack Ripoff on 10/17/2007 9:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
They can do this one in every 30 times and still have 97% positive feedback.


Still pay $10 AFTER release??
By ninjit on 10/17/2007 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...purchased between October 1st and December 27th


Ummm, if I purchase a new Mac AFTER Oct 26th (when Leopard goes on sale), I expect it to have the latest version of Mac OS with it.

Granted, stores will have a back inventory of old stock on hand with Tiger that needs to be cleared out first, but for any sale after Oct 26th, an upgrade disc should be included for free, not for another $10 byline on the receipt your handed on the way out.




RE: Still pay $10 AFTER release??
By ninjit on 10/17/2007 1:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
oh, btw chris you got a date typo
quote:
With the announcement of Apple's long-awaited OS X 10.5 Leopard coming on October 16th,


10.5 is going on sale 26th, not 16th.

Unless you were referring to the date of the announcement, which was yesterday (16th)


By Chris Peredun on 10/17/2007 1:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you were referring to the date of the announcement, which was yesterday (16th)

Yes, I was referring to the date of the announcement itself. :)

quote:
Granted, stores will have a back inventory of old stock on hand with Tiger that needs to be cleared out first, but for any sale after Oct 26th, an upgrade disc should be included for free, not for another $10 byline on the receipt your handed on the way out.

I'd imagine that the old stock with Tiger on it will be discounted enough to more than make up for that $10 deficit. It might catch a few buyers unaware though if they're not specifically looking for a Leopard-equipped machine.


RE: Still pay $10 AFTER release??
By softwiz on 10/17/2007 1:28:51 PM , Rating: 3
I'd say that for those who knowingly purchase new machines on or after Oct. 26th with Tiger on them rather than (wait to) purchase the same machine with Leopard should have to pay the $10.

This is because they're actually gaining the ability (and license) to run two separate OS versions (regardless of whether they want to or have use for such ability).


RE: Still pay $10 AFTER release??
By mmntech on 10/17/2007 3:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, people should do their homework. Then again, people don't do their homework. I think though that all computers sold by Apple will have Leopard on them on and after October 26th. The problems is third party stores trying to push old systems. Then again, they'll probably do it at a discount. If that's the case, $10 isn't too bad.


Holy Hard Drive Space, Batman!
By daftrok on 10/17/2007 7:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
The upgrade to Leopard requires 9 GB of HDD space!




US and Canada only?
By iwod on 10/17/2007 9:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Thats sounds a little strange, Surely apple should know the world is a lot larger then North America?




We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki